Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/October 2009 election/Jredmond

Jredmond

AUSC candidate pages: Dominic • Frank • Jredmond • KillerChihuahua • MBisanz • Tznkai

To vote, click here • Poll open 00:01 (UTC) 30 October to 23:59 8 November (UTC)

Jredmond (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

• Hello, everyone.

  For those of you who don't know me, my name is Jim Redmond, and my username is Jredmond. I've been an admin on the English Wikipedia since July 2005, a member of the volunteer response team since February 2006, an administrator on the OTRS interface since February 2007, and an admin and bureaucrat on the private OTRS wiki since it was created in November 2007. My identity has already been confirmed with the WMF office.

  During the day, I work as a system and network administrator in an academic research environment. Previously, I did the same sort of work for a large local non-profit organization.

  As a member of the Audit Subcommittee, I hope to help resolve complaints quickly, effectively, discreetly, and with an appropriate level of decorum. Our primary goal here on Wikipedia is to create a good, neutral, and well-sourced encyclopedia. I'd like to help good editors get back to that work as soon as possible.

  I look forward to any questions, comments, or concerns you may have for me. Thank you for your time.

Standard questions for all candidates

Please describe any relevant on-Wiki experience you have for this role.

• I have been an administrator here for over four years. In that time, I've done everything from RC patrol to BLP cleanup, and while I can't go into great detail I have been involved in a number of oversight-related cases through my work on the volunteer response team.

Please outline, without breaching your personal privacy, what off-Wiki experience or technical expertise you have for this role.

• For the past ten years, I have worked in system and network administration. A signifiant portion of my current job deals with management of my department's public and private address spaces and with investigation of suspicious accesses.

Do you hold advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) on this or other WMF projects? If so, please list them. Also, do you have OTRS permissions? If so, to which queues?

• I am an administrator on the OTRS system, and consequently hold administrtor and bureaucrat rights on the private OTRS wiki. I have run (unsuccessfully) for steward, but have not pursued advanced rights on any other WMF wikis.

Questions for this candidate

Please put any questions you might have in this section.

Questions from Xeno

• Do you feel that members of the audit subcommittee should also be permitted to use the CU or OS bit for for "active duty" as would a regularly elected/appointed checkuserer or oversighter would in their regular course of duties? Why or why not?

  A: The checkuser tool can aggravate privacy concerns, and extremely urgent cases are rare, so in the interest of impartial review AUSC members should usually wait for someone else to use their bit.

  The oversight bit is another matter, as its primary function is to reduce privacy or copyright or libel concerns. Additionally, oversight cases are often more time-sensitive than checkuser, so it's often more important to suppress a revision than it is to wait for a 'regular' oversighter. Impartial review is still important, of course, but in urgent and blazingly obvious cases AUSC members should be able to use their bit for 'active duty'.

• Do you agree to only use the checkuser/oversight bit as directly related to your duties as an audit subcommittee member or emergency situations where no other CU/OS is available (similar to Tznkai's 'personal policy' described here in the section prefixed with the statement "While serving on the Audit Subcommittee, I will not use the CheckUser and Oversight tools with certain exceptions")?

  A: I do agree. However, I expect there to be far more emergency oversightings than emergency checkuserings.

Question from Mailer Diablo

• Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for the role. Just one question. How would you deal with editors who attempt to find or/and exploit loopholes in the Checkuser/Suppression policies in a manner that go against the spirit of privacy and community well-being, and then use it to cry wolf?

  I'm a big fan of WP:IAR. The ultimate goal of the Wikipedia project is to write a free, well-sourced encyclopedia. To that end, policies are often very useful, but when the text of the policies gets in the way of the project then the project should always win.

  In a similar manner, the ultimate goal of the AUSC is to ensure that user privacy is maintained. The written checkuser and oversight policies are extremely useful, of course, but it's the underlying concept that's important, not the text.

  I can't say exactly how I'll deal with editors who try to game the system - that will really depend on the specific context - but I can say that my response won't be very favorable. Does that answer your question?

