Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

}}

Question

How long does it generally take to receive a reply after sending the Audit Subcommittee an email enquiry. I sent one over two days ago and have thus far received only an automated response saying my email is awaiting moderation. Is it really too much to expect a response from a human being? RMHED (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Tznkai. RMHED (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Apologies that it took a while.--Tznkai (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the status of the case involving me, Lar and Versageek before AUSC?

I received an email from Tznkai on Dec. 16 saying a report would be posted, giving me half a day to respond. I responded. As far as I know, nothing has happened since. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your response was taken into account. The case has mostly been sitting, waiting for comment from all auditors, but the holidays seem to have slowed us down considerably. I am hoping it will pick up soon. Your case in particular is our first priority once we have full activity again. Dominic·t 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How is my request progressing ?

It's been over 3 weeks now since the original enquiry and still nothing has been forthcoming. Garibaldi Baconfat 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is being actively discussed as of two second ago.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Marvellous. Garibaldi Baconfat 22:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it being actively actioned, or is that too much to hope for? Garibaldi Baconfat 23:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You should hear something from us soon actually.--Tznkai (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Noroton/JohnWBarber

AUSC's report is grossly flawed in these ways (unless otherwise noted, quotes are from the report and are in italics):

1. The report is vague, so I (and any other reader) have to guess why certain statements are in it. Readers of these reports should not have to guess at your meaning. Although this is the least important point, it's more than a minor point. It should not be that hard for you to make clear why you are making certain statements in these reports. More on this below.
2. The report took more than two months to complete. This is reprehensible.
3. From the "History" section: Over half of it is devoted to describing how much I participated in the AfD and DRV. Volume is irrelevant to a question about checkusering. If AUSC members think it is relevant to why Versageek would checkuser me, they should explain how. Without an explanation, the only other reason I can think of is that the AUSC is making a lame attempt to ridicule me.
4. The report quotes, without comment, a lie amounting to a personal attack: Lar (who was also involved in the debate) shared with Versageek a suspicion that the JohnWBarber was a "an alternate account purely to participate in contentious discussions, and do so aggressively and disruptively." The problem with this statement is that it repeats the lie in an official report without (a) mentioning that it is factually wrong; (b) mentioning that Lar was not a reliable source of information, since his statements in the DRV show him to have been upset, which other editors commented on at the time. (c) By repeating the lie in an official report, the AUSC implicitly endorses it. I pointed out to the committee in an email that a quick check of JohnWBarber's contributions history would show that the account did NOT participate primarily in contentious discussions, much less could it have been created "purely" to do so. Most edits were not to discussions. Most edits to discussions, even AfD discussions, were not "contentious" in that they simply pointed out facts, and the only really hot discussions the account participated in had to do with the Shankbone AfD and DRV. It would have taken minutes for Versageek to go over the 500-edit contributions pages for the JohnWBarber account (I think up to that point they would all have fit on a single contributions-history page) and confirmed that the account did not bear a resemblance to Lar's lying statement. Lar could have done that, too. And the AUSC could certainly have done it. Lar owes me an apology for writing that statement. The AUSC owes me an apology for publishing it without contradicting it. The AUSC, in its reports, should try not to violate Wikipedia behavioral policies, specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You aren't entitled to accuse me of something without backing it up with facts. You have provided no facts whatever to back up that lie. I pointed out all of this to the AUSC in an email one month ago (December 16). Lar, at least, has the excuse that he was hot under the collar. I can't think of an excuse that the AUSC could use. Again: reprehensible behavior on the part of the committee.
5. His comments were frequently rude, tendentious, confrontational, and passive aggressive. Let me help you: "tendentious, confrontational" comments, so long as they aren't rude, are part of a vigorous debate. "Tendentious" comments, in the sense of having a point of view, are, fundamental elements in a debate, whch is what we call AfD and DRV discussions. If legitimate freedom of discussion is important, then it is important to be able to be "confrontational" when an outrage is committed (and it was very, very widely accepted in the DRV that Jay Wartenberg had committed an outrageous act in quietly changing WP:DEL policy, then justifying an AfD closure according to the language he had just changed -- there is a consensus on that outrageous act which is evident on the DRV and WP:DEL talk page). As for "passive aggressive" -- your point is incomprehensible. I can guess what comment of mine you're referring to, but it doesn't matter: passive-aggressive behavior, even if I engaged in it, can't be a reason either to checkuser or block. As for "rude", this seems to be a weaselly way to accuse me of being "disruptive" without using the word. You know and I know that my behavior in the AfD, the DRV or even on JayWartenberg's talk page was not "disruptive" by any stretch of interpretation. I stated, to him on his talk page, that his actions were outrageous. I said the same in the DRV. To say so is not even to violate WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. As the AUSC well knows. The tone of my comments weren't even as aggressive as what anyone can find every day at WP:ANI or an arbitration talk page. No one has alleged that I engaged in any kind of disruptive behavior other than possibly uncivil comments (which weren't uncivil). My actions did not "stir up controversy", a phrase in WP:SOCK, because I only reacted to the controversy that Jay Wartenberg stirred up all by himself -- that DRV would have been filed and taken the same course no matter what I did (my comments were the same as loads of other comments and their tone was milder than plenty of other comments on either side). And if you've read it, you know it. So what's the reason for this statement other than to bash me? What evidence can you possibly have to back up the statement of yours I just quoted? If you're going to accuse me of something, give the evidence. You owe me that.
6. It was reasonable to suspect the JohnWBarber account as an account intended to avoid scrutiny. This statement is deceptive -- deliberately so, since I pointed out the problem with it in my Dec. 16 email: The scrutiny that editors are supposed to avoid is legitimate scrutiny (see 5th bullet in this link to the version of WP:SOCK in place when Versageek made the block [1])I withdraw my objection to this, as I state below, it isn't the checkusering that I object to. It's the report. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
7. The JohnWBarber, Noroton, Reconsideration, and CountryDoctor accounts all edited in overlapping periods in the month of October. AUSC states that it is only considering whether or not Versageek's decision to checkuser was justified. This information about the alternate accounts could only have been known to Versageek once she'd already checkusered my account. What the hell is the point of AUSC including this point in its report, then? To justify the block that you state your report is not going to consider? Assuming that's the implicit point (which doesn't reflect well on the AUSC members), let me refute it, since it's my reputation you're so negligently playing around with: Since the accounts, other than Noroton (the original account) were created in November '08 (CountryDoctor in June '08), when alternative accounts were discouraged by WP:SOCK policy but only disallowed if they were abused in specific ways, the next logical, reasonable step for Versageek, before blocking, would have been to consider whether or not (a) it could reasonably be assumed that I was harming the encyclopedia or someone in it in some way; or (b) whether it was reasonable to think I was simply unaware of the policy change disallowing those kind of alternate accounts. Since I'd been using the accounts in roughly the same way for the past year and doing nothing disruptive with them, there was no reason to block.
8. There was no clear indication or communication that JohnWBarber/Noroton/Reconsideration/CountryDoctor was attempting to make a clean start. Again, the AUSC goes beyond the stated purpose of the report, as stated in the opening paragraph, and attempts here to justify the block. The AUSC and Versageek have stated that the concern was my edits to the Shankbone AfD and DRV. I put up a resignation notice on the Noroton talk page and stopped editing from that account before the AfD started. As of Oct. 28, when I was checkusered and blocked, there was nothing having to do with clean starts in WP:SOCK that was violated (other than having multiple accounts, which is, in this case, a trivial violation, since my having multiple accounts never caused any harm). What is the purpose of including this point, if not to bash me?
9. The Noroton account has had poor interactions with User:David Shankbone, the subject of the David Shankbone article. This statement is completely malicious on your part. First off -- yet again -- what does this have to do with Versageek's decision to checkuser, the ostensible scope of this report? Nothing, since she could not have known about it before checkusering me. As I said in my email of one month ago, (a) none of my statements in the AfD or DRV were antagonistic to Shankbone; (b) I held one position, favoring deletion, then changed my mind early on when a new fact came to light (about adequate sourcing) that undermined my argument, all the while adhering to the same principles that an article should meet notibility and other policy criteria if it is to be kept; (3) I barely commented on Shankbone the person, and did so very mildly and certainly not in an antagonistic way; (4) given all that, my prior history with Shankbone the person was completely irrelevant in considering my comments about Shankbone, the article, and therefore would not have factored into anyone's legitimate consideration of my comments. By including this statement in the AUSC's official report, you automatically lend meaning and authority to it -- meaning (substance) that it doesn't have, and authority that is irresponsible. You imply that my reason for getting involved in the AfD was to harm Shankbone. But you have no justification for implying that. None at all. I had previously apologized to Shankbone for some intemperate statements I'd made about him months before -- although he hadn't asked for an apology -- and although I told him I disapproved of some of his conduct, we didn't have any kind of an ongoing dispute and didn't interact with each other. So what's your point, AUSC? This can't be used to justify a checkusering because it couldn't have been known, and it can't even justify a block since I never went after Shankbone with any alternative account. The only point here seems to be do bash me. Yet again.
10. There was a legitimate reason to checkuser JohnWBarber: You'll find it in the second bullet of the "Illegitimate uses" section of WP:SOCK as that page existed at the time Versageek checkusered me: Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. [2] (emphasis added) Although that prohibition didn't exist when I created the alternative account, and although I never used the account to harm anyone or harm the encyclopedia, Versageek could not have known that before checkusering me (and after checkusering me, the proper course of conduct would have been to note that this provision wasn't always in WP:SOCK and that since I'd been using the JohnWBarber account for about a year, I could not be expected to know of the change -- and therefore she should have gone to me and questioned me about use of the account, reminding me of policy, since after the checkusering she had no legitimate reason to block and publicly humiliate me, but I see that last point is beyond the scope of AUSC's report; just thought I'd make that point because AUSC's report itself has so much in it that is beyond the scope of whether or not Versageek should have checkusered me). But that legitimate reason to checkuser doesn't excuse WP:AUSC's repulsive behavior here, for which I'm owed an apology and a complete rewrite.
11. There is no indication, or reason to suspect ulterior motives by Versageek. It isn't the checkusering that ever concerned me so much as the block and the actions surrounding the block, as well as Lar's actions in reporting me. It's when you look at the block and the way I was blocked that the question of ulterior motives comes up -- and that question is unavoidable, given the facts. Despite going over my actions (with your assumptions of bad faith, with repetition and with points irrelevant to the checkusering), you fail to mention anything about Lar's communications with Versageek regarding this matter. I had specifically asked, in my November email to NewYorkbrad (which he tells me was passed on to the AUSC members), about those communications and about these other points:
    1. "Please review the entire communications between Lar and Versageek that dealt with checkusering my accounts, including any communications with other parties discussing the matter with Versageek before the block, if there were any, either in a discussion including Lar or not including Lar."
    2. "Did Lar ask that anyone else involved in that Shankbone AfD and DRV be checkusered?"
    3. "Will the committee make public the text of the request and Lar's [I meant to say "Versageek's"] response so that everyone can see the tone of the language?" (I asked this because if Lar was obviously upset in his communication to Versageek, she had even more responsibility to review the request carefully before acting on it.)
    4. "Versageek told me on her talk page (20:31, 1 November), 'I emailed both the arbcom & functionaries email lists shortly after I blocked the accounts.' Please review that email and make it public." Did you review it?

