Main pages[edit]

Guides[edit]

Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 voter guides

Lfaraone[edit]

LFaraone[edit]

Hello, I'm Luke Faraone. I've been a Wikipedia editor for the past 12 years, an administrator since 2008, and a member of the CheckUser and Oversight teams since 2013.

I served a two-year term on the Arbitration Committee (2014-2015). I've taken some time away over the past year, but would be honoured to serve the project in such a role again. I mostly focussed on internal Committee processes, moving forward a lot of work that has since been eliminated through devolution or delegation. I'd like to continue that devolution, while at the same time provide increased clarity around still-necessary processes and procedures. The best Arbitration Committee (while it is needed) is one that operates efficiently and justly, allowing everyone else to get back to the actually-productive work of writing the encyclopedia.

I will continue to comply with the criteria for access to non-public data; I am identified to the Foundation per roles as a functionary, volunteer response team participant, and arbitrator. I used the username Firefoxman prior to a rename in 2008. User:LFaraone_(usurped) is the account that was previously under my current name.

Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: LFaraone

Back to Table of Contents

LFaraone questions[edit]

Questions

==Individual questions==

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}}

Question from User:Doc James[edit]

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?

Question from Joshualouie711[edit]

In the past few months and years, your activity on Wikipedia has seemed to drop off. From the beginning of 2016 until now, you have only made 186 edits in 11 months, or roughly 17 edits per month. Arbitration is a demanding job, usually granted to users with more activity than this. Do you believe that, if elected Arbitrator, you will be active enough to effectively arbitrate cases and otherwise participate in Wikipedia?
Yes. I've been following along over the past year, but took a bit of a break from active partipation to reflect after I left the committee at the beginning of 2016. I believe that's provided some useful perspective. I am confident I will have sufficient time to fully fulfil my duties.

Question from Biblioworm[edit]

Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:

Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:

Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.
Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).

Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.

Do you support these measures, and would you work to implement them if elected? If you do not support all of them, please specify which ones you do support.

Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Responses inline:

Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)

If by "functionary issues", you mean selection, then we have two options: ArbCom does it, or the community elects them. There hasn't been much appetite for returning to the latter, as far as I'm aware — and choosing CU/OS members isn't a terribly time-consuming or frequent task.

With regards to handing over stressful tasks, during my previous term on the committee I worked with other arbitrators to impress on the WMF that they had to take on more of these matters. We were finally successful for child protection, and the WMF has staffed up a proper Trust and Security team over the past 18 months. I'd love for them to take on more, but it's a matter of the WMF finding adequete resources. In the interim, ArbCom needs to continue to handle important-but-lower-priority cases that the WMF lacks bandwidth for.

Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:

Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.
I think a formal requirement would be too limiting, but well-defined boundaries for cases are something I appreciate and will advocate for.
Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).
"Tight restriction" sounds a lot better than "elimination" -- non-parties do provide value, especially in drawing the committee's attention to facts that parties do not themselves highlight.

Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
I tried very hard to avoid blanket site-bans, but there's a certain point at which one has to ask, "if we're designing such a convoluted enforcement process just so an editor can constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, are they really providing net value?". Everything has limits.
Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
This could tie administrator hands and allow for gaming — I'd support it as long as there were exceptions for "obvious" requests, or ones that are highly time-sensitive.
Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.
They're welcome to suggest a motion be made -- editors are not gagged and prohibited from making such a proposal. The threshold that one arbitrator has to agree with your proposal enough for them to propose it themselves seems reasonable. I note that this seems to be in conflict with your "people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted…" comment above, though.

Questions from Collect[edit]

Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
As I stated in 2013: I do not believe that the opening of a case should commit the Committee to any action, including the issuing of sanctions. While sanctionless cases perhaps would indicate that the Committee that more care should have been taken in the acceptance of the case, it is better to close a case without sanctions than to assign them just because one must do so. Several cases I've heard while on the committee have been closed without sanctions.
If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?
If I had written on your talk page "I do not like Collect.", then sure, it is reasonable to question my impartiality in a matter involving you. "an aversion" is vague enough to drive an ArbCom case through, though, so I'd prefer to comment on a more concrete example.
a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?
a. It would depend on the circumstances — in general, yes, attempts should be made to be accommodating.
b. With regards to evidence limits, we have generally allowed requests to expand on a case-by-case basis.
c. See (b).
d. While I don't think it's a good idea for committee members to proactively splunk for evidence, it seems poor to tie arbitrators' hands if something germane is found during the review of presented evidence. If an arbitrator intends to present a substantial amount of evidence, they should recuse and add themselves as a case participant.

Thank you Collect (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Mark Arsten[edit]

Hi Luke, thanks for running for Arbcom. My questions are about account security.
What are your thoughts on the handling of the recent incident in which several administrator accounts were compromised? Do you think that technical or policy changes need to be made as a result? Also, are you confident in the security of your e-mail and Wikipedia accounts?
My day job is as a software engineer in the information security field, so I have a lot of strong feelings here :)
I think that two-step verification should be mandatory for all administrators, stewards, and holders of other advanced permissions. I enabled it as soon as it was available, and encourage everyone else to do so in absence of a requirement. That said, I wouldn't support such a mandate unless a well-defined account recovery mechanism is established, to prevent editors from being locked out of their accounts because they accidentally took their phone for a swim. The policy should allow for exceptions, as not everyone has a mobile phone or other device to generate one-time passwords.
2SV isn't a panacea — but more in-depth account compromise detection mechanisms (such as instrumentation to identify "suspicious" activity and raise roadblocks) aren't really warranted, since the false-positive rate would be too high.
I use a password manager, use secure and distinct passwords for each service, enable two-step verification whenever available, and have evaluated the recovery flows for my important accounts to mitigate a password reset attack. That said:

The only system which is truly secure is one which is switched off and unplugged locked in a titanium lined safe, buried in a concrete bunker, and is surrounded by nerve gas and very highly paid armed guards. Even then, I wouldn't stake my life on it.
— Gene Spafford^{[lfaraone 1]}

^ Råman, Jari. Regulating Secure Software Development: Analysing the Potential Regulatory Solutions for the Lack of Security in Software. Lapland University Press. ISBN 9789524840347. Retrieved 16 November 2016.

Questions from Carrite[edit]

Thanks for running. This year's ArbCom took very few cases and seems to have kept to deadlines more expeditiously. I think most everyone can agree that this was for the good. What do you think was the biggest mistake made by ArbCom in 2016? What letter grade (A to F) would you give their performance? What could they do better?

Do you read or post at Wikipediocracy? What is your opinion about this off-wiki criticism site? Do you feel it is a malicious venue for harassment or a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems or something in between these extremes?
I read it occasionally, I've posted a few times, usually to answer topics relevant to my work or that discussed some committee actions. The existence of it or (something like it) is unavoidable; moreso, such an off-site venue can be healthy. I think there are many legitimate concerns voiced there, and have gained value from some of the discussions. It seems like the site is effective at policing some of the most unacceptable behaviour, although I would draw the line differently.

Question from Rschen7754[edit]

Some prominent guide writers from the last election were lukewarm about your candidacy, saying that there are "stronger candidates": [1]User:Boing! said Zebedee/ACE2015 How would you respond to this? --Rs chen 7754 04:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Opabinia[edit]

Case load is way down. Email volume is holding steady, but is still way down from its peak. ARCA requests are up slightly, but not too bad. Attention to this election is down compared to last year. We're slowly becoming irrelevant, and not in a bad way. Meanwhile, though, the most common community dispute resolution venue is ANI, with which there is long-standing and widespread dissatisfaction.
I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. What do you think about this trend toward fewer cases? Do you have any ideas on how to improve the committee's efficiency at ARCA? What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?
What aspects of the committee's work did you find most (or least) satisfying when you were a member? Do you expect this to change much in a new term?

Question from *thing goes[edit]

Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:

Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private?
Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?

--18:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from The Rambling Man[edit]

Your contribution history (this year alone) shows you barely participate in the addition of quality content to the encyclopedia. How can we trust that you understand the machinations of the debates around the policies and behaviours of those who actively contribute to the quality content of the project?
In relation to the recent 'Arbcom case' which saw my eventual de-sysopping and active sanctions against me, would you accept a case in which dozens of individuals had been canvassed and encouraged to contribute, all of whom had been notified because they had been in conflict with the subject for one reason or another over the past decade?
I generally feel case requests should be judged on their merits. Although cases are often named after particular users, the actions by all case participants is examined. In the specific case you reference, the canvassing behaviour was noted, and sanctions were applied to the canvasser. (although not specific to that fact). I'd like to think committee members took such actions into account when reviewing evidence or statements presented by those canvassed.
Am I willing to say, "no, no matter what" to a case in which people were canvassed? No, in the same way we do not automatically shut down an AfD discussion because a link was posted on some site. The behaviour can certainly be disruptive, but to allow canvassing to halt dispute resolution seems counterproductive, aside from being trivially gamble.

Questions from Antony-22[edit]

In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
From my previous answer: Any standard of behaviour is, by its very nature, a restriction. That said, Wikipedia does not guarantee a right to freedom of speech.
Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals through formal programs in GLAM institutions, universities, and government agencies. This is perhaps causing some angst that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?
I'd welcome a more professional standard of conduct on the project.
More specifically, let's say a professional at one of these institutions complains to ArbCom that another editor is using uncivil language that violates their organizations' internal rules, and thus their engagement with Wikipedia is jeopardizing their job. What considerations would go into ArbCom resolving such a case?
That would not be a factor in my decision.
Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press in the past. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles?
From an answer to a similar question from last year: […] Wikipedia is not a vacuum; it exists in the real world, and affects real people. Its processes are complex and difficult to navigate. It can be beneficial to provide clarification.
Were a similar situation to [Gamergate] arise in the future, I think it may be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to issue a statement. I don't have concrete answers on how to improve the process; we worked hard to engage with advisors on the best way to communicate our message and yet the result was less than ideal. Part of this is due to how committees operate; it is incredibly difficult to get a dozen or so people to agree on the text of a motion at times. Creating consensus over multiple paragraphs of text in the heat of a case is hard.

Questions from Dweller[edit]

I'd like to think that a strong candidate for Arbcom would recognise that The Rambling Man's first question is just about the most important content on this entire page when demonstrating your suitability for the role. I'd like to ask: why have you chosen not to answer it yet?
It's somewhat embarassing to answer a question about whether I have time with "I haven't had time", but we're at the close of Thanksgiving in the US, and I wanted to ensure I responded thoughtfully to a question posed the day before a long holiday.
You have been inactive for large portions of 2016, including the whole of August and much of September, October and November, even during the course of this election. Why do you think Wikipedians should vote for an inactive Arbitrator?

Questions from George Ho[edit]

If a person subject to the case avoided one of the phases of the accepted ArbCom case, how would the person's avoidance or boycott affect the overall results of the case?