  Yep. Just wanted to hear a stance from each candidate. :) - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork

• Would you give one example each of 1) appropriate use of CheckUser; 2) inappropriate use of CheckUser; 3) borderline use of CheckUser - and how you would view such borderline use; 4) appropriate use of Oversight; 5) inappropriate use of Oversight; 6) borderline use of Oversight - and how you would view such borderline use. SilkTork *^YES! 12:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

1. An appropriate use of CheckUser: Confirming that two or more vandals or spammers share the same IP address space.
2. An inappropriate use of CheckUser: Using CheckUser information to harass a user who has been involved in an edit war.
3. A borderline use of CheckUser: Releasing CheckUser information to someone claiming to be a law-enforcement official without first trying to verify that claim. Remember, on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog, so it's important for users with the CU bit to confirm credentials before handing out private details. The exact details of my response would rely on the exact context of the case, of course, but in general I'd be inclined to remove the bit for a period of time.
4. An appropriate use of Oversight: Removing unsourced allegations of a heinous crime, like rape or murder, from a biography.
5. An inappropriate use of Oversight: Removing well-sourced material that does not violate copyright or disclose private personal information.
6. A borderline use of Oversight: Removing heinous-crime allegations from a BLP when those allegations are only tangentially mentioned in a reliable source or only mentioned in an unreliable source. In potential-libel cases, I'd rather the oversighter err on the side of caution until a better source can be found.

Does this list answer your question? - Jredmond (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Your borderline responses are very good - you give examples, and give your view on how you would respond. That is exactly what I wanted. SilkTork *^YES! 11:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Emufarmers

• Will you promise to resign your CU/OS rights once you are no longer on the AUSC? You would still be free to seek CU/OS permissions through the normal process. (There is a thread about this, although the proposal there goes beyond what I'm asking.)

  I'll relinquish the bits at the end of my time on the AUSC, unless I get them on my own in the meantime. - Jredmond (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  So you might run for CU/OS while you're still on the AUSC? That doesn't strike you as problematic? Would you resign from the AUSC if you were granted CU/OS through that process? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 08:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  It depends on the timing, really. I'd only enter my name if the "new" CU/OS bits were allocated within a month of the end of my AUSC term. In that situation, I would refrain from regular use of the tools until after the new AUSC was in place. - Jredmond (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Cenarium

• Do you think the following are part or should be part of the Audit Subcommittee's written or unwritten responsibilities and would you do those ?

1. oversee the use of the oversight and checkuser tools by monitoring the checkuser and oversight logs
2. advise (through email) checkusers and oversighters on best practices, point out possible improvements in their use of the tools
3. verify that CU, OS and privacy related matters are properly handled in the functionaries-en mailing list

1. Oversee tool use by monitoring logs? It never hurts to browse logs (says the sysadmin), and intense log-monitoring should be the first step in any investigation, but routine deep scouring is overkill.
2. Advise on best practices? I would upon request, and when the improvements would help that person avoid any potential misuse. Since the AUSC would be policing use of the tools, though, friendly-but-unsolicited advice could easy be misinterpreted as dogma even when not meant that way.
3. Verify that matters are handled properly on functionaries-en? Yes, this is well within the scope of the AUSC.

• Suppose a checkuser or oversighter performs an edit which needs to be oversighted, for having added nonpublic information, what do you think should be done w.r.t. their CU/OS access ? Do you think this deserves a AUSC investigation and would you support as auditor to open one ? If not in general, then in which situations ? Please consider in particular a situation where the functionary was in dispute with the user concerned by the nonpublic information.

• Ultimately, this will depend on intent (which, I know, is extremely difficult to divine). An investigation and a temporary suspension of bits would be appropriate in every case, but the permanent removal of bits should only be necessary in the event of malicious or spiteful disclosure. In your particular example, I would tend towards removal of bits, though I'd also need to know more details about the case.

• Suppose a checkuser or oversighter is found to posses an undisclosed alternative account (not previously known of ArbCom), used recently, what do you think should be done w.r.t. their CU/OS access ? Do you think this deserves a AUSC investigation and would you support as auditor to open one ? If not in general, then in which situations ? Please distinguish in particular between situations where breach of WP:SOCK clearly occurred, clearly did not occur, or is uncertain.

• If the alternative account is clearly maintaining or improving the wiki, encyclopedia, or editing community - the legitimate uses listed on WP:SOCK qualify here - then there is no need (IMHO) for an investigation or formal sanction. Beyond that, it would be appropriate to suspend bits pending investigation, and to remove them permanently if the alt-account had been used to damage the wiki, encyclopedia, or community.