Don't think for one minute here that participating in an official position in Wikipedia administration exempts you from normal behavioral policies. I realize that incompetence can sometimes be mistaken for malice, but it takes a particularly gross incompetence to make the same mistakes in this report after I'd pointed out the problems in an email sent a month ago about the draft of the report, which was almost exactly the same as the final version. I told you what the problems were and you posted the same egregious statements anyway. You don't deserve an assumption of good faith from me, since I've reviewed your statement twice now and know that it doesn't agree with the facts, which I've also reviewed. Again, you owe me an apology and a rewrite. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding only to point 2, reading carefully and considering your vociferous and lengthy complaints lengthened the timeline of this complaint considerably.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My lengthy email of November 19 would explain the first month (and I wouldn't have complained). Then came my Dec. 16 email (less lengthy, very vociferous) in response to your presenting me with the draft. Then there was another month's delay, which produced one change: the first paragraph was added to the report. Appalling. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The second gap was my fault. I took the 21st to the 5th off for the holiday to see friends and family.--Tznkai (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And in the 10 days from Jan 5-15, or from Dec. 16-22, if you'd cut out the material in the report that was irrelevant to the question of whether or not the checkusering was justified, I'd have little to object to. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of this is pretty insubstantial. Lar's quote provides context: the check that was run was instigated by that request, and it is not a lie or a personal attack to repeat the phrasing of the request. You left out of your quote that those words came from Lar's suspicion; claiming that the report endorses it is pure fantasy. It was your participation in that AfD that prompted the CheckUser request and subsequent check, so it is no accident, or act of ridicule, that there is significant mention of it in the report. Incidentally, you do, after a couple thousand word, note that you are more concerned by the block and the CheckUser request than the use of CheckUser. This committee is not the place to be complaining about those (as you have done repeatedly), and you should use the normal dispute resolution channels.

In much of this complaint (i.e., points 7-9) you seem to be confusing our phrase "the use of CheckUser by Versageek" for the decision to use CheckUser. When someone uses CheckUser, it typically leads to a list of accounts that share an IP or IP range and might or might not be related. It takes a determination by the CheckUser that there is sufficient reason to believe that a set of accounts could be related before they can be released publicly, and this generally cannot be decided by just any administrator because of the sensitivity of the information involved. The information about the three other accounts is very relevant to the question of whether the CheckUser in this case was justified in making the relationship between the accounts public, and not just in whether she should have checked to begin with. They are not gratuitous bashing as you seem to think; indeed, they are all true.