LFaraone questions discussion[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/LFaraone/Questions Back to Table of Contents

LFaraone general discussion[edit]

Experience in security matters[edit]

I am wondering what others think of the ways the candidate's real-life experience in software and online security would impact their role in the Arbitration Committee? Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 05:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Back to Table of Contents

Salvidrim![edit]

Last year I threw my name in the ring with specific intentions to withdraw if there ever were a sufficient number of candidates I was comfortable supporting and pledged to withdraw if that threshold was reached. It was, and I did... and then people came to me expressing disappointment in my withdrawal. So this year, I'll take part again. However, I will not commit to withdrawing if there are enough adequate candidates to fill all seats; I still might, but I might decide to stick it out through to voting as well.

Oh, and because the rules say this is required: Yes, I'm already identified to the WMF. Yes, I have signed the confidentiality agreements. Whatever alternative/humour/doppelganger accounts I have are all redirected to my main one and listed at the bottom of my userpage, but here's a list anyways: Salvidumbass!, Salvidrim, Salv, Salvid, Salvadrim, Ben Landry, Benoit Landry. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Salvidrim!

Back to Table of Contents

Salvidrim! questions[edit]

Questions

==Individual questions==

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}}

Question from PeterTheFourth[edit]

This will largely be a retread of a question I asked that went unanswered during your prior self nomination. Answering a question from Gamaliel during the 2015 Arbitration Committee Elections, you wrote that your involvement in communities such as the subreddit WikiInAction did not construe an endorsement of their words and actions. A large figure and contributor of the harassment in WikiInAction is reddit user StukaLied, with such diamonds as calling editor DD2K a "little mincing sissy" and perpetually referring to former editor MarkBernstein only as 'Reichstag' because he believes MarkBernstein is Jewish. You gave editor Starke Hathaway a 'Defender of the Wiki' award because you believed they were StukaLied. Do you not believe that giving awards to a person is an endorsement of their words and actions, and if those words and actions are primarily notable for the harassment they contain it is thus an endorsement of harassment? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I do not believe that placing a tongue-in-cheek banner on a user talk page constitutes endorsement of off-wiki harassment (are you even serious?), although of course the fact I had misread a comment and wrongly identified the Wikipedia account was a stupid goof on my part and ruined the entire sarcastic point I was trying to make. However, I do not believe that anything other than "explicit endorsement of everything someone had said or done" can be construed as "endorsement of everything they've said or done"; merely speaking or engaging with someone does not constitute endorsement of the bad things they've done; I'm on WPO, on /r/WikiInAction, I speak with Kumioko/Reguyla regularly, I'm Facebook friends with banned users, it's doesn't mean I endorse anything specific.
I also do not believe StukaLied's words and actions are "primarily notable for harassment" although it's sure as hell part of their regular modus operandi. An important point of context that you've failed to mention is the Mark was repeatedly accused of spinning trivial matters into huge point-proving arguments and perpetraing huge gestures, which is covered under the WP:REICHSTAG shortcut, which is where the first association of his name and the word were made; it was picked up and perpetuated by other parties afterwards and may or may not be targeted at the belief that Mark is Jewish, but that's speculation of someone's intention. I'm not defending nor endorsing StukaLied's, Mark's, nor anyone else's ~~harassment of~~ behaviour towards people they disagree with. However it is clear to me from Mark's actions here and elsewhere that ~~he is very inflammatory and seeks so-called "drama" actively, so before pronouncing him a victim of harassment I'd point out he dishes it out at least as much as he receives it~~ while the essence of his arguments isn't necessarily always wrong, his aggressive and sometimes inflammatory attitude makes it hard for most people to perceive him as a victim. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Gerda Arendt[edit]

What do you think about my suggestion let's stop group names? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
As with all such labelling of groups, I think people are free to describe themselves as whatever they want. I also think people are allowed to have an opinion on the description of what they perceive as a group of like-minded individuals, and whether they use terms such as "people who generally are against the inclusion of infoboxes" or labels like "infobox haters" is really just a lexical matter when the intent and meaning is the same; but if someone asks not to be described in a certain way (i.e. if you were to ask not to be described as an "infobox warrior"), it's courteous to avoid continuing calling you that. Of course, WP:NPA and all ("infobox fucktards" is never appropriate), but I wouldn't fault someone specifically for using terms such as "infobox haters" to describe others. It's not a insult, it's an opinion (it's what editor A thinks of editor B) and I have a hard time seeing it as "offensive". However, it does reveal a mentality of WP:BATTLEGROUND which itself can be a problem.
On the broader issue of "should such groups labels even exist or be perpetuaed", I think trying to categorize and label people into defined groups is an issue of human nature, one that reaches way further than infoboxes or Wikipedia itself -- just look at the whole gender binary arguments that happen everywhere.
Lastly, "what do I think of your suggestion": I think it once again demonstrates that I am correct in thinking of you as a kind soul who tries their best to brighten people's days. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from /u/NVLibrarian[edit]

Let's start over with Wikipedia's real problems. For example, membership is shrinking, and a lot of the editors who say why they're leaving cite a toxic environment with lots of hostility. (Just last week an AE admin threatened an editor who'd mentioned suicide with a site ban if he accepted an offer to talk it out.)
What do you see as your/ArbCom's role in dealing with this?
A lot of the cases at ARCA in the past month have involved appeals to AE sanctions. How 'bout that? How do you feel about AE? /u/NVLibrarian 22:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
First, I think the biggest solutions to shrinking membership don't fall with ArbCom -- outreach, and new editor retention, is mostly handled by chapters (local like WMNY or thematic like GLAM) and WMF itself. However, I do think that whenever ArbCom has to adjuciate a case, it should count amongst its chief concerns reaching a resolution that minimizes losing contributors. ArbCom also has a duty to proactively work with banned editors trying to return to the project to try and reach a point where they can be allowed to work again in some capacity. Not every banned editor is salvageable and it requires a good dose of effort and motivation from all parties but IMHO any editor who is even asking to return shows some measure of interest in the project and everything within ArbCom's power should be done to attempt to channel said energy into productive editing. This is why I have absolutely no regrets about stuff like unblocking a past sockmaster with strict conditions per WP:SO and seeing him re-banned hours afterwards -- I'd rather be proven wrong for giving someone a chance than not attempt at all. This is why I'll almost always support the return of willing banned editors (with strong conditions to re-ban if issues arise again), as well as the gradual withdrawal of active sanctions against any editor whose doing good work.
WP:AE is a flawed process but I can't honestly say I've enough experience and time to discuss it to really come up with any solution right now. I've said it before, I'm not 100% comfortable with ArbCom making decisions and letting other admins enforce them, nor am I comfortable with empowering any admin to enforce ArbCom decisions. As with many things on Wikipedia, AE is supposed to mostly work based on consensus of responders but this consensus is necessarily flawed by the limited pool of people who actually frequent the noticeboard. I don't think the workload of ArbCom necessarily prohibits the committee from also handling enforcement of the remedies it creates, but that is not a decision that we should take without first having it discussed by the community, so my personal thoughts on it don't matter that much.
Lastly, I will not directly comment on "last week's situation" you've highlighted in your parenthical, because it seems like a very serious allegation but you haven't provided the first trace of a link or diff and I have a nagging feeling that the wording of your allegation is carefully crafted to present the situation exactly how you want it to be perceived. OTOH, any threat of suicide, serious or not, needs to be immediately reported to WMF's emergency team (whom I don't necessarily trust 100% to go far enough w/r/t responding, but with limited means sometimes there's only so much that be done). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Collect[edit]

Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
Cases should be opened for conflicts the community has proved incapable of resolving by itself. Just because the community has hit a dead-end doesn't mean the Committee will have to start swinging its banhammer and any arbitrator who accepts a case after having already made up his mind to apply sanctions has failed in his duties of thoroughness and impartiality. Sometimes, just airing things out through the organized system that is an arbitration case is enough to push along resolution of some situations. And even when sanctions are deemed necessary, we should strive to impose the lesser sanction which still works, and not jump straight to throwing editors under the bus.
If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?
I think there are very few people here who are impartial -- we're a relatively familiar community and most admins have interacted with most other admins or active editors. Of course, "openly stating an aversion" is just one of the clearer forms of evidence of impartiality. But everybody's got an opinion on everybody else and I don't necessarily see anything wrong or anormal with that.
a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?
Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
a. Yes, editors remain volunteers who all lead real lives who should be more important than an online encyclopedia. Unless there is evidence of a pattern of avoidance of ArbCom cases, an editor going away (on a trip or just on wikiretirement) makes it useless to hold a case -- ArbCom cases held in secret or in absentia is something ArbCom is recurrently criticized on. Just put the case on hold, and when the user starts editing again (a week, month or year later) then start the case then and there.
b. I've stated in the past my discomfort with hard word limits: "I understand that some people need structure, but I would much rather allow more words but require that longer details and diffs be collapsed under a clear summary, to allow both fast reading of the overall points and an in-depth analysis of all the details and diffs, without taking too much spatial real estate." That being said, assuming we continue with word limits for the time being, of course case subjects should be allowed to say more than evidence-presenters.
c. This is a procedural point that merits discussion. I'm of two minds -- I'd like to allow a case party to respond to all accusations (even if the "clock" is expired), but I foresee the potential for such leeway to be gamed and argues upon endlessly so I'm not certain what exactly should be done.
d. Arbitrators should be allowed, and even encouraged, to investigate things themselves and not rely solely on the evidence presented by participants!!! And if the Arbs think they find some evidence that is relevant to the case, of course they should present it. This isn't court and Arbs aren't judges -- this is arbitration and conflict-resolution. I'd much rather see an Arb present evidence on a case where they're active than see a case adjuciated based solely on the evidence presented which may present an inherent bias (negative evidence is naturally predominant). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Biblioworm[edit]

Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:
- Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
- Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:
Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.

Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).
- Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
- Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
- Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.
Do you support these measures, and would you work to implement them if elected? If you do not support all of them, please specify which ones you do support.

Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course, ArbCom's primary mandate should be to assist in resolving conflicts within the community where the community itself has proven unable to find resolution by itself. Stuff like CU-OS appointments could be handled by either bureaucrats or stewards. Appointments are already currently performed by Stewards upon ArbCom's recommendations, and I don't think shifting this from ArbCom fro Bureaucrats would be controversial, really. Reviewing functionary issues (block appeals, allegations of misuses, etc.) is already performed on the Functionary mailing list, and because individual Arbitrators are functionaries by definition, they're more than welcome to get involved, but I don't see it specifically as an ArbCom direct responsbility. If block appeals prove unsuccessful after the normal process (on-wiki > UTRS > functionaies), then I still think ArbCom has a crucial role to play as the "last resort" for appeals of indef-blocked users de facto banned by their failed appeals to the community.
OTOH, WMF should always be the eventual handler of legal issues, privacy policy-related issues, and off-wiki harassement, etc. Although I don't personally think WMF always does a very good job at it. ArbCom's scope should remain limited to English Wikipedia. Of course, if a Wikipedia editor is proven to be engaged in off-wiki harassment (for example), ArbCom and/or the community can impose a well-justified ban of the user on English Wikipedia, but that's the extent of it, and stuff that goes beyond our project should always be referred to WMF.

