Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2013 appointments/Guerillero

Guerillero

The committee has appointed three community auditors for 2013–2014, and this process has now closed. Thank you very much to everybody who participated.

AUSC candidate pages: Guerillero • MBisanz • Penwhale • Richwales • TParis • Jake Wartenberg

Comment on the candidate below or by email to the Committee • Community consultation period is 9 to 17 April 2013.

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

Greetings. I am Guerillero, also known as Tom in the real world. I am an newish admin and arbcom clerk. I ran for arbcom in December and came in three places behind the last arb to get a seat. I feel that I would be a good choice for the AUSC because I know the general idea behind the area yet I am not a functionary. If I am selected to the subcommittee, I will sit on it for my whole term. I am open to questions and concerns from the community. If there is anything that you would like to know my opinion on please ask here, on my talk page, via email, or find me in irc under the nickname Guerillero.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: As an admin I have RevDeleted information to protect the privacy of users and others. With my arbcom clerk hat on, I, rarely, have answered questions about who to send private information for arbcom cases to and other related questions.

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

A: In my real life, I am an anthropology and philosophy double major. For the anthropology side of my degree, I participate heavily in field work. I am used to handling ethnographic data that, if connected to the real world identities of informants, could result in my informants being removed from my college or sued. This information is properly stored and anonymised.

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?

A: I hold no advanced permissions on other active projects. I do, however, have OTRS access. I can see and reply to info-en (f), Permissions, and Sister projects (f).

Questions for this candidate

As a member of AUSC, you will be a member of the functionary team. Do you believe functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct on the English Wikipedia and all WMF sites than an ordinary admin or editor? Explain. (Note that the scope of AUSC is only to investigate violations of the CU/OS policies). --Rs chen 7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes. Due to the high level of trust needed to see private information, functionaries should be held to the highest standards of conduct in the community.
What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? --Rs chen 7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: I started out on the internet at a fairly young age and started out as a Wikipedia, in 2009, as a minor. Because of this, I have a slightly different perspective on how to deal with younger editors. Minors broadly fit into two classes. Minors who are under 13, need to be protected more than any other group. Nearly all personal information from this group needs to be removed and OSed. If people from this category continue to post personal information they should be blocked. Minors that are 13 and older should only have "high tear" information like SSNs, Phone numbers, and addresses should be removed.
What are some of the criteria you would use to determine if a CU check was valid? --Rs chen 7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A:
- Who did the check?
  - Was the CU impartial?
  - Did they have a horse in the race?
  - Was the alleged sock puppeteer a [friend/enemy] of the CU?
- Why was the check done?
  - How did the behavioral evidence stack up?
  - How sure was the CU that the accounts were related?
- How was the check requested?
  - Was it at WP:SPI?
  - Was it through private channels?

Optional question(s) from Sven Manguard

4: To it's critics, at least, ArbCom has a reputation for keeping things secret when there is little or no valid reason to do so, and for making decisions (or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, not pursuing matters) with an eye towards the good of ArbCom's image first and the community's best interests second. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, it colors the way that members of the community would deal with you as an AUSC member. With this in mind, how do you balance the secrecy that AUSC work entails with the community's best interests, which may not always be best served by that secrecy? Is there ever a time for willfully ignoring the requirements that AUSC-related discussions be kept secret?

A: It would not be my job to make arbcom look good; trying to do that while acting as an auditor is unintelligible. In the same vein, using the AUSC as a bully pulpit for an individual's favorite set of reforms is incomparable with being an auditor. I can not see a time when it would be appropriate for private or confidential information to be posted in a public place.

5: Do you currently have any aspirations for running for Arb in the next election?

A: If appointed, no. If not, I will most likely not run. Writing articles has captured my attention lately and, I have to admit, if I am not trusted by the community to be on the AUSC the community will not trust me to be an arb. If the pool of people is small or I feel that I do not trust n+2 candidates, when n is the number of open seats, the chances of me running are higher.

6: Lately, certain segments of the community have repeatedly asked for more information regarding material that has been suppressed. If you were to receive a request from a community member asking for more information regarding a suppressed edit, i.e. who suppressed it, what the logged reason was, etc, what would be your response? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: It depends on what information the individual desires and the reason for wanting it. Specific information surch as the OSer who suppressed an edit should not be released but the broad category of information — personal information, defamation, or copyvios — can be released if a decent reason for wanting the information is provided.

Optional question(s) from Smacorder 7: Your talk page indicates that you are currently busy with college and that responses are delayed. How will that impact your ability to be an effective member of AUSC? Smacorder (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: It might take an extra few hours to a day for me to reply to a message than what many mediapedians are used to; a non-power user's idea of reasonable reply time for communication. I will be away for finals week in May and December due to my frenzied workload and maybe the day before a paper is due.

Question from B

8: In your RFA, those who opposed largely cited what they characterized as civility or attitude concerns. Do you believe that these concerns were warranted and if so, how have you addressed them? The nature of the position you seek involves responding to requests from people who believe (whether correctly or incorrectly) that they have been wronged and it is important to not make what might be a tense situation even more tense. Can you comment on how you would respond to (or have responded) to such requests? --B (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: Civility is a tricky area and because of this, I have held off on answering this question. As NE Ent likes to remind us, no two people have the same conception of what civility actually is. A person's definition varies depending on the social-cultural context that they have experienced throughout their life. Since Wikipedia has many leaders, no singular opinion of civility is enforced through either formal or informal social control. As for the concerns at my RfA, I half agree with them. I agree that the diff on Fastly's page was uncivil and did nothing to improve the situation. I strongly disagree that a non-functioning DR venue is above criticism. Was the statement of the criticism the best? No. But the concerns that people had over my statement, seem to show more of an issue with the fact that I dared to call WQA useless. With all of these concerns considered, recall criteria has special civility rules. As an admin and an arbcom clerk I have dealt with tense situations and a majority of them have ended in a place where all parties were happy with the final outcome.