You asked us to investigate the use of CheckUser in a case where you acted disruptively and in such a way that you appeared to be a sockpuppet (and, moreover, appeared to be using sockpuppets wrongfully). There isn't really a way for us to have decided that the use of CheckUser was justified without also finding that that was how you acted, and the possibility that we would say so was a risk you took. Dominic·t 07:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Most of this is pretty insubstantial. If you were the one being insulted, over and over again, you wouldn't think so. claiming that the report endorses it [Lar's lie] is pure fantasy No, it's a reasonable assumption a reader could make. You had a positive duty to write a report that couldn't be read that way -- unless you did endorse that false statement. Now that you, one member of the committee, has indicated he doesn't endorse all of it, what about the other two? Again: You should clarify the language of the report to state that you don't agree with it.
2. But wait: First you say, those words came from Lar's suspicion; claiming that the report endorses it is pure fantasy. Then you state that this was a case where I acted disruptively. So, as I surmised, the committee endorses Lar's idea that I was acting "disruptively", although that word never appears in the report except in quoting Lar, but I and other readers are supposed to realize that everything else in that quote is something the committee does not necessarily agree with? How am I supposed to figure that out, Dominic? If the committee says implicitly, and you say explicitly, that it agrees with one part of the quote and says nothing about the rest, and since the report is as sloppily written as I show it is, it isn't a fantastical leap for someone to assume the committee agrees with the rest of the quote. A good-faith response would be to clarify the language in the report.
3. There isn't really a way for us to have decided that the use of CheckUser was justified without also finding that that was how you acted That simply isn't true. It was pointed out to me (by Lar or Versageek, I think, but maybe by someone else) that my participating with the level of knowledge I showed in the AfD and DRV, together with the relatively low edit count of the JohnWBarber account would be reason enough to raise suspicion. (And alternate accounts are not supposed to be participating in AfDs and DRVs, as I noted in #10, above.) Am I wrong on that? Please don't ignore this question, because I'd like to know: Is calling me "disruptive" the only way you can defend Versageek's decision to checkuser, or would actions that even you judge to be non-disruptive be enough? This is why I don't actually have an objection to the decision to checkuser, as the committee well knows from my past statements. So please clear this up for me.
4. and, moreover, appeared to be using sockpuppets wrongfully (a) Substantiate that accusation -- what's the evidence for that? What's your reason to think that? (b) By using the plural ("sockpuppets") do you mean just the JohnWBarber account or other accounts as well? (c) What were those other accounts doing "wrongfully" -- or do you mean that simply by existing and editing in October they were doing something "wrongful", despite the fact that this had been previously allowed by policy before, unbeknownst to me, the policy was changed? (d) That sounds like an accusation of serious impropriety. Is it? I've said in the past that I think I violated WP:SOCK policy in unintended, extremely minor, technical ways in which no harm was done. You seem to have an unlimited capacity to make serious accusations while simultaneously being unable to substantiate any of them with diffs. As I point out below, this is a violation of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA. You've done it in the report and now again in your comments. Please take this criticism seriously and respond to it.
5. You left out of your quote that those words came from Lar's suspicion Reread the quoted words (in italics) from #4 in my first statement. I left out nothing. I realize this is more important to me than it is to you, but try to keep up.
6. The information about the three other accounts is very relevant to the question of whether the CheckUser in this case was justified in making the relationship between the accounts public, and not just in whether she should have checked to begin with. There is no information in your report about improprieties committed with the other accounts. I'm confused: I thought that once the decision to checkuser JohnWBarber was made, any account from the same IP address would have come up. Correct? Or perhaps Noroton's account came up, probably because it was looked into when checkusers were looking into sockpuppets in the Obama articles controversy, and the IP information would have been saved in some files. If that's the case, I have no idea why any other accounts would have come up. Are you saying there was suspicious activity in those other accounts, too? If so, what? I have no idea how checkusering works. Please clear this up.
7. note that you are more concerned by the block and the CheckUser request than the use of CheckUser. This committee is not the place to be complaining about those (as you have done repeatedly), and you should use the normal dispute resolution channels. Have you really not read up on the history of this dispute? I used the proper dispute resolution channels and was directed here by ArbCom, where Lar and Versageek had already asked for this committee to look into the matter. ArbCom wanted this part of the case dealt with first. I know exactly what I'm complaining about regarding this report and why and said so clearly at the top of this thread. It was never clear until the committee posted the final version of its report that it would only take up the decision to checkuser. (I asked for clarification of this in my first email to the committee, back in November, and received no reply.) And this committee always had the option of saying it would have been justifiable to checkuser me for reasons other than the dubious, never substantiated charge of "disruption". But you and the committee have opted to accuse without providing proof. You owe me your specific reasons. Give them to me.
8. in a case where you acted disruptively Except that I didn't act disruptively. You state it and repeat it but you don't provide any evidence of it. This is one of those ill-considered accusations of impropriety that (according to policy [3]) editors, least of all editors on an Arbitration committee are not supposed to make. You owe it to me to justify your accusation of impropriety. I made this point in my first statement in this thread (end of #5). I made the same point in my email over a month ago. You've ignored that point again. If it were obvious, you could easily point to statements of mine that were disruptive, and which I couldn't refute. But you can't. No one who has ever commented in this dispute has been able to point to disruption on my part. Frequent commenting doesn't do it (no one objected to the frequency at the time). So prove it or withdraw the ill-considered accusation. Violating WP:CIVIL is not part of the remit of this committee. You and the committee are also violating WP:NPA (emphasis in origional): some types of comments are absolutely never acceptable: [...] Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. [4] Justify your accusations. Give the diffs.
9. It takes a determination by the CheckUser that there is sufficient reason to believe that a set of accounts could be related before they can be released publicly, and this generally cannot be decided by just any administrator because of the sensitivity of the information involved. No, actually it doesn't necessarily take that at all. Since I thought I was acting within policy and was doing nothing wrong with the accounts, as far as I knew, all she -- or Lar -- ever had to do was ask me about the matter, and I would have cleared it up. She would not have had to be a checkuser or even an administrator to have taken that fundamental, obvious first step. What would have been lost by doing so? Nothing, since all of the data would have been there no matter what I'd said. The checkuser function could still have been used after asking me whether or not I was using an alternative account. I would have answered honestly and the checkuser function could have been used to check my answer and even probe further. She would have had sufficient reason to believe that a set of accounts could be related because I would have immediately said so, making her task much easier. Isn't this part of the checkuser function -- dealing with the person whose account or accounts you're looking into, even beforehand, not just dealing with the person in the capacity of an administrator but of a checkuser? But if I'd been given a chance to cooperate -- hell, if I'd simply been reminded to take a new look at the WP:SOCK policy -- wouldn't less disruption have been caused on the DRV page and at ANI? Supposedly, that was the concern, right -- disruption? Think about that. Really think about it.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have already produced something like 4,000 words in two posts here. In order for us to carry on a discussion, you are going to have to restrict your comments to a reasonable length. There is no reason to create an itemized list of every passage you object to, with a paragraph for each in turn. In fact, it is an act of obfuscation, since you are changing the order of my statements and responding to short snippets out of context. Please post your thoughts succinctly and without the rhetoric and I will be happy to keep talking about it. Alternatively, you are always free to appeal to ArbCom for a final settlement. They have the real power; we are just an advisory committee. Dominic·t 13:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't hard to see what the main points are. I've reacted at length because the report was written in a cryptic way and hardly any response came from the committee until your first comment. If you and the other committee members can answer some basic questions, I don't need to go on at length. I fully realize that I'm free to appeal to ArbCom, but I shouldn't do that until I have a clear understanding of what you mean. Let me ask you the main questions again:

(A) What were the specific statements (or actions) of mine that were "disruptive"?

(B) Will you make it clear in the language of the report itself that you don't endorse the veracity of Lar's lie?

(C) Please answer the questions in #11 of my first post above.

(D) Please answer the questions in #4 of my second post above.

(E) Please answer this question from #3 of my second post above: Is calling me "disruptive" the only way you can defend Versageek's decision to checkuser, or would actions that even you judge to be non-disruptive be enough?

(F) The report states: There was no clear indication or communication that JohnWBarber/Noroton/Reconsideration/CountryDoctor was attempting to make a clean start. Why does the committee dismiss the fact that Noroton stopped editing early in October and had a "resignation" note at the top of the account's talk page?

These are serious questions, asked sincerely. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On a quite different subject...

I have made a chart Template:AuditSubcommitteeChart, similar to Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart, that details the historical membership of the AUSC. It took a bit of time, and is a bit rough, but I think it communicates the essentials effectively. Just thought I would let everyone here know... — James F Kalmar 08:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

Could Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics be updated please? WJBscribe (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thatcher is on wikibreak :( -- Avi (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely he isn't the only one with a calculator... ;) WJBscribe (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated. Can someone from the AUSC opine on when the earlier columns should be pruned? -- Avi (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that when the February statistics are posted, pruning should start. Does six months sound reasonable? -- Avi (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

CU done; I'll try to get the suppression stats later this week. -- Avi (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Change to suppression statistics

I have removed stewards who are not also appointed/elected English wikipedia oversighters from the list, as my understanding is that this list is supposed to collect data for OSers that are under the English ArbCom's purview. -- Avi (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• The subcommittee's main page describes the purpose as being "to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia". I read that as including all activities on enwiki that involve CU or OS. If I am mistaken, then the description may need to be updated. AGK 12:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll e-mail ArbCom and ask them for what they prefer. There are times when a Steward will appear to have done a number of oversights when in actuality they are hiding names in CentralAuth on Meta, which affects all wikis everywhere. That is not an EnWiki specific use of the tool, and there is no way to identify from the log (that I know of) the diference between a steward's suppression done globally on meta and one done locally here unless we start scraping the meta userrights logs and trying to crossreference rights changes with suppressions. I am not volunteering to do that :) . -- Avi (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the suppressions done by stewards, and (at least since December 2009) they appear to be restricted to hiding of inappropriate usernames, which is something done at CentralAuth on Meta to affect all wikis globally, but is noted on this wiki if the inappropriate username has been registered here. Given that, I don't think that there is any benefit to listing those actions as part of the local statistics. Risker (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If we stopped looking at Stewards when we periodically update these statistics are we going to look at what they are doing at some other point? These statistics serve as a good point where what they are doing is checked. I know it would be extremely rare for there to be a problem. But we should at least check. KnightLago (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What would the checking help if the vast majority of steward hidings are not even done on EnWiki but on CentralAuth, which is outside the purview of EnWiki ArbCom? -- Avi (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more like checking for suppressions done on en.wiki by a Steward. I know you said above that is not possible, but Risker seems to indicate she checked and didn't see any problems. Maybe I am confused here. But I just wanted to make sure we, Arbcom via AUSC or whatever, are occasionally checking on what the Stewards do here. My apologies if I have confused things. KnightLago (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Having a steward run a CU on EnWiki is possible, but only if the steward grants themselves local userrights, and that should only be done in emergencies. There is also another group of people who can run EnWiki CUs I believe, and that is wikimedia foundation staff, and they too are not under the purview of EnWiki ArbCom. -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

April update...