On streamlining:
I'd be careful not to limit the process by trying to make it work in a one-size-fits-all format like "must be worded like a question", etc. but I do think ensuring a better focus on what issues we are attempting to resolve will avoid losing ourselves and the community in sprawling chaotic cases. Structure is important but a balance must be struck between structure and flexibility.
Limiting comments for non-parties and uninvolved editors -- yes, yes, yes. This wraps back around to my earlier point that case parties should have more space (visual or word-wise) as they are the core of the issues we are trying to solve. Outside input can be good but should never overwhelm the voice of the those involved in the issue. Perhaps collapses, perhaps a sub-page, perhaps some other solution, I don't know, but the idea is certainly one I support.

I've said it in earlier answers as well, but ArbCom (and admins in general) should always strive to impose the minimal sanction that still works, i.e. if a TBAN or IBAN can work, don't jump to a full ban. This is well-supported in Wikipedia's core pillars -- which also means we don't respond to IP vandalism with full-article-protection. Plus, I'm known to always AGF some WP:ROPE, so any TBAN can include a provision that it becomes a full-ban upon violation (immediately, or after escalation blocks, or whatever depending on the case)

I've also talked above about my uneasiness with AE and empowering any admin to perform basically unrevertable actions, and I don't think a one-week minimum solves any of the issues I've outlined in my response to NVLibrarian above.

Sure, I'd love to see the community introduce motions! Perhaps for a motion to require ArbCom to vote on in may need some general community support first though... I'm thinking maybe that by having it discussed on WP:AN first it may be refined and agreed upon. That being said, I'm not sure if any special rule or system really needs to be put in place -- if there is consensus on AN that a specific motion needs to be voted on by ArbCom, I think it'd be unreasonable for ArbCom to decline altogether, because after all we are meant to help enforce the community's will (and the policies they make). But clarifying that we have to respond to such AN-backed motions can't hurt and I'd be disappointed if there is pushback against the idea from Arbitrators.

Question from Mark Arsten[edit]

Hi Salvidrim, thanks for running for Arbcom. My questions are about account security.
What are your thoughts on the handling of the recent incident in which several administrator accounts were compromised? Do you think that technical or policy changes need to be made as a result? Also, are you confident in the security of your e-mail and Wikipedia accounts?
Remember last year when my account and another admin's were accessed by a third party, and nothing happened (some talk, at best)? And this year it happened again first to Jimbo and Legoktm, the 2FA becomes a thing overnight? Anyways circumstances differ -- mine and OhanaUnited were just cross-referencing of passwords in leaked lists while this year seems to be actual password cracking. 2FA is an absolutely essential part of security and I think it's about damn time it becomes available here. There's a reason the principles of 2FA (something you know + something you have) have been applied by banks for decades (NIP + card). I guess I'd prefer if Wikimedia offered 2FA "in-house" like FB or Steam does instead of relying on third party TOTP clients, but the current system is still far better than no 2FA at all. I think 2FA should be available to all users but should be mandatory for at least CUs, Stewards, WMF staff and everyone else who could access user's private data. Of course, the moment it became available, I activated it, so yes I'm fairly confident about the security of my Wikimedia account (while recognizing that no system is impenetrable). As for my e-mail: it's using the most secure password I could ever possibly come up with, it's got 2FA, it's got identity verification (Microsoft Authenticator app), it's got security alerts, it's got every security feature that was available to me. People often underestimate how critically important your e-mail account is -- if someone breaks into your e-mail, it's game over, they can get to practically everything else through password resets. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite[edit]

Thanks for running. This year's ArbCom took very few cases and seems to have kept to deadlines more expeditiously. I think most everyone can agree that this was for the good. What do you think was the biggest mistake made by ArbCom in 2016? What letter grade (A to F) would you give their performance? What could they do better?
I'm not going to assign an arbitrary grade. It's not helpful. Grading in general isn't helpful, IMO, and is especially unhelpful in contexts where you're attempting to grade judgement as opposed to, say, an academic test with absolute right ad wrong answers. Arguing over the differences between an A- and a B+ is losing ourselves in trivialities -- which is specifically one thing ArbCom should avoid. Less process-wanking, more problem-solving.

As for "mistake", without singling out one specific event or vote, I think a general failing of past commitees is the apparent lack of proactivity in responding and working with willing banned editors attempting to return to editing. Dissmissal is a lot easier than rehabilitation. Of course, I'm talking about "apparent" lack because it's difficult to speak for certain about what really happened internally behind ArbCom's closed doors. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you read or post at Wikipediocracy? What is your opinion about this off-wiki criticism site? Do you feel it is a malicious venue for harassment or a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems or something in between these extremes?
You already know the answer to the first question: I may read more than I post, but I do hang around WPO. I've expounded my thoughts last year already, but I hang around WPO for the same reason I hang around Wiki-related subreddits and FB groups, read Strelnikov and Mark Bernstein's blogs, follow Mark and Lightbreather and others on Twitter, am FB friends with a few banned users like T13 and Niemti, converse over IRC/discord with many editors (including Reguyla) -- I think it's important to listen to a variety of voices and thoughts, even those you disagree with. Being involved in an off-wiki venue that sometimes does bad (harassment, doxxing, etc.) and sometimes does good (criticism, pointing out errors, etc.) shouldn't be construed as wholesale endorsement of every thing that goes on, but merely reflects my own openness to dissenting opinions.
Just recently, in addition to responding to comments on the reddit thread about this election (I've even ported and responded to one question here that came from this thread), I've also had a somewhat heated Twitter exchange with Mark over my answer to PeterTheFourth's question above, which lead to him making a blogpost about me (with me publicly commenting on said blogpost). Do I agree with everything Mark or redditors have said or done just because I engage them in discussion? Do I endorse their words or actions because I don't reject interaction? Am I an inherently bad person for even deigning to acknowledge their right to a voice and an opinion? No, no, and no. And I believe that openness to dialogue is appreciated by many people (1, 2, and so on), and I intend to continue listening and engaging with people on all possible venues. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Leaky[edit]

Last year you withdrew for reasons stated. This year you appear to be vacillating again: "So this year, I'll take part again. However, I will not commit to withdrawing if there are enough adequate candidates to fill all seats; I still might, but I might decide to stick it out through to voting as well." Now that you're here, convince us you will stick around and not "recuse" if you don't fancy a particular case.
Don't worry: I don't particularly WANT the position, but if there isn't a withdrawal before voting starts it means a strong, unwavering and informed commitment of my time and effort for the coming term if elected, without reserve.
But unlike last year, this year's slate of candidates is made up entirely of good and great candidates, so there is little worry that a "bad apple" might slip through. All current candidates right now would probably earn my support vote. I'm reading carefully and thoroughly their answers to questions to see whether I'm 100% comfortable with any seven of them taking ArbCom seats or if I would be more at ease taking on the duties of a seat myself. I've never ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Opabinia[edit]

Case load is way down. Email volume is holding steady, but is still way down from its peak. ARCA requests are up slightly, but not too bad. Attention to this election is down compared to last year. We're slowly becoming irrelevant, and not in a bad way. Meanwhile, though, the most common community dispute resolution venue is ANI, with which there is long-standing and widespread dissatisfaction.
I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. What do you think about this trend toward fewer cases? Do you have any ideas on how to improve the committee's efficiency at ARCA? What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?
I think it's the committee's role to "help at ANI". I think the community's right and duty to self-manage and self-police means the community should decide how to handle ANI. I see the slow obsoletion of ArbCom not as a failing of the committee but as a success of the community to handle more and more of their own issues without needing referral to ArbCom for adjuciation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
What aspects of the committee's work do you expect to find most (or least) satisfying?
I don't do this for my satisfaction. I don't expect that there is any satisfaction to be derived from delving and crawling in the stinkiest shit Wikipedia sees. But someone's gotta clean the bathroom, and if people think it can be a helpful investment of my time, then I'll invest my time there. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
A similar question was asked by Worm That Turned last year, and I think it's a good one for those new to the committee. There's a long history of arbitrators being targeted by trolls and harassers, sometimes escalating to the point of outing, off-site abuse, and even interfering with arbitrators' real lives. Are you prepared for these possibilities?
Sure. I don't care. Bring it. :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Rschen7754[edit]

Many recent controversies have involved the public connection, onwiki or offwiki, of a person's real-life identity to their onwiki identity. (For example, many conflict of interest discussions hinge upon this). When do you believe that it is appropriate to make this connection and/or to discuss an editor's real identity, in both types of venues? Rs chen 7754 04:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I decline to answer this question in detail because my own thoughts on this are almost polar opposites to what the community has decided should stand as rules, and I will strive to do my best if elected to ArbCom to respect and enforce the position of the community and not inject my own infamous opinions on transparency and privacy into the arbitration process. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave a note here because I ended up addressing this topic after all in my responses to Doc James and GW, so you can read these. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from GorillaWarfare[edit]

Though much of the Arbitration Committee's past responsibilities regarding WP:CHILDPROTECT have been transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation, there remain cases where the Arbitration Committee (and occasionally oversighters) must make decisions and judgment calls surrounding child protection concerns or editors who are quite young. On Reddit, you have been very open about some things you've done in the past:

Animal cruelty. I drowned a bird in the pool by holding it down until it stopped moving after it landed on the side of the pool. I was 7.
I also coerced a neighbour kid into touching each other's willies (we were both 9) under the threat of violence. It was a one-time thing and we remained buddies afterwards and never spoke of it nor did anything of the sort ever happen again.
Also a ton of food theft from whatever (food) my parents tried to stash out of my reach although that's hardly "criminal" per se.
(edit: sp)
Source: your comment on "What's the worst crime you ever commited before you turned ten?"

Do you feel you can be trusted with these responsibilities given your (in my opinion) unapologetic discussion of your past actions? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for digging through my Reddit comment history (sorry for how uninteresting most of it probably is :p)
I don't feel any of the volunteers on current or past ArbComs are qualified to handled matters of child protection, and I certainly don't hold myself in any higher regard. I strongly wish that real qualified experts from the WMF would be responsive and responsible for the entirety of these issues. Misbehaviour as a child hardly makes me uniquer amongst Wikimedians and I don't hold the belief that anyone's behaviour as a child defines the rest of their lives. I've always advocated transparency and will continue do so, leading by example -- I don't shy away from my flaws or past experiences. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You also commented in that Reddit thread:

I heard animal cruelty and sexual misbehaviour in youth are on the infamous "psychopathy checklist". In fact, I tick most boxes on most versions of said checklists. I also fit neatly in the common definitions of both the "narcissism" and "ISTJ" boxes. Trying to categorize human psyche is stupid.
This reads like a biography to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace :p
Source: your comment on "What's the worst crime you ever commited before you turned ten?"