Questions by -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)

9a: Above, you mention that the venue (SPI or private) is a factor in determining the validity of a check. Could you please explain how it affects the validity, and if it would be the difference between an abuse of tools and proper use? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: If the request happened in private, was there a reason that the request could not have happened in public? If the check was privately requested because it alleges that a high profile user was socking, it should be handled via SPI or ArbCom. If the check was a run-of-the-mill LTA case that would not raise an eyebrow, a private request is not optimal but fine.

9b: You also cite above that "Was the alleged sock puppeteer a [friend/enemy] of the CU?" contributes to the validity of a check. Several CUs often have a long history with fending off sockmasters, and therefore, because of the sockmaster's persistence, it could be considered that the sockmaster is an enemy of the CU by that assessment alone. How would this affect proper use of the tools? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: I do not consider LTA cases or dealing with a sockmaster over the course of an extended period of time not to fall under the heading of being an enemy of the CU.

10a: One of the aspects in your role as an auditor would be to evaluate claims of CUs releasing IPs by blocking an IP or IP range after blocking accounts. Where do you draw the line between protection of the Wiki where the CU needs to block the IP to prevent the abuse, and a user's privacy? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: It depends on how prolific the sockmaster is, how big the block is, and what information does the block give out. If a sockmaster is creating a large number of socks from the same area of IP space it makes sense to block the smallest block possible. If the IP block happens at the /25 level or higher and the geolocation data only returns a big ISP, I don't see a reason for the block. Per below, if a CU is blocking accounts and IPs at the same time, it is better to ask another person to perform the IP block if possible.

10b: Also, CUs at times will also ask another CU to block the IP or range for them. This allows for a users information not to be disclosed. If CU's can't find another CU easily to block it (especially at early morning hours) how would that affect a case coming through AUSC for that disclosure while blocking the IP? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: If there are no SPI clerks on at that time, the socks don't qualify for a global block, and there seems to be a pressing need for the IPs to be blocked, I don't see a reason that a CU blocking an IP range to be an issue.

Question from Salvio giuliano

11:What is your opinion regarding the compatibility of the role of community auditor with that of arbitration clerk? $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: While I think that is is possible for a person to be both an auditor and a clerk, I will follow the the tradition of the clerk team and resign my clerkship if I am appointed to the AUSC.

Comments

Comments may also be submitted in confidence to the Arbitration Committee privately by emailing arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org

Oppose Auditors should be distinct from "inner working" roles such as ArbCom clerk. NE Ent 23:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall Guerillero has my trust as I've seen here and on Wikidata. I would prefer more experience, but this candidate has above average for this pool of candidates. I do have some concerns regarding the "private checks" as a criterion (basically for the same reasons as I wrote for Richwales below), but not enough to overrule my overall trust. --Rs chen 7754 11:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm against lifting up election losers to other positions of trust, especially in the same department. Anyway, Guerrillero should have enough workload majoring in real life and arbcomclerking at wiki. Kraxler (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? If you don't get elected to arbcom is that a permanent ban on any future position of trust in your opinion? --B (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's not a ban, and it's not permanent. But IMO it wouldn't make sense that half the candidates get elected, and the other half who were voted down, are then appointed to supervise those who were elected. Kraxler (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I will leave my comments at that because I have very little good to say here. Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well this isn't a vote, so unless you provide a reason, I'm not going to take your comment into consideration. NW (Talk) 05:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. I find this individual to be very block happy. He tends to favor extremes such as indefinate blocks when a limited duration is sufficient. They are impossible to reason with and refuses to listen. Additionally, the user attempted to get on Arbcom and was voted down. So I cannot see the point in appointing them to an Arbcom committee when the community already made it clear that the individual does not have the desired qualifications or demeanor to be on Arbcom. I also do not trust his judgement as a member of the Audit subcomittee and feel that they would go with whatever the popular vote is and not on what they think is right or wrong. With all that said, I do not think for a second my critique will be taken seriously anyway, but I wanted it known. Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Has a clue, which is important in this regard. From what I've seen, trustworthy and competent.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Guerillero has had and continues to have my trust. As Rschen said, some experience in the area would be nice, but that's 'perfect world' stuff. He obviously has a clue for the job, and with the explanations I am satisfied Guerillero would make a good auditor. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support User is experienced has been an arbclerk and is an ORTS volunteer and has experience of dealing with outsider queries with full discretion with issues which can be sensitive and involves privacy .As this involves dealing with Private information will prefer someone who has the experience of doing so and this user is trustworthy and competent .The user has been editing regularly without a break since August 2010 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in a relatively weak field of candidates, Guerillero in my personal opinion is the most qualified for this job. One of the most competent editors I encountered in this project within the last few years, he has more than enough experience with several characteristics for what this job requires. Secret ^account 03:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support largely per Secret and Rschen. Guerillero isn't the most experienced of the bunch, but I think he has one of the highest likelihoods of doing the job well, given what I've seen of his activity and use of sense in sense-requiring situations. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]