...and pruning completed. -- Avi (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Avi! Risker (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ow, and it's June already. Damn you, calendar! ;) -- Luk ^talk 08:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See below :) -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser stats

Why are they so out of date? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. They aren't, really; the latest results are from April 2010, but it appears Avraham made a typo in putting up the dates. I'll go fix that. Risker (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And now, looking again, I see that you may be thinking of the historical data reports at the bottom of the page. At this point, we are maintaining only two statistics, numbers of checkuser requests run and number of suppressions performed. They're updated fairly regularly and the last update was about a month ago, giving data for the six month period ending April 30, 2010. This data cannot be generated by the Wikipedia databases (because the information connected to these actions is not public), and has been generated using other processes by Avraham, who is both a checkuser/oversighter, and also has the technical ability to carry out the analysis. He's on a bit of a wiki-break right now, so it may be a while before he or someone else gets the May data up. Risker (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So there's no way of telling whether JPgordon has pulled his socks up with logging reasons for checkuser? --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you anecdotally but without statistics that he and all of the other checkusers are at almost 100% for adding a reason for check nowadays. A quick scan of the last 1000 CUs in the log revealed two without summaries, neither of them by Jpgordon; that's actually a pretty remarkable level of compliance, to be honest, given that the tool isn't set up to require a summary. Perhaps it's something that could be the subject of a bugzilla if you're interested in filing one. Risker (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is good to hear. I see the top stats are current and the Historical stats are, well historical. It would be useful I think, if that level of detail was provided annually. Perhaps Avraham might oblige on his return? --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thirteen, actually, and all of them by the Newbie (=me). :( Amalthea 10:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Still on extended break (as you can see from my stats) but I have updated the statistics for May and June. -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Personnel changes - Audit Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee accepts, with regret, the resignation of Tznkai (talk · contribs) as a member of the Audit Subcommittee, effective immediately. Tznkai has been a community representative on the AUSC since its creation in 2009, first as an interim appointee and subsequently as a community-elected representative. As well, he has been a long-time Arbitration Clerk, and has been active in arbitration enforcement. We thank Tznkai for his services, and wish him well in his future endeavours, with the hope that he may return to be an active Wikipedian at some point in the future.

Further to the AUSC appointment announcements of November 2009, MBisanz (talk · contribs) is appointed to fill the remainder of Tznkai's term on the Audit Subcommittee.

In addition, arbitrator KnightLago will be filling the slot now vacant as Kirill Lokshin has come to the end of his term on the AUSC, and SirFozzie has agreed to extend his term to December 31, 2010.

The Arbitration Committee, in consultation with the community and with past and present members of the Audit Subcommittee, will be reviewing the activities and processes of the AUSC through its first year, to identify what improvements can be made. This review will be completed by October 10, prior to the next scheduled round of elections for community representatives to the subcommittee.

For the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 01:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Discussion - next round of elections/appointments to Audit Subcommittee

We are now approaching the time to bring on new members to the Audit Subcommittee. The Arbitration Committee extends its thanks to the elected community representatives whose terms are soon to end: Jredmond, Dominic and MBisanz, as well as Tznkai who stepped down earlier this year. This is an appropriate time to review the activities of the Audit Subcommittee since the November 2009 election. As can be seen by the summary of activity, there were 20 requests, of which three resulted in a reminder to the functionary involved. Three requests resulted in a discussion on best practices with functionaries. One other request resulted in the Arbitration Committee reminding administrators throughout the project that they should not undo a block identified as a {{checkuserblock}} without discussing with a checkuser in advance. No abuse of permissions was identified or reported throughout the period, and no sanctions were proposed by the AUSC. Other activities that were not initiated by the AUSC but that impacted the checkuser and oversight roles were moving the Oversight email request process to the OTRS system, and regular reviews of the activity of individual checkusers and oversighters.

Over the past year, there have been challenges in ensuring that requests have been completed in a timely manner because of difficulty in co-ordinating discussion time for the committee. While the Arbitration Committee had the option of appointing another arbitrator to fill a seat on the AUSC in the case of inactivity or inability to participate regularly, that option was not available to provide support to the community representatives, although one alternate was identified at the time of the election to participate in the event of the resignation of a community representative. I would like to encourage the community to discuss some alternative election/appointment methods instead of one-year terms, as the term length was clearly challenging for the community representatives, all good-faith editors, who were elected last year; perhaps the commitment is too long, or a larger group of alternates should be identified. I have specifically asked the community representatives to comment here so that the wider community can hear from them directly. The floor is open. Risker (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

One question: Twenty complaints filed works out as a complaint every 16 days or so. Split between three people, plus, presumably, minus work done by any functionaries who would advise on background or specifics, this does not seem to amount to an enormous workload. Perhaps we could hear from the current AUSC members on where the risk of burnout lies? We may be able to adjust working practices or workload management, in addition to or instead of limiting term length or increasing the number of 'reserve' members. AGK 22:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

AGK makes a good point; I'm not exactly sure where/what the issue is; the only thing regarding personnel that I noticed was Tznkai's resignation/retirement and MBisanz's filling-in. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand some of the questioning, and I think that some of the answers would best come from the community representatives themselves. I've made sure all of them are aware of this thread. Risker (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tznkai's departure (from what little I saw) sounded more like off-wiki issues than AUSC burnout. If it was wiki burnout at all, it could more easily have been the crazy and voluminous AE stuff that he was always dealing with, than AUSC work which I'd guess is pretty sane by comparison. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A bit of column A, and also a bit of columns B and C. I have off-wiki responsibilities and interests (which I highly recommend to everyone) but also there was some minor burnout from functionary-level issues, which I observed and sometimes participated in being an AUSC member. AE is a kind of stress I more or less got used to, and learned to spend time not doing. --Tznkai (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from my short service, a primary problem I have had in dealing with it isn't the overburden of work, but actually the lack of enough work to force the creation of standardized methods (voting, form letters, etc). I think AUSC does serve an important role of being an outside check on the process, but also there just isn't a lot of abuse going on that would motivate AUSC to develop faster or easier procedures. Also, I know from a personal level that while I do handle mailing lists, I'm not a huge fan of them since it is easy to lose issues on them. Tznkai, with his longer term of service, can probably respond better. As far as elections go, I'm declining to run again for AUSC in order to focus more on oversight and crat duties. MBisanz ^talk 23:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

With such a low workload, the absence of a 'routine' for responding to requests must surely not be an issue? As for mailing lists, the same applies: with a low workload, it must be unlikely that an issue would be 'forgotten'; maybe an internal wiki would be worth considering?