Given the Psychopathy in the workplace#Behavioural patterns section of that article in particular, how do you expect to work successfully with your arbitrator colleagues given that you identify these behaviors in yourself? How will your presence improve the Arbitration Committee as a whole, particularly given "Examples of detrimental effects are increased bullying, conflict, stress, staff turnover and absenteeism; reduction in productivity and social responsibility."? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't pretend to be an expert in either psychology nor the human mind's inner workings (mine or otherwise). Saying that this article "read like a biography" was quite an exaggeration made in a Reddit thread and probably shouldn't be taken as a literal confession -- like many online commenters, I'm prone to making high-impact statements on Reddit that surpass reality a bit (come on, it's reddit); sometimes my longing to appear as a rebellious devil-may-care badass leads me to embellish my boring reality a bit (which is, I'll admit, somewhat narcissistic). In my workplace I work extremely well with my colleagues, going above and beyond expectations despite being little more than a paperwork and aftersale guy. Looking specifically at Psychopathy in the workplace#Behavioural patterns, none of the bullet points are traits I really associate with myself, perhaps except the absence of regret -- I do my best never to regret past actions; mistakes can be acknowledged, learnt from and corrected, but regret itself seems counter-productive to me, as opposed to correction and moving on. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a follow-up question to part 1 of your answer to Doc James' question, though his concerns are more to do with paid editing, and mine are to do with privacy (and not meant to be considered in the context of paid editing, though of course feel free to comment on that if you wish). There are some very black-and-white situations where I understand your stance: for example, someone (I think in good faith) once made an on-wiki link to my Twitter account where I was discussing Wikipedia matters and had identified myself as GorillaWarfare, but they could have been accused of outing under our harassment policy as I had not made the link on Wikipedia to my Twitter account. This would have been silly (though I suppose there was the possibility the Twitter account was impersonation), and I wound up posting somewhere onwiki to make the link myself so that the person would not be unfairly, though technically correctly, accused of outing.

However, there are more nuanced situations involving publicly available information that I'd like to hear your opinions on. I hear your point below, where you say you will follow the community's policies even if they are at odds with your own opinions. I'm asking for your own opinions on these situations, not how you would enforce them according to current policy.

a. Some people accidentally make links that could uncover quite a bit of information about them. This can come in many forms. A few, though hardly all, possibilities: reusing unique usernames across multiple platforms, publicly linking to another account that that they did not realize could be connected with accounts they did not intend to link, forgetting about old accounts that reuse usernames/email addresses/etc. and contain more identifying information than they wish to reveal onwiki, uploading images with revealing Exif data, or having their email addresses connected to other usernames in account information dumps that were published publicly. Is this fair game? If not, where do you draw the line?

b. When using publicly available information as you have described, how would you account for the risk that someone is creating fake accounts using an editor's information to try to incriminate said editor?

c. What are your opinions on publicly-available information that is revealed by someone other than the editor in question? I can give two personal examples: When I was doxxed a number of years ago, a fair amount of information (including photos of myself and family members) was pulled from a relative's Facebook account. Despite my attempts to secure my own accounts on any and all websites I could think of, my relative did not have strict privacy settings and therefore a lot of personal information about myself and my family was revealed. Second, a friend of mine with a public Instagram account once posted a photograph of a sunset from my apartment window, geotagging me and mentioning my Instagram username, which I reuse elsewhere. Although my Instagram is private, someone could feasibly have found my username mentioned in my friend's public account, seen the geotag, and discovered fairly exactly where I live.GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What I call "sleuthing" involves mostly, as you've said, comparing usernames and e-mails, checking WHOIS information and some geolocalisation. However, anything that isn't confirmed by the user themselves can only be used to make guesses and assumptions; it could always be joe jobs. However, SPI is almost entirely made up of such assumptions based on similar usernames, recurrent use of certain speech patterns and other behavioural cues, and yet nobody bats an eye on that sleuthing.

And in the era we live in, I don't think anybody can be accused of misdeed simply for collating publicly available information, whether it's Instagram geotags, business registries, court records or Facebook relationships. If relatives published public photos of you without your consent, I don't see how someone pointing it out suddenly makes it ArbCom's business; you might have grounds for asking FB to take it down or even sue the user who uploaded the photo, but ArbCom doesn't have control over Facebook photo uploads and shouldn't be called to action because someone pointed out some public picture, or someone uploaded a publicly geotagged picture inside your home. What is done with the collected information can very easily veer into the territory of harassment and that should be dealt with as such, of course, as was the intent in your doxxing case. While I don't really see many ways that the publishing of collected public data like in your case could be for any purpose other than harassement, it is the harassment I take exception to, not the data collection itself, and that nuance is an important one to make especially in the context of deciding whether investigating paid editing cases is a violation of WP:OUTING.

This is my opinion, and I don't shy away from my history of anti-privacy advocacy (don't have secrets and they can't be weaponized against you). Internet users must be responsible for the privacy settings they choose for their own accounts and must be conscious about the impact of what they post on them and their friends, this is one of the biggest challenges of the spread of social media, conscientizing and responsibilizing. But that's what I think and what I'd argue on a personal basis -- as an Arbitrator my own views matter little, and what is truly important is the community's decision on what WP:OUTING allows and disallows, and ArbCom must adjuciate based on the community's wishes, not based on individual arbitrator's own beliefs and ideologies. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Follow-up to question 3, I guess, since you say "I don't really see many ways that the publishing of collected public data like in your case could be for any purpose other than harassement": What if I were the same exact editor I am now, but add on the hypothetical situation where some people believe that I am operating an account on a freelancing website with the username "GorillaWarfare" which writes articles on companies for some fee. This freelance account uses a photo of me that looks like the person in the photo on my userpage, claims to operate some named Wikipedia account that is fairly competent at creating articles about businesses and maybe even writes kind of like me, and claims that they operate a private Instagram account with the same username as I use on Twitter. Since I (User:GorillaWarfare, not this hypothetical freelancer) publicly state that I live in Boston and have linked to my Twitter account that shares the same name as this Instagram account, in your anti-privacy opinion would it be okay for someone to post this friend's public geotagged photo mentioning the private Instagram account onwiki as an attempt to identify my paid editing in violation of the ToU? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from *thing goes[edit]

Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:
1. Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private?
2. Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?
--18:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"Sufficiently" secure is a matter of opinion -- what is "sufficiently" secure for someone might not be for someone else, and nothing is perfectly secure. Any ArbCom e-mail is only ever as secure as Gmail/Hotmail/whatever arbitrators use and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the mailing list archives are even easier to breach. If someone really wants to get into your e-mail, or ArbCom's, they'll probably be able to; I don't pretend to be an expert in encryption matters but I have enough common sense not to be lulled into a false sense of security, everything's hackable. The best we do can is make sure is to make it as hard as possible for non-expert hackers by enabling 2FA and having a strong password, which every Arb (at least) should have on their e-mail... but you "verify" that? The only real way for it to be really controllable would be to host e-mails for functionaries (including Arbs) on WMF servers but I don't think this'll ever happen. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from The Rambling Man[edit]

In relation to the recent 'Arbcom case' which saw my eventual de-sysopping and active sanctions against me, would you accept a case in which dozens of individuals had been canvassed and encouraged to contribute, all of whom had been notified because they had been in conflict with the subject for one reason or another over the past decade?
About your specific case: obviously something was going wrong but I don't think accepting the case "as is" was the best decision. Specifically, I think I'd side mostly with DQ's point -- decline a TRM case (perhaps while alternatively proposing a motion for a TRM<>George Ho IBAN) while specifically allow a new filing for "Interactions at DYK/ITN". OTOH, while several Arbitrators mentioned avoiding "double jeopardy" for stuff you were already evaluated on in the Jan. 2016 case, there had been some continued "incivility" (FoF#5) after a warning that further invincibility would lead to sanctions. Because of this prior warning, it is understable that ArbCom would feel it was bound to examine the post-Jan.2016 evidence and take action on it (or risk rendering the prior warning void of meaning).

About the broader issue of canvassing, it's difficult to strike a balance between "inviting comments from the broader community" and "disallowing canvassed comments". Perhaps a solution might be not to allow parties to canvass other users but instead they should request to the clerks that so-and-so be poked towards the case and the clerks can decide whether to post something or not, as well as how to word it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Antony-22[edit]

In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
The line between incivility and harassment is one of the thickest, greyest areas of our age. In general, I tend to think of "being rude" without specifically targetting someone (ex. "ANI is a fucking cesspool of shit-slinging") isn't very cordial but well-within anybody's right to criticize and the choice to use vulgarity instead of flowery language isn't an issue in my eyes. As for commenitng specifically about someone, again in general, I'd draw the line between comments on someone's words or actions and comments about who someone is (ex. I can say you're acting like an asshole but not that you're a retard). Of course, it's hard to make generalizations: even the smallest of comments can inscribe itself into a larger pattern of harassment, and even the vilest of insults doesn't necessarily lead to sanctions. Every word is said in a larger context. As for myself, as many have noted in their voter guides, I can be blunt and sometimes rude/vulgar (which can be considered incivil), but that's a far step from even coming close to harassment. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals through formal programs in GLAM institutions, universities, and government agencies. This is perhaps causing some angst that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?
There shouldn't be "different standards of conduct" on Wikipedia. Professionals should be encourages to contribute and I highly value expert contributions but there is no reason that any single editor should be held to different rules. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
More specifically, let's say a professional at one of these institutions complains to ArbCom that another editor is using uncivil language that violates their organizations' internal rules, and thus their engagement with Wikipedia is jeopardizing their job. What considerations would go into ArbCom resolving such a case?
None, the internal rules of the professional's organization is not something English Wikipedia should have to "take care of" in any way; every volunteer should be held to the same standard on-wiki. If your real life prevents you in some way from contributing to Wikipedia (family, health, work, school, whatever), then step away -- your real life should always be a higher priority than contributing to an online project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press in the past. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles?
Nobody has a "responsibility" in correcting journalists when they publish inaccuracies about Wikipedia, except for their editor-in-chief. Shit coverage of Wikipedia in media happens daily and will continue happening. ArbCom publishing what they did to "clarify" the situation surrounding the GG-proposed-decision was not a good move, especially so because the whole GG thing claimed to be related to issues in journalism and in Wikipedia bias. On the other hand, any editor is welcome to e-mail the editors of any media venue that publishes inaccuracies about Wikipedia, but ArbCom as a body shouldn't. At best, if there is ever a compelling reason to, a clerk or arbitrator in their own name could post some clarifications. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from User:Doc James[edit]

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
My personal thoughts are two-fold:

1) I've long been an anti-privacy advocate (preaching by example at http://salvidrim.net) and as such, I've never been particularly opposed to "sleuthing" and collecting publicly available data in other to identify who's-who. Doxxing by hacking, social engineering and other such underhanded means is a big step farther than what I'm willing to endorse, however. For these reasons, I find that connecting the real-life identity of a Wikipedia editor with their account is a much less abhorrent and repulsive thing to do than many other people in the community. I'm not proposing anything specific w/r/t Wikipedia but I wish the general pulse of Internet users tended more towards transparency than privacy.

