Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2013 appointments/Jake Wartenberg

Jake Wartenberg

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.

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

Nomination statement (250 words max.)

I started editing in ernest in 2008. At the end of 2009, there was a lapse in my editing that lasted for several years, but I have begun editing again in the last few months. The conventional wisdom is that such a long stretch of inactivity would disqualify someone from such an important position as this one. I believe, however, that this break would prove to be to my advantage should I assume a seat on the AUSC. My recent absence would allow be to remain objective and detached from the social ties and conventions that usually lead to "groupthink" and prevent one from remaining impartial.

Standard questions for all candidates

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

A: I think that my experience as an SPI clerk would be helpful. It has provided me with the ability to recognize suspicious editing patterns and a familiarity with the conventions and policies which govern the use of Checkuser.

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

A: I have professional experience with networking which would enable me to understand Checkuser results.

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: No.

Questions for this candidate

1: 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: Administrators are required to observe a high standard of conduct because they are the ones who enforce our policies on user conduct. Functionary is a position that requires greater trust than administrator, because it involves confidential information. Functionaries must adhere strictly to our policies with regard to the handling of that information, but I don't that it is useful to attempt to draw a distinction between the standard of user conduct expected of them and that expected of administrators, because in each case the bar is set quite high.

2: What are your views on how to handle underage editors sharing personal information? --Rs chen 7754 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: We should do everything we can to protect underage editors. Minors who attempt share personal information should be prevented from doing by means of oversight and blocking if necessary.

3: 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: The checkuer who performed the action needs to be uninvolved, and have some reasonable basis for their suspicion before performing the check.

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: I think that the recent resignations of arbitrators have highlighted the need for some manner of increased transparency in the Committee's affairs, but that is something this body has nothing to do with. I do think that the way in which AUSC reports are distributed makes sense. I would expect the Committee to make public the essential aspects of the report in the event that serious wrongdoing had occurred, such as would warrant the removal of flags from a functionary.

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

A: No.

Question from PinkAmpersand

6: I see your point about the potential avantages of your time away from Wikipedia, and I've personally found that more often than not our returning admins are easily able to leap back in to things with only the occasional error (not knowing about a new software feature, for instance), and indeed are sometimes more approachable thanks to their relative neutrality. However, when it comes to functionary/Arbitration-related matters, there's a lot of personal history to be aware of. Do you feel that you would be able to keep up with your fellow AUSC members in a case related to a dispute that's occurred in your absence? For instance, if Jclemens were to perform a CheckUser on Floquenbeam (not that I think he'd ever do such a thing... just because it's a good example), I'd think you'd have to do a lot of reading to acquaint yourself with the full context there, where AUSC members who've been more active recently wouldn't. Do you think the benefits of your increased impartiality would still outweigh the drawbacks of your unfamiliarity with certain issues? — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: If Jclemens and Floquenbeam had a certain history (I'm not sure if the example you gave is in reference to something specific), I do not know what it is off the top of my head. It seems to me, though, that this sort of thing would be covered in the materials reviewed by the AUSC as part of its investigation, were it relevant. I would expect that all of the subcommittee members would need to review those materials. You are correct in that I might find myself reading ArbCom cases and the like in cases where events took place during my absence, but I can't say that I see a reasonable possibility of myself "falling behind." The worse case simply that I find myself putting in a bit more time than my peers once and a while. I do think that someone who has just recently read through a several year old ArbCom case will have a more accurate understanding of it than someone who is going off memory.

Optional question from ɐuɐʞsǝp

7: You cite your experience as an SPI clerk as having given you knowledge of the practices and standards of the checkusers. However, it appears to me that your last action on an SPI case was over three years ago. Speaking from my experience, standards and practices have changed since then, and it is clear that a member of the Audit Subcommittee should be versed in current standards and practices. How do you plan to address the issue that your knowledge from clerking SPI might be outdated when compared to the way things work nowadays?

A: I do think that I will need to bring myself up to speed a bit. I can't imagine a better way to do this than a position that requires me to review the actions of other CheckUsers. I will of course not be running checks myself per the new policy.

8: 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) 17:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think that the AUSC would be more likely to open an investigation than to grant such a request. The reason for the action could in some cases be paraphrased.

Optional question from User:Surturz

9: Under what circumstances would you use the CheckUser and Oversight tools granted to AUSC members? --Surturz (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A:Only as part of AUSC business or in an emergency.

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) 08:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A:If the level of disruption is significant enough to warrant that kind of action in the first place, I think it makes sense to place IP blocks in that manner. We protect user's privacy as best we can, but when the user is acting in bad faith the project has to come first.

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) 08:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A:If there is genuine urgency, then I think it makes sense for the CU to perform the action themselves. Otherwise a request can be communicated through other channels such as the mailing list. The levels of disruption and bad faith on the part of the user being blocked are also quite relevant.

11: I started as an SPI clerk about 6 months into your break. I have felt that since I've started SPI and CU have changed significantly, so could you please explain your answer to question 3 a little more when you said that CUs need "some reasonable basis for their suspicion before performing the check"? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A:The standard of evidence required at SPI has always been higher than what is required of CUs. While a request made on-wiki might require a pretty convincing case to be made, we still allow CUs some discretion. As I have said before, my assuming this role would entail some further familiarization with current standards and practices.

Comments

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

I'm a bit concerned that the candidate might not be up to speed on our latest policies regarding CU/OS, especially as I think the candidate went inactive right around the time RevDel and modern suppression was deployed on enwiki. --Rs chen 7754 09:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unwise for functionaries deskana, DeltaQuad, and Beeblebrox to participate in the AUSC appointments process. They open the CUOS team to allegations of stacking AUSC with friendly auditors. --Surturz (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I have done is ask the same question of all the candidates, and I only did that because I think it is an important issue and both the community and the arbs should know where each of them stands on it. However i am not aware of any formal prohibition on functionaries participating in such processes, it does after all directly affect our work. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of rules, it's a question of wisdom. If a significant number of functionaries start supporting or opposing candidates then it compromises the independence and impartiality of AUSC, especially considering the low participation rate in the nominations process. --Surturz (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal comments will be sent in confidence to the Arbcom emailing arbcom-en-c lists.wikimedia.org. M aurice Carbonaro 09:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't agree that SPI clerk qualifies as sufficient experience for this role, also not impressed with the rather lackluster responses to the questions. We need editors who are well-versed in policy for this role, and he been too inactive lately to catch up on some of the changes in regards to checkuser and oversight the past few years and specifically rev deletion. Secret ^account 03:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While all the questions have been answered, I still feel fairly uneasy about the answers being quite short. It shows that Jake knows the relative theory behind the position, but it doesn't speak to the practical applications of the job. Also, personally, I would think that it would be better to review SPI policies before heading into this position rather than when it comes up, as you can miss something on one page because you checked another. Lastly, although it's nice to see someone return to Wikipedia, Jake does not have a stable reliable edit count beyond this past March, and we all know that life can take over at times. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 21:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I have confidence that Jake's absence and return wouldn't be a major hindrance to his participation in the hearing of complaints to the subcommittee (per his response to my question), I think it's important to note that the trole of auditors is also to actively monitor the CU/OS logs, and make sure that all such actions appear to be in the interests of the community. To that end, I think AUSC'ers need a certain degree of familiarity with the various current events on the project, one I doubt that Jake's gained in the month or so since his return. (God knows I still haven't figured it all out, and I've been here for 5 months now.) So, while I'm sure he'd be up to the job in a year or two, I think that community members of the subcommittee really need to have their fingers on the pulse of goings-on here (and to have had it on the pulse for an extended period of time). — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]