On another note, would adding one or two more seats to the AUSC be a beneficial option? AGK 23:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that all six of us, especially in the second term, were generally fairly busy folks with our lives. The three arbitrator members also had cases to work on, and its a perpetual drama factory considering the increasingly difficult cases that the Committee has to take on. Additionally, there was an effort to get a consensus on our outputs, or at least to get everyone to speak up. That often didn't happen because some members were absent. I also think (and this is just my opinion) another problem is that there was never one particular person in charge of coordinating assignments, keeping track of who was busy, or otherwise organizing duty.

Speaking for solely myself, I found as time went by that dealing with functionary level Wikipedia issues was utterly exhausting and dispiriting, which meant it took more and more energy to even read my Wikipedia related e-mail.

And yes, an internal wiki would have helped too.--Tznkai (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

• The reason that so many reviews were delayed or abandoned entirely was the lack of input from community members, making it impossible to reach a consensus supported by both community and arbitrator members. The only reason that the ones in June were managed so quickly is that one was immediately identified as having come from a user who was community banned, and there was already widespread community agreement that the suppression was appropriate; a second one was identified as requiring an Arbcom response by the arbitrators; and the third one involved a former functionary who no longer has tools and is no longer active on the project. Risker (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  When you say "lack of input from community members", you mean the "at-large" members of the AUSC? Why were they not providing input? If someone is standing for this office, they should be prepared to execute their duties, and removed if they don't. –xeno^talk 13:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that the community representatives are better placed than I am to explain the reasons behind their level of participation; I'll note, however, that one of the key points of the design of the AUSC was an equal number of community representatives to arbitrators. There was only one candidate for the role who met the minimum support requirements who was not appointed initially, and there was a fair degree of unhappiness expressed when we announced he would be an alternate in case of resignation. We had not considered or set in place a method for removing people from the role for inactivity or lack of availability. I'm concerned that we could easily find ourselves in the same position after the next round of elections: no pool of community-supported alternates to step in if others are not in a position to fulfill the role. Risker (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be 3 appointees and 3 alternates, the alternates would be tied to a particular appointee as their backup. (This of course makes the unsafe assumption that 6 people receive the minimum level of support). –xeno^talk 4:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• MBisanz writes: "I think AUSC does serve an important role of being an outside check on the process". If it were a true outside check, then I might agree, but the actions in the "Randy" episode demonstrated that it is neither independent of ArbCom nor "outside". Not only did the "investigation" look a lot like a whitewash, but ArbCom went on to appoint the arbitrator at the centre of it to AUSC... and that was not the only questionable ArbCom action around this incident. Maybe others do not agree, but I do not trust that AUSC is not subservient to ArbCom's views and interests. ArbCom, you have taken actions that undermine the legitimacy of AUSC. Turn AUSC into a genuinely outside check, or get rid of it. EdChem (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Your suggestion has merit, and I would be interested to hear about how you think they could accomplish that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, part of the problem is the actions of arbitrators, and I don't know how to fix that. If the ArbCom members couldn't see why appointing the arbitrator at the centre of the "Randy" episode to AUSC was somewhere between unseemly and unjustifiable then the problem is very hard to address. Further, the arbitrator in question should have declined the appointment. That he went on to support other questionable actions just compounds the problem. I take a more strict perspective on ethical behaviour than is evident in ArbCom actions, explaining (in part) why I have been critical of questionable actions in the past. Unfortunately, if people do not stop to consider what is ethical then they will at times act in ways that are (at best) inappropriate. I do understand that ArbCom get criticised and even attacked quite a lot, which leads to an understandable instinct towards closing ranks and self-protection. I was disappointed that they chose not to have an unbiased look at what went on during and after the Randy incident, because I think that recognising that you can collectively make mistakes can actually foster respect from outsiders.

      As for making AUSC genuinely independent, it is difficult as the membership needs to be holders of advanced permissions, which makes them all necessarily well-known to ArbCom. Some may have been previously Clerks who are by definition subservient to ArbCom, so they need to be aware of the dangers of deferring to the ArbCom view. The most obvious approach would be to reduce the ArbCom membership of AUSC and have them in an advisory / evidentiary role. This would allow the members to decide without ArbCom effectively being able to veto a conclusion by virtue of having half of the votes. ArbCom could retain jurisdiction to act (or not) on the report, if they felt the need to maintain their own power. But, the chance of getting a genuinely independent review would be increased. With contentious issues (and recognising the limitations relating to privacy concerns), an interim report on which the community is invited to comment might also be a good idea. It would avoid the stonewalling that happened after the Randy report if AUSC were required to engage with criticisms and address them in the final report too. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the stats it's dead Jim or pretty much. If it's really felt to be needed at this point our best bet is probably to replace it with a single person rather than a group. If no one objects within a week I'll mark this page as historic.©Geni 20:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is "dead" because we are not receiving any complaints. We can only address issues that are brought to our attention. KnightLago (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I object to marking this subcommittee page as historic. The structure needs to remain in place to review complaints if and when that they come in. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the proper response to a lack of complaints is not to dismantle the body designed to hear such complaints. There are many possible reasons that come to mind why traffic may be low, only one of which is the hopeful reality that nothing untoward is going on. However, even the logs of 100% proper use of the CU/OS tools are hidden. There are reasons that community members that are not themselves Arbitrators were put in place to help oversee these tools. I also wonder if the low interest in this discussion is due in part to it simply being assumed that ArbCom would announce the next election within a few weeks, and the discussion would really kick in when there was a concrete timetable, a timetable we are yet to see. Courcelles 03:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Although there hasn't been a formal resolution on this by the Arbitration Committee, I think there may be a concern that if we had run an AUSC election in October or November, it would have drawn from the same pool of interested editors who are considering running for arbitrator in the ArbCom election that's about to start. It would hardly have done anyone any good for User:X to be elected as a non-arbitrator AUSC member in November and then to be elected as an arbitrator in December, thereby creating an immediate AUSC vacancy. Therefore, I think it makes sense to discuss AUSC and the scheduling of any election in January, which will also have the advantage that the new arbitrators (who will constitute half or more of the 2011 ArbCom) can participate as such in the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Statistics update?

The stats section has not been updated in a year. Could someone on the subcommittee please update it? It'd also be nice if someone could provide a monthly breakdown of the numbers (or, ideally, a case-by-case breakdown), although I don't want to overburden anybody with busywork. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 21:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Emufarmers. I did a report a while back, which is located here. The AUSC did not have any new investigations since the one in August. One of the AUSC arbitrators had actually pointed out the statistics page and wondered how best to address it, given that the statistics do actually exist, but not in the same format. I'll leave it to them to figure that out, but perhaps you might want to comment on the formatting/presentation. Myself, I'd probably break something if I tried to create a wikitable. Risker (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I missed your report when I was scanning the page. Thanks, Risker! —Emufarmers^(T/C) 20:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the CU/OS stats, they are only four months in arrears, and I'm working on them now. -- Avi (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks so much, Avi! Risker (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rolling six-month stats updated through October 31, 2010. -- Avi (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Updated for November. -- Avi (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Updated for December. -- Avi (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your diligence, Avi. Skomorokh 19:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to see someone noticed 8-) -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

At-large members' terms expiration

Am I the only one confused by the continued presence of the at-large members of the AUSC despite their term, according to the project page, having ended in November 2010? AGK [•] 12:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, probably not. We have asked them to extend their term for long enough so that we can have some discussion within Arbcom and with the community on how best to continue the community representation on this subcommittee while ensuring that the subcommittee is able to be effective. Community involvement is widely held to be a key component of the AUSC; however, on some occasions the community representatives have been apparently unavailable to participate in requested reviews, which has led to significant delays. Unavailable arbitrator members can always be replaced by another arbitrator, but we have no mechanism to replace an unavailable community representative.

As well, the end of the terms of community representatives was going to intersect with the Arbitration Committee elections, and it would have been unfair to the community and to the candidates to have two elections occurring at pretty much the same time, particularly given the seemingly shrinking pool of potential candidates for these roles. Risker (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that explains things! AGK [•] 15:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you organize ?