2) OTOH, I've never had any opposition to "paid editing" in and of itself (disclosed or not), as long as it respects other content rules such as NPOV, promotion, copyright et al. An experienced editor offering to contract their services against payment should IMO be encouraged and not vilified, as long as they are mindful of the rules. Most of these "contractual" editors actually produce higher quality content than most people trying to edit about themselves or their own business.

I fully recognize that these are somewhat at odds with the policies and rules the community has set in place for itself, though, and if called to adjudicate on the topic as an Arbitrator I would hold the community's will far above my own. But if I were to get involved as a community member in discussion and consultation about the topic of paid editing, the above points would sum up the essential of my thoughts and what argents I'd present.

As for the ToU, it's a policy like any other page in Category:Wikipedia legal policies. ArbCom's role, amongst other things, is to make sure the community-defined (and WMF-defined) policies are respected over the course and as a result of dispute adjuciation. Daily enforcement of policy is within the hands of admins (whether they are also functionaries or not) but when said enforcement of policy becomes a dispute that the community is incapable of resolving, ArbCom may be called to adjuciate on the proper enforcement and application of said policies. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Panyd[edit]

You have stated that you believe it isn't inappropriate to use 'flowery language' in discussions on Wikipedia. I see two issues with this that I would very much like feedback on. The first is that this language has been shown to deter new editors from engaging with the encyclopedia. It has also previously been given as one of the main reasons women don't edit. If you are deciding whether or not another user was behaving inappropriately towards another, would you take this into account? Secondly, my personal feelings on the appropriateness of COI/paid editing aside, you stated above Professionals should be encourages to contribute and I highly value expert contributions but there is no reason that any single editor should be held to different rules. and An experienced editor offering to contract their services against payment should IMO be encouraged and not vilified, as long as they are mindful of the rules - I hope we can all agree that we shouldn't change any rules to accommodate these users, but if 'fuck' and 'asshole' are perfectly acceptable terms when used by volunteers, but completely out of the question for any editor who is attached to a professional body (including GLAM) - how would you suggest heated exchanges be dealt with when one party is being subjected to this, but has no recourse to do so much as reply in kind? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If you were deciding whether or not another user was behaving inappropriately towards another editor, would you take (language) into account? – Absolutely. While I make the argument that using "flowery language" as you say does not by itself constitute a problem, it can certainly inscribe itself into a larger pattern of harassment. In fact, literally everything can be used as a form of harassment with enough malice and ill intent. What matters is the broader context, not the individual words and actions. How would you suggest heated exchanges (between unaffiliated volunteers and those held to higher professional standards such as GLAM) be dealth with? (Paraphrasing mine) – If it's just the level of a language, then I suppose it can be dealt with the same way as any other interaction where one party can swear and the other not (such as customer service, etc.); as long as the free-mouthed party's swearing doesn't turn into directed insults (and doesn't inscribe itself into a larger pattern of harassment), I don't think there are any intrisic issues with it and the other party can simply keep responding at their chosen (or imposed) higher level of language. Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Salvidrim! questions discussion[edit]

Format[edit]

@GorillaWarfare: the {{quote box}}es are breaking the ArbCom-question templates (which are fragile to begin with). Mind if I replace them with line returns and in-line {{tq}} quotes? I won't alter the content, just the format. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to review my formatting revision to make sure the result still appropriately reflects the intention of the questions. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Back to Table of Contents

Salvidrim! general discussion[edit]

Layout/format issue[edit]

I can't figure out why a "1." shows up to the left of the box with my answer to Biblioworm, it doesn't for the others. If someone can fix that I'd be very thankful.... pinging Mike V or JJMC89 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: I've fixed it. There were missing #'s. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to recall seeing the issue before that and trying to remove said # but I must've been the one who broke it in the first place. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Question followup[edit]

Thanks for your honesty with your answers, though I admit I am concerned with your "longing to appear as a rebellious devil-may-care badass" and how that might affect your judgment as an arbitrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Every guy wants to be James Dean or Indiana Jonnes or Han Solo at some point. Everybody tries to be cool, especially on places like Reddit or with co-workers around the water cooler. It doesn't change how one is when working seriously, for example either at my day job or on Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Back to Table of Contents

Mkdw[edit]

I never imagined I would ever put myself up as a candidate for ArbCom.

For those of you who do not know me, which I expect to be almost everyone, I am Mkdw. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006; just over ten years. Saying that sounds even more strange to me than the notion of being an ArbCom candidate. I have been an administrator since 2013 and have access to the OTRS and UTRS. I spend the majority of my time doing small background tasks such as working at SPI, AFD, and AIV in addition to OTRS and UTRS. Lately I've spent a lot of my time investigating SPI cases where COI and PAID are contributing factors. I also make myself available on IRC in the en-help channel.

In terms of article writing, I do a lot less of it than I would like. I have contributed in a major way to three FAs, four GAs, and eight DYKs. A lot of these contributions were apart of the Gender Gap Task Force, Art+Feminism, and Wikipedia Asian Month (as part of Women in Red/Asian Women Month). I became interested in pro-feminism through my work in international transracial adoption. At the time it was also a controversial topic here on the English Wikipedia and I wanted to volunteer my time to expanding the content in those areas.

In my work, I am frequently required to thoroughly review sensitive and confidential information in sometimes complex and lengthy processes. I fully understand the importance in objectively reviewing cases and making decisions even if they are in conflict with my own personal and moral convictions. I feel that I have a stable work-life and personal-wikipedia balance. While I am not as prolific an editor as other candidates in the past (and hopefully more candidates forthcoming), I do think that this aspect may help me avoid ArbCom burn out. So if appointed, I would strive to bring a calm and patient presence to the table.

As a note, I am currently travelling which I do so frequently on business. This trip is quite a long one and I will be back on 17 December 2016. I will have access to the Internet and plan to check Wikipedia regularly but there will be periods of time where I will not be able to respond as quickly. I meet the eligibility criteria; I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data; and my alternate accounts are User:Mkdw Bot and User:Mkdw VF. (Please note User:Mkdwyer99 is not associated with me)

Extended statement and concerns about the low number of candidates (at the time of this statement).

Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Mkdw

Back to Table of Contents

Mkdw questions[edit]

Questions

==Individual questions==

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}}

Question from Rschen7754[edit]

Your candidacy in WP:CUOS2016 was not successful. Do you believe that this has any effect on your candidacy or your ability to be an arbitrator? Rs chen 7754 19:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC) For what it's worth, I ran for steward in a similar circumstance and was successful, so I do not see this as an automatic disqualifier).
I knew going into CUOS2016 that they were specifically looking for oversighters "available to handle oversight requests between 03:00 and 12:00 UTC". I disclosed early on to the functionaries that my typical editing hours only partially coincide with that time range. Admittedly, I was concerned about the optics of being an unsuccessful candidate. In particular because no one had opposed my candidacy publicly and I was worried there may have been a private concern brought up. I wrote to Opabinia regalis and requested a feedback summary and asked her if I could post it publicly if it ever came up. Here is the feedback summary I received:

"As suggested by some of the public comments by functionaries when we announced this round, the need for new oversighters, especially in well-staffed time zones, was not acute this year, so some members of the committee felt it best to be conservative bringing new people on board as oversighters. However, everyone felt positive about your admin work - and specifically, there were no concerns raised related to the SPI clerk training you described in your questionnaire - and you'd be encouraged to apply again in a future round."

So with that in mind, especially with the note about being encouraged to apply again in the future, I felt I could put myself forward without restraint for other things. Opabinia regalis did bring up a good point that unlike RFA where new admins are almost always needed, functionary appointments are more driven by need. ArbCom elections came along and I felt I could proceed with no affect on my ability to be a candidate or an arbitrator.

Questions from Collect[edit]

Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
No. I see sanctions as being the absolute last attempt at a solution. While ArbCom is a last resort step in dispute resolution, sanctions are the last resort measure in the arbitration process. ArbCom cases can be long and complex. A lot can happen between the time the case is initiated to the time arbitrators are expected to vote on proposals. Everything should be decided on a case-by-case basis and sanctions imposed only if there are no other real options available. I'm in favour of the least amount of intervention as I believe the community will always be the most important and central aspect of Wikipedia, including its governance. It is with the community that all the most important decisions should be made and enacted upon. ArbCom should only be there to resolve parts of a dispute that are at an impasse to allow the community to move forward and resolve the issue as a whole.
If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?
WP:INVOLVED is one of our most important policies when it comes to administrative conduct. Again, I believe context is important. Every interaction builds a history between two editors. If the comment was initially made during an editorial dispute or situation where no administrative action was taken (including warnings), then I would take that into consideration when evaluating the history between these two individuals. On the other hand, if the comment was initially made as part of an administrative action or warning such as a reprimand against an editor for socking or creating attack pages, then I would be less likely to question whether the administrator could make a fair and impartial decision. No matter what, there is the potential for an administrator to have too much history with another editor even when it has only been administrative in nature. I have yet to see a situation that must be resolved by a single administrator. This is why I often seek a second opinion or will not decline a third unblock request even if they're identical in nature. There is enough redundancy in the system where this issue should not be as common of a problem as it is now.
a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?
A) As someone who travels frequently, in fact I'm travelling right now, I would be willing to postpone the case if the individual was outside of their point of origin. The tolerance for delays would be finite especially in a situation whereby multiple editors are involved and the problems continue to persist and disrupt the project even with the absence of the individual who is away. I would also limit or end the postponement if it was seemingly being done to intentionally draw out or delay the process.

B) Yes, I believe everyone should have the opportunity to defend themselves. Additional space should be able to be afforded on a case-by-case basis to ensure its not being abused.

C) At some point in time the process does need to end otherwise cases could potentially last forever. I would be open to the notion with restrictions and based upon the implications and importance of the new evidence brought forth. In very least, I'd be willing to allow a short comment or statement before proceeding.

D) On this one I am conflicted. I absolutely believe that arbitrators should investigate and review a case beyond the evidence presented. Anything they do find they should be openly disclose to the case unless it would breach privacy. That being said, I would not want for this to distract them from their ultimate roles as arbitrators by suddenly becoming the driving force behind prosecuting someone. In that regard I would want to see some restraint. I don't believe this is anything like a courtroom but there is a practical reason in any form of dispute resolution to ensure there is a separation between the arbitrators and the other involved parties.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Biblioworm[edit]

Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:
- Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
- Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:
Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.

Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).
- Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
- Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
- Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.
Do you support these measures, and would you work to implement them if elected? If you do not support all of them, please specify which ones you do support.

Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 21:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A) I would feel very uncomfortable about ArbCom making any decisions that had legal implications or consequences. This is absolutely where the WMF legal department should come into the picture. I am not in favour of the WMF having too much involvement in community 'governance' on a day-to-day level but I do think they can better support the community by providing guidance, resources, access to advisors, and other means to help the community handle difficult situations. Invariable there will be times where the problem is beyond the scope and means of ArbCom and I would like to see those cases dealt with by the WMF but with more transparency when possible. In the not-for-profit sector and tech industry, harassment and privacy matters are often handled by inexperienced or unqualified professionals. In many cases they are handled by the communications (or more ideally an HR) department, but frequently their mandate is the protection of the organization and its interests against exposure and liability rather than the care and protection of the individual. I think this is not just an issue for ArbCom but the community as a whole to petition the WMF that this issue is a priority and more should be allocated towards it.

B1) I've never sat on ArbCom so it is difficult for me to say whether this change would be possible or not. I think it would be very challenging to even identify all the issues until well into a case. I would not want to see a solution be excluded because it was not identified and included in the restrictions placed at the beginning of a case. If we're going to emphasize allowing editors a chance to fairly defend themselves, then we need to keep an open mind about the case and allow for any number of outcomes. I certainly agree that structure is important and more can be done to keep cases on track and within better guidelines.

B2) ArbCom cases have become an increasingly popular venue to attack other editors and soapbox beyond the scope of the case. I absolutely agree things need to be done to reduce and discourage that type of engagement/behaviour. I'm not exactly sure how that can be done; whether it is done through clerking or allowing those discussions to occur on subpages. I don't know if I would liken this problem with ArbCom to the legal judicial system because even in courtroom hearings the process sometimes still allows testimonial from character witnesses, expert witnesses, eye-witnesses, victim impact statements, along with presentation of the evidence. Likewise there is cross-examination and presentation of evidence by the defense with all the same measures. Additionally, judges and grand juries have very clear instructions and work within highly restrictive legal codes to guide them through the process. Additionally, courtroom proceedings are scaled down to a prosecution/plaintiff and the defense. ArbCom cases often handle multiple individuals representing multiple points of view and all seeking different outcomes. ArbCom is a dispute resolution mechanism that has the power to enforce already existing measures but to also create new sanctions (the equivalent of creating new laws).

C) As discussed above, if ArbCom is the last resort measure to dispute resolution; sanctions are the last resort measure in an ArbCom case; then for me, sitebans are the absolute last called upon resolution in a case. I have very little interest in seeing well meaning editors who are clearly here to improve the encyclopedia be shown the door over a surmountable problem.

D) I have no issue in allowing AE requests to remain open for a period of time. In fact, I think AE reform could use some work. I would be concerned about the damage that could be done while waiting for the AE request to be handled. I would want to see supplementary provisions introduced that allow admins to issue temporary preventative measures, if the situation requires it, until the AE request is closed. At some point we also need to trust our admins. I would like to see a balance between time and efficiency.

E) I'm open to allowing motions to be submitted by the community. I could see the process becoming easily overwhelmed but something like a petition process being implemented where the ones that surpass a certain criteria are moved forward as motions could be very appealing. I've always viewed ArbCom as serving at the request of the community and there should always be a process in place to allow the community a voice.

Question from Mark Arsten[edit]

Hi Mkdw, thanks for running for Arbcom. My questions are about account security.
What are your thoughts on the handling of the recent incident in which several administrator accounts were compromised? Do you think that technical or policy changes need to be made as a result? Also, are you confident in the security of your e-mail and Wikipedia accounts?
It seemed very chaotic to me. As BWolff (WMF) stated, they're still investigating the matter and we're all shortly expecting a report from the WMF with more details. At the moment, we know very little other than the fact that it doesn't appear to be a brute force attack nor backdoor access to the WMF servers and, in at least one instance, the password was unique to Wikipedia. I was admittedly surprised that 2FA was implemented so quickly after the incident. I can only assume it was something already being worked on and simply rolled out a bit sooner than to be expected. In any case, I think the community responded quickly to minimize the damage and I'm sure this situation will lead to further steps that improve account security. I think the WMF did exactly what it needed to do by taking the matter seriously and giving us the tools to start improving our security situation. I absolutely believe policy changes need to be implemented to ensure these measures are actually used. Account security is only as effective as its end user. Ideally, I'd want the adoption of increased password complexity requirements, and for all users to use SHA-1 committed identities, 2FA, and scratch codes. I'm not sure if this pain-point would be worthwhile for all editors. I do not think it would be a stretch to make these measures compulsory for admins, bureaucrats, and other functionaries. As BWolff (WMF) said, there would need to be community consultation but I would hope that they/we would be willing to take on a bit more inconvenience to mitigate the potential damage that can be caused by our tools when in the wrong hands.

[Edit: I've been thinking about this answer a bit more now that we have some more information. We still don't know the full extent of the situation or how many accounts have or will be compromised. I'm not overly familiar with how the other advanced permissions work, but if they're anything similar to the UTRS and OTRS, then I do think we are exposed by not requiring our advanced permission holders to increase their security measures. If an unauthorized person were able to access the ArbCom wiki or a CU account, I could see some highly confidential information being accessed, where if there were a malicious intent, could ultimately have lasting and real world consequences for individuals. Even an undetected admin account deleting new pages that do not qualify for CSD could take months or even years to detect. I think we were lucky that in this particular situation the compromised accounts were used not in a seemingly "truly malicious way".]

As for my own account security, I have a dedicated Wikipedia email account that uses a unique password and 2FA. My Wikipedia password was previously also unique among my passwords and I have my SHA-1 committed identity listed on my about page. Once the incident occurred, I immediately changed both my passwords, implemented 2FA on my Wikipedia account, and recorded my scratch codes in analog form. I don't think anyone can be entirely confident about their account security. I can only hope that's enough for the time being.

Questions from Carrite[edit]

Thanks for running. This year's ArbCom took very few cases and seems to have kept to deadlines more expeditiously. I think most everyone can agree that this was for the good. What do you think was the biggest mistake made by ArbCom in 2016? What letter grade (A to F) would you give their performance? What could they do better?
I spent an hour today reading through all the cases in 2016. I was a little surprised to see that the Michael Hardy case was not listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2016. ArbCom had been very strategic in the few cases they had chosen to take on and so I think the Michael Hardy case was a departure from their previous track record. I understand what they were trying to accomplish but the divisiveness within the committee proved just how controversial this case ended up being for them. One request I would have going forward for the committee would be to ensure redundancy and the participation of multiple arbitrators when introducing and overseeing reforms. As for grading the committee members, I will decline because I don't feel confident I have enough insight to accurately assess their work. I think there are likely huge portions of their work I am not aware about that if I were would drastically alter my final assessment. I am also taking into consideration that some of them are among the other candidates and I don't feel it would be appropriate to use this opportunity to express my criticisms of them.

Do you read or post at Wikipediocracy? What is your opinion about this off-wiki criticism site? Do you feel it is a malicious venue for harassment or a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems or something in between these extremes?
On rare occasion I have read Wikipediocracy. Usually it has been because an article or post has been referenced either on-wiki or in the media. I'm personally fine with the site. I think criticism is an important process and any venue that provides for discussion will inevitably lead to both positive and negative uses.

Questions from BU Rob13[edit]

Sorry for the last minute question. You mentioned your experience in COI/paid editing in the context of SPI within your statement. What do you see as the Arbitration Committee's role in COI/paid editing issues?
As we know, ArbCom does not decide matters of editorial or site policy. In that regard, they have no role other than to accept certain cases and to arbitrate specific issues. However, ArbCom should be offering more support to editors at COIN and SPI who are investigating black hat editing. These investigations frequently involve evidence privately submitted via OTRS, IRC, email, and/or CU. It can be extremely difficult building a case without running into OUTING or other privacy issues. This can become even more complicated when seeking a site ban or TNT for all the articles which may require a community consensus. ArbCom and functionaries can assist in investigating these elaborate networks and if required, take measures and steps against them. An example that many will be familiar with is the Orangemoody case. Even the WMF legal department became involved. That case is still being cleaned up and there is still an OTRS queue just for it (albeit finally starting to see less activity).

A more recent case I was involved in was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunilseth15 which led to a site ban and nuke of all their articles. In that instance I was able to build a relatively straight forward case and the CUs were very helpful. It took a lot of time assessing and tying together all the behavioural evidence to demonstrate that it was more than just a standard socking case. Even in the ANI, an email was brought forward that perhaps shouldn't have been disclosed on the board. And then there's the aftermath. Often the biggest problems come following the seeming conclusion the investigation: determining what to do with the articles when others have substantially contributed to them; handling unblock requests from the meat puppets; and managing all the inquiries, both on and off wiki, from companies or individuals that had privately paid to have their article created that have since been deleted. Frequently these inquiries are posted to the article talk page and reveal confidential information about the parties involved. It can be particularly challenging to navigate this process when the case or evidence is not as straightforward. In some of these occasions, I would want to see the matters investigated by the committee or functionaries at the request of the community. In addition to more support, I think there are also some needed reforms in a few places like SPI and OTRS that can be facilitated to make things better for the functionaries and clerks as well as the editors who volunteer their time there. Community consultation being key to any reform process.

Questions from Opabinia[edit]

Case load is way down. Email volume is holding steady, but is still way down from its peak. ARCA requests are up slightly, but not too bad. Attention to this election is down compared to last year. We're slowly becoming irrelevant, and not in a bad way. Meanwhile, though, the most common community dispute resolution venue is ANI, with which there is long-standing and widespread dissatisfaction.
I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. What do you think about this trend toward fewer cases? Do you have any ideas on how to improve the committee's efficiency at ARCA? What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?
There's a difference between being irrelevant and being less frequently useful. If there are less house fires I don't want the fire department to disappear altogether. That being said, I don't believe the institution of ArbCom should be preserved for the sake of being preserved. The community may eventually decide that ArbCom needs reform to adjust for the times such as reducing the number of arbitrators appointed or unifying the election cycle to reduce election fatigue for the community. In any eventuality, the committee is elected to serve at the request of the community. If community determines that mandate to be big, small, or not at all, then that's what the committee should do.

In regards to ARCA, I would like to see two things occur: More participation from the current arbitrators. A formalized process to request comments from the arbitrators that were around when the case or sanction was brought forward. One thing I have seen frequently commented on is the lack of institutional memory from committee to committee. An ARCA case likely takes quite a bit of time for current arbitrators to review. I imagine there is some trepidation to make any sort of comment because even something like the changing climate of the community has changed the original intention and potential impact of the decision. At least with some input, even if only a little bit, from former arbitrators, the current committee could make a more confident comment or decision.