I assume that at-large members don't have access to the ArbCom wiki, so how do you organize ? You can't do on WP for privacy reasons. Are you just using the mailing list, or some other support ? Do you feel the need for more, like a special wiki ? Cenarium (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct in that the non-arbitrator members do not have access to the arbwiki. The audit-arbcom-en mailing list is used almost exclusively and, as far as I know, has been sufficient. As the subcommittee is small compared to the committee itself, and has a relatively light workload, a separate wiki is not really needed. –xeno^talk 19:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Monthly update

Rolling six-month CU and OS stats updated for January 2011. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Avi! Risker (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Audit Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee has conducted an internal review of the Audit Subcommittee and is now seeking comment from the community, in particular about the subcommittee's effectiveness to date and ongoing representation from community delegates ("at-large members").

As the October 2009 election yielded few candidates relative to the number of seats available, it has been suggested that filling the non-arbitrator positions by appointment after community consultation (similar to the previous round of CU/OS appointments) would attract a greater number of suitably qualified candidates.

It has also been suggested that greater numbers of community delegates be appointed to ensure adequate ongoing community representation. Should a sufficient number of suitable candidates apply, the committee will appoint three "primary members" along with a number of "standby members" (who will also receive the CheckUser and Oversight privileges) and would stand in should a primary member become inactive or be unable to hear a particular case.

Comments are invited about the above, as well as any other general comments about the Audit Subcommittee. The Arbitration Committee would like to thank outgoing community members Dominic, Jredmond, and MBisanz for their patience and continued participation on the subcommittee while this review process is ongoing.

The next call for applications is provisionally scheduled for 20 February 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the legitimacy in having Arbitrators appoint people who have the direct authority to oversee some of their actions? NW (Talk) 19:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be delegation of authority, a second set of eyes. There can be group think among the arbitrators. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. Can I ask how do you think the auditors should be selected? PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

@NW: Remember that (quoting Risker from /Archive 1) "granting and removal of checkuser and oversight permissions is a core and fiduciary duty of the Arbitration Committee. The Wikimedia Foundation has specified that the responsibilities for appointing Checkusers and Oversighters, as well as authorizing removal of these permissions for cause, lies within the sole remit of the Arbitration Committee on any project that has such a committee. It is not a right of the Committee, it is a formal and very serious responsibility." The Audit Subcommittee was created by the Arbitration Committee: the authority of the subcommittee flows from the parent committee. Recall that on the subcommittee's creation, the community members were appointed. The election method was used exactly once so far, and the low number of volunteers stepping forward left the committee in a bit of a precarious position. Election fatigue is also a concern.

In any case, relatively few complaints are received regarding CU/OS use by sitting arbitrators. –xeno^talk 20:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that the subcommittee was created from the committee does not exempt it from logic. Virtually the only justification for having members appointed by arbitrators, rather than a simple and direct election, would be that the sensitivity of the work demands this. The idea that the body overseeing arbcom's work (and a small amount of it, at that) must be appointed by arbcom because a simple election isn't appropriate is hokum and bunkum, unless you're saying that overseeing some of arbcom's work is more sensitive and delicate than doing all of it. Six candidates for three positions does not a precarious position make, unless there's something I'm missing. Ironholds (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  The body isn't "overseeing Arbcom's work", it's overseeing the work of the CheckUser and Oversight team (of which a subset happen to be Arbitrators). –xeno^talk 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  Right, sorry; a misphrasing. The question still remains; do members of the Audit Subcommittee somehow have access to more sensitive or delicate information, or require a higher level of judgment, than those users with CU and OS permissions? If so, fine. If not, why is it not appropriate to have an election of the same format as we have for those who, by dint of their role, are given access to the OS and CU tools? Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Besides, the Arbitators are supposed to be the most-trusted members of the community, right? And then you're going to hold another election to pick people even _more_ trusted? :-) I think having the Arbs appoint the AUSC will simplify matters enormously -- especially given the apparent lack of work being handed to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  Simplification isn't the issue here; the issue is whether or not the proposed changes would attract any more participants, which is the reason given. Why would requiring candidates to jump through an additional hoop (consultation plus selection, rather than just election) prove any more attractive to candidates? Why does having twice as many candidates as seats indicate a dearth of potential appointees? Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  It's not "just" election, it's application-vetting-nomination-standard questions-optional questions-election: an onerous process that may be preventing well-qualified candidates from stepping forward.
  I should point out that the Audit Subcommittee makes no binding rulings: it offers an advisory opinion to the Committee wherein the final decision rests. –xeno^talk 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of this RfC? We can't see ArbCom's internal review, so what does it mean to be "seeking comment from the community, in particular about the subcommittee's effectiveness to date and ongoing representation from community delegates"? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The subcommittee was created just under 2 years ago, we want to know if it is seen as an effective overseeing body, and if any changes should be made. Users who have submitted concerns to the AUSC might want to comment, ditto for functionaries who have been the subject of AUSC cases, etc. Also to gauge community consensus regarding the suggested return to the appointment method. –xeno^talk 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. No comment right now on the appointment process but the AUSC doesn't get too much work, from what I can see, so I don't know how one would judge effectiveness. I mean, it's so non-transparent that I honestly don't care what happens with it or how much of a cabal forms. There are, like, three semi-detailed case summaries publicly viewable. It's not like the community would really know what's going on, right? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll see what I can do to make onwiki disclosure of closed cases more frequent and consistent (and try to do this retroactively as well). –xeno^talk 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in the same order as the topics were raised in the post which solicited input:

1. Just as the Arbitration Committee is empowered to select which editors will have access to CU and OS, so too can it delegate to non-arbitrators its role as scrutiniser of use of CU and OS. The only obligation imposed on ArbCom is to be sensible in selecting whom to delegate to, and it is therefore adequate to simply consult the community by releasing the names of the candidates prior to making the appointments and then inviting comment (so that any problems with the candidates can come to light).
2. As a general principle, the number of editors with access to sensitive tools such as CU and OS should be matched as precisely as possible to the volume of tasks which need CU and OS attention. So there must be enough checkusers and oversighters to handle the workload, plus enough members on the AUSC for it to carry out its duties, and no more. Three community members seems enough to me; more than three seems excessive. Whilst I think having some "standby members" is sensible, I wonder whether it is appropriate or necessary for them to retain access to the CU and OS tools even when they are not serving on the AUSC.
3. In the absence of any complaints and in the face of everything seeming to have been handled to the satisfaction of all complainants, things seem to have been going well. The current practice of recording all complaints on-wiki and detailing any action was taken thereon seems appropriate.
4. Consultation plus selection is not an "additional hoop". The election is hardly that, because ArbCom still vet the candidates in the election. Community consultation can either be held by means of an invite to privately submit comments on the suitability of candidates or by a formal straw poll (read: election). Whether an election or simply a discussion is held is therefore a superfluous question, unless your interest is in having community discussions held on-wiki. I would however agree that there has hardly been a dearth of candidates in any elections to AUSC.
5. The AUSC was created as a result of community disquiet with the old methods of oversight of CU and OS, but the subcommittee was created by ArbCom because only they can assign the CU and OS status needed to scrutinise general use of the tool. The current community-stroke-arbitrator composition was in my view established to improve the legitimacy of AUSC by allowing editors who are independent of ArbCom to be involved in the function of CU/OS oversight. Some might find it difficult to reconcile that composition with the fact that community scrutinisers must be approved by ArbCom, but that approval is necessary because to neglect it could be to allow untrustworthy editors access to sensitive tools (which ArbCom is obliged to prevent). This point is difficult to settle fully, and my conscience sleeps soundly simply because I think that if the community supported an editor who was clearly trustworthy but who was vocally anti-ArbCom, that editor would be allowed to sit on the AUSC; in other words, the vetting of community AUSC members is undertaken by ArbCom only to preserve the security of our sensitive data.

AGK [•] 22:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that AUSC has a very light caseload and many of the historical community concerns have been addressed by other means. Closer internal scrutiny and/or greater discussion of CU/OS, tighter control of access to the tools, removing tools for inactivity, and operational/guideline changes.  Roger ^talk 07:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for your detailed submission, AGK. Just to respond to your musing in point #2 - I understand and agree with the notion that we should match the distribution of the tools to the workload; that being said, one of the justifications for giving the "standby members" CU/OS tools is to allow them to become intimately familiar with the work done by the CU/OS team. There is a bit of a learning curve for these privileges and it can be difficult for one to judge (in an AUSC capacity) whether a particular use of a tool was appropriate if one has never "walked the beat", so to speak. Tooling up standby members also serves to distribute the workload (ameliorating burnout and attrition among the existing functionaries), and may also render a call for CU/OS applicants later in the year unnecessary. –xeno^talk 14:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have a response to what xeno said (above): It's not "just" election, it's application-vetting-nomination-standard questions-optional questions-election: an onerous process that may be preventing well-qualified candidates from stepping forward. I would think this is a process which seems to be preventing unqualified candidates from stepping forward. The Q&A session is to help us (the Community) decide whether the candidate is a suitable representative of us (the Community) before we formally make a decision (via election); if you (AC) are just looking for random volunteers for those positions, then why not call them that?
• Sure, some members of the Community make comments, but that's really a different ball game. As you would have figured out by now, some of the concerns may be more widely (and seriously) held than you think or appreciate, whether or not those concerns are expressly communicated to you. Out of curiosity, how much of the Community submitted comments in regards to those CU/OS candidates for appointment (including off wiki)? By contrast, how much of the Community voted in the CU/OS elections and how many (if any) comments were submitted off wiki?
• Still, simply creating a body because of disquiet isn't going to necessarily or effectively address the disquiet on its own. I suppose AUSC is an advisory subcommittee of AC after all; one might question whether there is any benefit of having a rep from the Community when (1) it doesn't have the ability to make binding decisions, (2) AC retains the ability to act against the advice provided, and (3) half of the body is made up of AC anyway. And now Anthony's comment has also provided an indication of the politics involved. Philknight mentioned auditors; speaking of that, would AC be unhappy with letting the Community elect a fully independent Committee to "oversee" that work that is currently being overseen by AUSC? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the users on such a Committee would be bound by the same privacy obligations that AC is, and arbs couldn't complain about the "untrustworthiness" that AGK mentions (given that the Community conducts the elections similarly for selecting each of the arbs to AC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • But the at-large members are already the guards who guard the guards: that is the point of having them. Or are you proposing guards to guard the guards who guard the guards?  Roger ^talk 07:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • See below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What you're proposing is not feasible. As said above, this falls specifically under the Committee's remit because the Committee is responsible for granting/removing CU/OS. Elections are, as previously seen a non-starter.. we had six people sign up for three slots and even with using the standbys (which the Committee took flak for in the first place if you remember), we (the arbitrators who were (in my case)/are members of the AUSC) were doing the majority of the work (such as it was). (Of course, we did have the assistance of at least one member of the community that stuck out through the whole period, thankfully).

When the arbitrators discussed the future of AUSC, prior to this RfC being proposed, I nearly called for it to be folded into the committee's purview for that reason, but I definitely can see the benefits to having community members on the AUSC.. but if we're going to have the same issues as last year (low participation, and the members who DO come in drift away due to burnout, lack of interest, lack of volume), it's just not going to work. SirFozzie (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the reason we think this could increase the number of qualified people for the AUSC permission, is that when we were considering these changes, a few members of the Committee talked to people who they thought were suitable candidates if they'd be interested, and the #1 negative for people seemed to be "I don't want to put myself through the rigamarole of election". We do that once a year with ArbCom, and that seems to be more then enough, when we had ArbCom and CU/OS and AUSC (all at different times of course), we didn't get the quantity nor the quality on either side (people standing for election, and people beinn elected). Bringing the CU/OS back to having ArbCom and the Community vetting the candidates seemed to work better, so it's natural that it be tried with AUSC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 07:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that AC are still the ones making the binding rulings, I don't see how it is not feasible. As said above, AUSC (the subject of this RfC) is not making binding rulings; it is merely an advisory Committee which is supposed to be "guarding" something. In such circumstances, I would have thought that greater accoutability emerges when a more independent body audits or makes their own recommendations regarding the use of CU/OS by functionaries (and AC members).

Obviously, we're now beginning to get somewhere on a few other points such as participation. That leads me to ask a few questions that I hope you can answer.

1. If arbs of AUSC are doing the majority of the work, what steps did you take to make them aware that you would prefer the community reps to take a fairer share? Did you make it clear to them, and if so, what sorts of responses did you receive?

2. You've mentioned burnout, lack of interest and lack of volume. Did the reps tell you this? Before they became part of AUSC, did AC know what the reps were expecting? Were those expectations different to the reality of their positions?

3. Why should the elections be held at such different times? Other than the 'AC elections seems to be more than enough', is there any other reason? Have you assumed that the same limited number of candidates will turn up if the elections are held at the same time as the AC elections?

4. How much of the Community submitted comments in regards to those CU/OS candidates for appointment (including off wiki)? By contrast, how much of the Community voted in the CU/OS elections and how many (if any) comments were submitted off wiki?

5. If an editor is going to be promoted as a Community representative, questions are asked because the Community wants to determine whether they are suitable representatives of the Community. This includes examining the way the candidate handles certain matters, issues, and circumstances, as well as their understanding of some of their obligations and how seriously a candidate treats them. Should you begin to appoint non-AC members in the way that you appointed CU/OS candidates last year, what will you call them (or do you intend on still calling them Community representatives/delegates)?

Answers to the above questions would be helpful towards us making further informed comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ncmvocalist, thanks for the questions. I'll start off my response by saying that the community-elected representatives on the AUSC are all solid members of our community, and each of them over time has contributed a great deal to our project - some of them in obvious ways and others by handling behind-the-scenes issues. But aside from being fine Wiki(p)(m)edians, they all have lives away from the project that may make significant demands on their time (sometimes in unplanned ways); and some of them have accepted important responsibilities in other aspects of the project that may limit their ability to be quickly responsive to AUSC issues. It is not my intention to be critical of them as individuals; they have all earned the respect of the community as a whole, and of me personally, regardless of their level of activity with AUSC. Now to your questions.

1. To be honest, we weren't entirely certain how things would go this first year of an elected AUSC. The subcommittee had only existed for six months, with three appointed community members, and the appointed members came aboard at a time when several community members had some fairly serious concerns about "big picture" questions as much as specific (personal) situations. We couldn't be certain what kinds of cases would come to the AUSC or how many there would be, so it was fairly difficult to establish expectations for the subcommittee. When Tznkai, Dominic and Jredmond were appointed, none of us was entirely certain what tasks would come to the AUSC, and we didn't establish a lot of expectations. We've now had about 20 months of experience and have a much better idea of what kinds of cases to expect, and where the weak points in the process seem to be. As well, there have been several other actions that have changed the CU/OS "culture"; for example, moving emailed oversight requests to the OTRS system, developing an oversighter handbook, the AUSC providing some recommended best practices for these tools, regular publishing of activity levels.
2. As I note above, Arbcom did not outline specific expectations to the elected community representatives when they came aboard, aside from having an expectation that all members participate in discussion of requests; we just weren't really certain what was reasonable or if individual members would find a particular niche that facilitated the work of the AUSC. We didn't formally establish timelines which, in retrospect, was probably a good thing; the subcommittee had 12 queries on its plate in the first two months, including two which required very extensive review, an activity level beyond what any of us had anticipated, and coinciding with the busy holiday/year end/term end period. This tapered considerably over the following months. From time to time in different venues (posting to AUSC mailing list, direct group emails to the community reps, sometimes trying to catch up with the various reps through IRC or other messaging systems), reminders of currently open cases were sent out, requesting comment/activity; as well, queries have been sent through similar routes to the community reps asking them what needed to change, whether they were still interested, or what they might feel would help the AUSC to be more consistent in the timeliness of their responses to issues brought to them. While there was usually some response to calls for activity within a week to 10 days after the messages were sent, we never did get much constructive comment on how to improve processes.
3. There were a couple of considerations about not running two elections at the same time. The first was that there are a limited number of candidates who would meet the community's expectations, and we did not want to place people in the difficult position of deciding whether to run for AUSC or Arbcom and diluting the pool of qualified candidates either way. The second was the low turnout for the CheckUser/Oversighter election earlier in the year and the unhelpful results that came from that process; the lack of questions from the community, and particularly of discussion of why people decided to oppose some candidates and support others, was unhelpful in assessing whether there were any genuine concerns about specific candidates, or if we were seeing some other effects. The community level of interest in the AUSC has significantly diminished; both the number of concerns reported to the AUSC, and the frequency of commentary on this page and elsewhere about matters within the scope of the AUSC and about the AUSC itself, has dropped very significantly over the course of the last year. The Arbitration Committee thought it would be a good idea to get some feedback about AUSC, and particularly about how to maintain community involvement and perspective while improving the subcommittee's processes, before we sought to bring new members aboard.
4. About 22 editors commented on the Oversight and CheckUser candidates of August 2010, onwiki, via email, or both. A total of 393 editors participated in the May 2010 Checkuser vote and 368 editors participated in the May 2010 Oversighter vote; there were no comments submitted off-wiki about any of those candidates, to my knowledge.
5. I'm not entirely certain what we would call non-arbitrator appointees to the AUSC. No matter what format we decide to proceed with, though, I think every model that's been discussed at the committee level has included community consultation.