As for ANI, I don't think the system is perfect but I also don't think it's a hopelessly lost cause either. ANI could use more participation and more structure but that's something for the community to enact and decide. It's important to remember that arbitrators are still regular editors outside of the scope of ArbCom. I certainly intend to continue working at SPI and writing articles. Arbitrators working at ANI and other venues will always be a complimentary presence to the process.
What aspects of the committee's work do you expect to find most (or least) satisfying?
I would like to hope that the same satisfactions I get from gnomishly contributing behind the scenes as an admin and editor will also still be true if appointed to the committee. I've chosen to volunteer for over ten years on the English Wikipedia and it is because I believe in the project. Even my smallest of edits contributes to the endurance and growth of a free encyclopedia. I expect the least satisfying aspect of being on the committee will be seeing some the worst parts about the project. It will not be possible in all cases to find a resolution that satisfies everyone; that is the nature of conflict and sometimes an unfortunate consequence that must occur in order for things to move forward.
A similar question was asked by Worm That Turned last year, and I think it's a good one for those new to the committee. There's a long history of arbitrators being targeted by trolls and harassers, sometimes escalating to the point of outing, off-site abuse, and even interfering with arbitrators' real lives. Are you prepared for these possibilities?
I don't think it's possible to ever be fully prepared but I acknowledge the risks.

Question from *thing goes[edit]

Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:
1. Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private?
2. Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?

--18:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe a socially optimal solution would include the use of encryption in regards to email communication. Anything connected to a network is susceptible to being compromised.

The complexity required to implement and train end users on encryption protocols on a case-by-case basis would severely disrupt the process. In some cases, it will exceed the technical understanding of some individuals on the general public side. The gains in doing so would be a minimal increase in protection and it's likely we'd expose end users and ArbCom to a myriad of other problems. We have a much greater risk of someone defeating our current security measures that protect login access to email and project spaces (something encryption wouldn't prevent). As I mentioned above, I think advanced permission holders should be required to increase their security protocols: increased password complexity requirements, SHA-1 committed identities, 2FA, and scratch codes. On top of that I'm sure we can review and evaluate our current manuals to refine current best practices to reduce the likelihood of human error.

Question from The Rambling Man[edit]

In relation to the recent 'Arbcom case' which saw my eventual de-sysopping and active sanctions against me, would you accept a case in which dozens of individuals had been canvassed and encouraged to contribute, all of whom had been notified because they had been in conflict with the subject for one reason or another over the past decade?
I would certainly take that dynamic into serious consideration when evaluating my position on the matter but I would not refuse a case on those grounds alone. Every case and circumstance would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis but it's no secret that I'm an outspoken proponent against attempts to canvass and game the system. In regards to hostile testimony against an individual, its inclusion is important but must recognized for what it is and where it comes from. Fortunately, ArbCom cases are not done in a court of public opinion and arbitrators do not have obligations to a select group of constituents. They are appointed by the community to resolve disputes based upon the guidelines and policies put forward by the community as a whole. I think any arbitrator that simply assessed a case based purely on the volume of good versus bad testimony brought forward without investigating to a reasonable degree the broad scope of an individual's conduct would be abandoning a large part of their duties.

Questions from Antony-22[edit]

In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
I assume you're talking about US First Amendment Constitutional rights to freedom of speech. In the scope of Wikipedia it does not. I see very little chance of your inalienable rights being infringed upon as a result of anything that occurred on this website. In any case, that would greatly exceed the scope and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee. In terms of a line between incivility and harassment, sometimes that difference is indistinguishable depending on the context and intent.
Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals through formal programs in GLAM institutions, universities, and government agencies. This is perhaps causing some angst that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?
All editors should adhere to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines as well as adhere to the WMF terms of use while editing on this website. If these are changed to match more closely with workplace standards then that will be done by the community. Again, ArbCom does not decide matters of editorial or site policy.
More specifically, let's say a professional at one of these institutions complains to ArbCom that another editor is using uncivil language that violates their organizations' internal rules, and thus their engagement with Wikipedia is jeopardizing their job. What considerations would go into ArbCom resolving such a case?
None. A resolution for the case would be sought against the English Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. ArbCom has no jurisdiction enforcing the rules of other organizations.
Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press in the past. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles?
No they do not. ArbCom's role is in the dispute resolution process of the English Wikipedia and a handful of other tasks outlined in WP:ARBPOL.

Questions from George Ho[edit]

If a person subject to the case avoided one of the phases of the accepted ArbCom case, how would the person's avoidance or boycott affect the overall results of the case?
I assume you're speaking on a purely philosophical level? Otherwise we would need two nearly identical cases: one where the subject participated and one where they did not and each with a result to then compare. If I had to estimate, I would presume non-participation (in whatever form) would likely be to the detriment of that individual. It may not and again a number of variables could potentially affect whether it did or did not. The case may result in no action taken but it seems more likely that if that were to occur, their participation would be a positive contributing factor in reaching that outcome. By not participating, the subject forfeits a number of opportunities that are typically there for their own benefit. Such as is the opportunity to provide a statement providing insight on their perspective of the dispute. The subject would also not have the opportunity to explain and address evidence brought forth against them. Only they have a unique perspective on their situation and may be able to provide other evidence or context that is not obvious to those reviewing. If in the case of a boycott, in a theoretical case where perhaps the exact issue was about this editor's failure to engagement in resolution efforts, then I could see that being added or an example that substantiates that claim against them. If they were absent for other reasons, such as health, then I would hope the committee would take that into consideration, such as postponing or extending the case, as not being able to participate would be a seeming disadvantage. So lots of possibilities here. In terms of how I would handle these situations if appointed, I'd need to see things on a case-by-case basis.
The majority of the Committee voted to revoke a person's administrative privileges, yet that person resigns from those duties before the decision became final. What if that person did not resign and did let the decision be final? Would the Committee or that person be antagonized for the decision to revoke the privileges?
@George Ho: I looked over some of the responses from the other candidates to see if they figured out what you're trying to ask and the seeming universal consensus is that they're just as confused as I am. I suppose they would be desysopped if they did not resign before the final decision to desysop them... but you already state that in your question... As for your second question, who would antagonize them? The Wikipedia community? Are you asking us to predict what the community might do in this hypothetical situation? Why were they desysopped? What happened in the case? Was the decision to desysopped them a controversial and unpopular with the community?

It seems to me that you have a very specific case in mind with all these questions.

Mkdw questions discussion[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Mkdw/Questions
Back to Table of Contents

Mkdw general discussion[edit]

I do not know Mkdw well, but I did have some interaction with this editor several years ago in WP:WikiProject Vancouver. At the time, I found Mkdw to be friendly, reasonable, and easy to work with. Moisejp (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

question[edit]

How do you plan on dealing with people who have are transition from other wikia to english wikipedia with knowledge of how to utilize the site but are thought to be socks? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: If you're talking about as a functionary, I would handle an SPI in exactly the same way I have always handled SPI cases. I would examine the evidence against the editors based upon diffs, edit summaries, logs, tendencies, area of interest, history of the accounts (such as when they were created), and technical evidence. SPI is not a fishing expedition and there needs to be a convergence of evidence either behaviourally, technically, or both that surpasses a threshold for anything to be actionable administratively. Merely having experience with the markup language would not be sufficient grounds alone and editors investigating these cases must be careful to ensure they're not inadvertently outing someone using a legitimate alternate account. These are procedures and best practices (among many others) followed at SPI that all editors should adhere to regardless of their appointment to ArbCom or not. Mkdw ^talk 17:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have seen a number of people blocked after an argument or debate on AFD's based upon an admin saying they are not a new account. Even when they say they are from other wiki, they are ignored. I find this to be quite unfair and wonder if changes will ever come to this issue. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Were they engaging in meat or sock puppetry as outlined in WP:SOCK? Were they blocked based upon behavioural and technical evidence or did an WP:SPI determine there was enough evidence to reasonably indicate they were involved in meat or sock puppetry? There is typically a lengthy queue for unblock requests. Were their unblock requests eventually responded to and either granted or denied? Did they file multiple requests? Were their unblock requests in line with WP:GAPB? Did they eventually appeal their block via the UTRS or directly to ArbCom? Do you believe any of these blocks violated our current policies and guidelines? If not, have you or they attempted to amend our blocking policy through community consensus such as via WP:RFC? I'm asking all these questions because there are a lot of steps before an ArbCom case when it comes to editorial conduct.

It's important to note that ArbCom does not decide matters of editorial or site policy. If a case was brought against an admin for misuse of their tools such as blocking editors beyond the scope and provisions of WP:BLOCK and other relevant policies, then ArbCom would likely investigate the matter. Beyond that, actions taken that are deemed by some as "unfair" but fall within our policies and guidelines are not within the jurisdiction of ArbCom to address. Mkdw ^talk 20:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Back to Table of Contents

Newyorkbrad[edit]

I am standing as a candidate to return as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

As many of you know, I previously served on the Committee from 2008 to 2014. During that period, I was an active arbitrator, including as the drafter of about 25 arbitration decisions and a participant in all phases of the Committee's work. I did not run for reelection in 2014 because no one should serve in any role on Wikipedia for life, and I thought it was time to move on. But two years have passed since then, several editors I respect have asked me to consider returning to arbitrating, and I am glad to give the community that option.

Frankly, the Arbitration Committee plays a lesser role on English Wikipedia today than it has in the past, as the number of arbitration cases declines each year—and this lesser role is not a bad thing. However, the cases the Committee does decide still may involve some of the project's most contentious and difficult disputes, and the Committee has other important responsibilities.

By way of personal background, I'm an experienced litigation attorney in New York. While the ArbCom is not meant to engage in legalistic processes or to resolve legal issues, I do think it is worthwhile for at least one member to have some legal background.

Editors who have followed ArbCom's activities in the past will have a pretty good idea what you can expect from me as an arbitrator if I'm elected again. I'm also glad to answer any questions that anyone may have. Thanks for your consideration.

Disclosure: I'm already identified to the Foundation and have signed the required paperwork during my prior service, and more recently when I was appointed as a non-voting community advisory member of the Governance Committee of the WMF Board of Trustees. No other accounts besides this one.

Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Newyorkbrad

Back to Table of Contents

Newyorkbrad questions[edit]

Questions

==Individual questions==

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}}

Question from Ajraddatz[edit]

Hey Newyorkbrad, thanks for running. In your statement, you suggest that the role of ArbCom is lessening over time, but that it maintains some other important functions. One of these is the management of CU/OS permissions, despite long-standing concerns with ArbCom's role in governance. My question is whether you think this role could be given back to the community for elections rather than selection by ArbCom, acknowledging the fact that the initial elections system did not work and something else would need to be tried. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. If the community made it clear that it wanted to return to electing Checkusers (CU) and Oversighters (OS), I would not stand in the way. However, my own opinion is that the current method of having the elected ArbCom make the selections, after full vetting and an opportunity for community comments on the candidates, is preferable. The main reason is the enormous amount of our editors' collective time and effort that is necessarily expended in any wiki-wide election process. The time and effort of editors is our project's most precious resource, and any community-wide election consumes hundreds if not thousands of hours of such efforts. Given that ArbCom has done a thorough and reasonable job in scrutinizing and selecting CUs and OSs, which is my perception, and is picking more-or-less the same people who would be elected anyway, I don't see why we'd need to make the change. Relatedly, in one calendar year a few years ago, English Wikipedia editors were asked to vote in the Stewards election, the WMF Board of Trustees election, one or two CU/OS elections, an Audit Subcommittee election, plus the ArbCom election. It was just too much of a good thing, and election fatigue was setting in, and we don't want that either.