Sorry for going on so long. Hope this is helpful to you and to others. Risker (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Briefly, the reason your suggestion ("letting the Community elect a fully independent Committee to 'oversee' that work that is currently being overseen by AUSC") is not feasible is that for a body to be able to effectively oversee CU&OS, they will need the CU/OS tools (for review of logs, checks, oversights, etc.). And, per WMF policy, anyone who is to be CU/OS must be vetted by ArbCom. So (unless you changed WMF policy) the Arbitration Committee still has to approve those auditors even if they are sourced "independently". –xeno^talk 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What is at issue is AC's reasons (if any) for not approving those independent auditors that are elected by the Community. (Incidentally, per WMF policy, the Community can approve candidates when it prefers independent elections). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if community consensus developed for an independent overseeing body who obtained the CheckUser and Oversight tools needed for the task through an independent election (for which the meta policy demands "at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections"; alternatively, they would be elected first by the community, and subsequently need to be vetted and approved by ArbCom [either of these options dependent on community consensus emerging for independent elections]), then yes, I suppose such a body could be created. This RFC is about the Audit Subcommittee as it exists now, so perhaps that proposal should be taken up at a different venue. Will try to get some answers for your numbered questions shortly. –xeno^talk 18:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with fetchcomms here. We (the community) don't see the inner workings of the subcommittee nor the issues which they investigate nor the report on their performance. I'm not arguing that we should, but in light of those limitations and the fact that the Audit Subcommittee generates public reports at an incredibly low volume I am at a loss to see what a community contribution to the RfC might be. We can't judge how necessary or effective the subcommittee is and we can't really comment on the wisdom of their appointment process. What are we supposed to talk about? Protonk (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Since Wikipedia editors are, by and large, anonymous, then what does it really matter if ArbCom appoints them or they are elected? Most editors don't know who these people are anyway. Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Obviously, that's quite similar to saying "Since Wikipedia editors are, by and large, anonymous, then what does it really matter if ArbCom appoints arbitrators or if arbitrators are elected? Most editors don't know who these people are anyway." Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Too many elections (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY), too much bureaucracy. I'd like to ask Arbcom members directly, whether they think AUSC has been useful. I saw it as growing out of a somewhat paranoid and bureaucratic era in WP history (2007-ish) and things have gotten more relaxed since then. There is a lot of "junk DNA" in the WP practices handed down to us from those times, and maybe we should look for ways to shed some. We already have CU/OS elections, so if Arbcom wants AUSC to have some non-Arbitrator representatives, why not just invite volunteers from the existing CU/OS ranks? Another idea might be to appoint a cross-wiki member or two, e.g. from German wikipedia, which faces similar CU/OS issues to ours, but who are not caught up in enwiki politics. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To one point, the purpose of the community representatives on AUSC is that they are separate from the CU/OS operators; an independent "check and balance" if you will; drawing the at-large members from the regular operators of these permissions would, at least hamper, that benefit. Courcelles 08:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please note that the 2011 appointment process is underway. Further comments are still invited. –xeno^talk 23:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Did you consider moving from an election process to an individual candidacy process: the candidate asks ArbCom's permission, then presents itself to the community in an individual RFB-like request where 66% support is needed (maybe less), for a mandate of one year. This could give more opportunities for candidates to present themselves.
• I would also suggest to consider those users as "independent observers", and maybe also grant them membership to BASC, as appeals of community sanctions is also an area where independent observers in their role of "community representative" could give helpful input. Cenarium (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 7 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

February 2011 stats update

 Done -- Avi (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been bold and changed the background color for ArbCom and AuSc members whose activity clocks don't start until after their terms end. I notice that there are several names left out (Aaron Schulz, Bron VIBBER, Casliber, Jredmond, Keegan, Kirill Lokshin, MBisanz, Tim Starling, maybe others I am missing). Is that by accident? Dominic·t 10:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think they have been left off because they have done no actions. Aaron, Brion and Tim are developers who we have been advised continue to need access to provide technical support. Jredmond and MBisanz are AUSC members who do no actions. Casliber and Kirill Lokshin are arbitrators. I think perhaps Avi missed out on Keegan, who has just returned from a 6-month leave, as he had actions in February. Risker (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for putting the arbitrators/AUSC members on a different coloured background, it is a good idea; you've missed Mailer Diablo, though, and Coren for suppression. Risker (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch. I see now what those names have in common; I realized those three were developers, but I had assumed that most of the auditors/arbitrators there would have had at least a couple of actions, and knew Keegan would. It might be nice to list all of the names in the table, or at least the non-developers, even if it's a row of zeroes for them, just to have a fuller picture. (For example, so it's obvious to people that they had no actions, rather than that they may have been omitted unintentionally! ;-) ) Dominic·t 11:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And I've forgotten my manners here. Avi, thank you very much for updating these stats so regularly. I refer to them on a regular basis, and really appreciate it. Risker (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Risker . It was very late last night (or should I say this morning) when I did the stats, so I could have just clean missed Keegan. As for the stewards in the OS/CU list, I made the change in the header text months ago (after discussion with at least one member of ArbCom which I can recall) to focus solely on EnWiki-appointed functionaries (with the exception of Jimbo, who is a "person of interest" here :) ). Firstly, the main focus of these stats as I understand them is to identify people who are using the tools as they were tasked and those who are not; that does not apply to stewards. Secondly, the global suppressions you are seeing are performed on meta, not EnWiki; it is only the results that happen to EnWiki (together with the other hundreds of wikimedia projects simultaneously). Thirdly, it makes my life easier, and as since I've taken over for Thatcher a year or so ago, I'm all in favor of making my life easier. I have to check whether or not global OS actions performed on meta by a steward who is also a local Enwiki OS get listed. I know that non-EnWiki OS steward actions are listed (the DerHexer/Dferg suppressions) but I didn't see one that I did a while back that should have been in the logs. Either way, I intend to continue to ignore steward/staff hides and checks (with the exception of Jimbo) unless otherwise directed, and I hope I will not be so directed :). As for the highlighting of ArbCom/AUSC, that is a good idea! Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Avi, thanks for updating these statistics. Is there a reason why Chase isn't listed in the suppression table? PhilKnight (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Most probably b/c I did the update at 3:50 AM local time, and skipped it? :/. I'll redo the table tonight and correct it. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Was the reference to stewards from some other thread? What you say makes sense, but I think the arbitrators and auditors with the tool are in a different boat, and it is still of interest to see how much (if at all) they have used the tool. Dominic·t 23:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Avi for keeping these up to date. John Vandenberg ^(chat)

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this