Not sure if it's customary to respond after the answer is given, but that seems like a very sensible perspective to me. I especially agree regarding voter fatigue and the success that the process has had thus far in selecting good candidates. Best of luck! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Mark Arsten[edit]

Hi Brad, thanks for running for Arbcom. My questions are about account security.
What are your thoughts on the handling of the recent incident in which several administrator accounts were compromised? Do you think that technical or policy changes need to be made as a result? Also, are you confident in the security of your e-mail and Wikipedia accounts?
I have strong passwords on my wiki-related accounts, which are different from my passwords on any other accounts, and change them regularly. I think the recent incidents were handled as they had to be, with the affected accounts being globally locked until the Office could verify they were secure again. I don't know whether there is a further, behind-the-scenes review of the incident ongoing, to determine what specific methods the hacker may have used and whether there should be a law-enforcement report made. The implementation of the 2FA option seems a logical next step, whether or not the timing was coincidental.

Questions from Carrite[edit]

Thanks for running. This year's ArbCom took very few cases and seems to have kept to deadlines more expeditiously. I think most everyone can agree that this was for the good. What do you think was the biggest mistake made by ArbCom in 2016? What letter grade (A to F) would you give their performance? What could they do better?
I don't particularly want to critique, much less "grade," my successors on the Committee, but it's no secret I think the Michael Hardy case was not handled well. By unnecessarily accepting the case, and proposing some of the remedies that were considered, the effect was to transform what would have been a relatively minor, if unfortunate, squabble into a deeper and more prolonged one. That's the opposite of the Committee's role, as was ultimately recognized, but should IMHO have been seen a bit sooner.
Do you read or post at Wikipediocracy? What is your opinion about this off-wiki criticism site? Do you feel it is a malicious venue for harassment or a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems or something in between these extremes?
I read the site regularly and post there occasionally. As I've written before, it's a mixed bag. Some of the comments there contain reasonable, well-informed observations about Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Some of the other comments, to say the least, don't.

Question from Rschen7754[edit]

You have served on ArbCom for seven years, and if you were elected, it would bring the total to nine years. Arbitration can be, to say the least, a role that exposes you to the more unpleasant elements of the project. Do you think that after such a long time that you still have the energy/enthusiasm that this role demands? --Rs chen 7754 06:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the question. There's a long discussion about this subject on my talkpage from when I was considering whether to run, which might be of interest. You're aware that I have been off the Committee for the past two years, which has helped recharge the batteries. The bottom line is that if elected I anticipate no trouble at all staying focused on and committed to all ArbCom responsibilities. If the Committee were still deciding a hundred cases a year I'd probably feel differently.

Questions from Begoon[edit]

Would you be willing to expand on these thoughts you expressed on your talk page: "If I do run again and get elected, can we go back to 2008 again, and I'll do it right this time, not screwing up the Mantanmoreland case or getting sucked down D.B.'s and Poetlister's rabbit-holes, and all ... "
I could do that, but it would become a very long essay, and I promised myself I'd keep my answers on this page reasonably succinct. The short version is that when I was a rookie arbitrator I made some rookie mistakes. At this late stage it would be, if any, a different kind of mistakes.
Under what circumstances do you feel that legal action should be taken against persons who act outside the WMF "Terms of Use", and how effective do you think such action would be?
Only as a last resort to resolve persistent and chronic abuse that is not being stopped through lesser means. The effectiveness might depend on factors such as the rationality, risk-averseness and the geographical location of the person in question. But there are definitely some folks out there who don't care so much about being blocked a hundred times and having an LTA case opened, who would think twice if they receive a formal cease-and-desist letter from the General Counsel's office.
Nobel Prize: Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, both, or neither?
The ArbCom does not decide matters of policy.

Questions from Collect[edit]

Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
No.
If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?
The term "aversion" is vague. If the administrator has said "I dislike you as a person," which he or she shouldn't have said anyway, then the admin should stay miles away from actions involving that editor. If the "aversion" is based on, for example, the editor's long history of vandalism, that might be different.
a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?
a. Generally yes, as long as the request is credible and the extension length reasonable; of course, the interests of other affected editors must also be weighed. b. Generally yes. c. If the evidence is significant and its substance hasn't already been addressed already, then yes. More broadly, restrictions such as word limits, time limits, and the like exist to serve and facilitate the process and not to impede it. d. Where the evidence is significant to the outcome of the decision and affected editors are given notice of it and a reasonable time to respond.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from Biblioworm[edit]

Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:
- Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
- Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:
Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.

Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).
- Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
- Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
- Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.
Do you support these measures, and would you work to implement them if elected? If you do not support all of them, please specify which ones you do support.

Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 19:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. Let me begin with a general comment that I would be glad to consider changes to ArbCom procedures, particularly if they would help simplify the arbitration process, which must sometimes overwhelm those who are new to it. However, I'm not sure that the proposals you suggest reflect points that need to be changed. I'll go through them in order:
- "Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues)". With respect to appointing functionaries (checkusers and oversighters), there are two methods of doing so that are acceptable to the WMF. One is community-wide election and the other is selection by an ArbCom. I've already explained in my answer to Ajraddatz's question above why I don't favor going back to elections, so that means ArbCom gets the job—and I'm not sure who else might do it, since we don't have any other elected body on English Wikipedia.
- "... and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)" I know that the arbitrators don't especially want to deal with some of those issues. During my last term on the Committee, there was a major effort to get the WMF Office to take on some of the most difficult off-wiki tasks, such as child-protection blocks and the most serious harassment cases. I would continue to support the Office's dealing with these issues to the extent it is willing or able to do so. But for a variety of reasons, the Office will only take on the most troublesome problems, expecting local communities to address the others where they can. If there is something that can't be addressed on-wiki, so the choice is either having ArbCom deal with the problem or leaving the problem completely untouched, sometimes ArbCom is the necessary choice.
- "Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision)..." Cases with unclear scope are a problem, and the Committee should do its best to define what a case is about when it takes one. It may occasionally happen that the appropriate scope of a case changes based on unanticipated evidence or new developments, but if that happens then the arbitrators should clearly say so and give the parties a chance to address the revised scope before issuing the decision.
- "Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties."' I understand your point here, but allowing non-parties to present evidence or workshop proposals—on-topic and within reason—helps ensure that all the relevant evidence is presented and hence that the best decision is reached. (It also helps editors get some experience of the arbitration process and decide whether they're interested in becoming arbitrators.) I perceive there has been an effort this year to reduce the amount of irrelevant or inflammatory material presented, and that's a good thing. Please also note that an unwanted side effect of an "only parties can participate in the case" rule would be an increased amount of counterproductive bickering about exactly who the official parties should be.
- "Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer." I think this is already happening, and I am not sure the "rather widespread perception" you point to really exists, or should. As another candidate already pointed out, the current ArbCom has site-banned exactly one user in a formal decision this year, and I don't think it was much more than that last year or the year before. My own reputation from my prior terms was as someone who supported banning only as a last resort—but sometimes even a last resort needs to be implemented, lest the one problematic editor we struggle to keep drives five other productive editors away.
- "Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours)..." The ArbCom doesn't directly administer AE, but I think this is generally a good idea, except perhaps in the most urgent or clear-cut situations.
- "Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions..." I'm not sure just what sort of motions you mean. If you mean they should be allowed to make proposals in an open arbitration case, they can do that on the workshop page (although this may be in tension with your "peanut gallery" concern above). If you mean they should be allowed to make proposals relating to older cases, if an issue comes up, it can be raised with a suggestion for a motion on the "clarifications and amendments" page. If you mean some other type of motions could you please clarify. Thank you.

Questions from Opabinia[edit]

Case load is way down. Email volume is holding steady, but is still way down from its peak. ARCA requests are up slightly, but not too bad. Attention to this election is down compared to last year. We're slowly becoming irrelevant, and not in a bad way. Meanwhile, though, the most common community dispute resolution venue is ANI, with which there is long-standing and widespread dissatisfaction.
I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. What do you think about this trend toward fewer cases? I know you've commented on this before, but I wanted to ask everyone who isn't a current arb the same question, sorry for the repetitiveness ;) Do you have any ideas on how to improve the committee's efficiency at ARCA? What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?
The decline in ArbCom's role in terms of full-fledged cases has been steady for more than a decade (I first wrote about it here, four years ago). The trend is partly outside ArbCom's control, as fewer cases are being brought for consideration, and partly within its control, in the arbitrators' decision-making as to what cases that are brought should be accepted. My philosophy of case acceptance was typically to accept a case only when the dispute was either protracted (as opposed to a one-off) or very serious, and where there seemed to be a reasonable likelihood that an arbitration decision could actually help solve the problem, rather than just provide a forum for weeks of venting about it. I think that sums up the acceptance criteria used by most other arbitrators as well, although reasonable minds can differ on where the lines are drawn in a particular case. I have no advance view that each year the Committee should aim to decide X number of cases, for some predetermined approximation of X; the Committee should decide all the disputes brought before it where the community hasn't been able to resolve them and where arbitration can help. I think that is likely to continue to be in the 5-to-10 per year range rather than in the multiples of that we saw years ago; but it wouldn't break my heart if it were a dozen, and it wouldn't break my heart if it were none.

The growth we have seen in the clarifications-and-amendments docket is predictable, because as time goes on, more and more on-wiki disputes turn out to be related to or outgrowths of prior disputes, rather than brand-new ones. "C-and-A" is also the forum for requests to terminate sanctions imposed by ArbCom decisions, as well as for appeals from AE sanctions, so as the number of editors affected by such sanctions continues to grow (though not exponentially), appeals may grow proportionately. Sometimes a request is just for advice and one or two arbitrators' comments are enough to resolve it, but other times, as when a topic-ban-lift is sought, broader arb input is necessary. I think what is needed here is full recognition by the arbitrators that the C-and-A page is an integral part of ArbCom's responsibility for resolving cases and keeping them resolved, rather than being secondary to current cases, so that arbitrators should keep an eye on this page and participate where they can be helpful.

Regarding AN and ANI, as well as other elements of dispute-resolution besides ArbCom, I've written before and will repeat here that I think a broad community discussion of what is working and what is not is in order. There is no room here for me to set forth all my thoughts about AN/ANI, but I note that in addition to comments I've made before, several of the other candidates have made useful comments in their answers to this question. One thing not commonly realized is that AN/ANI now picks up user-conduct disputes that at times in the past decade were handled through four prior processes (the personal attacks noticeboard, the Wikiquette noticeboard, the community sanctions noticeboard, and RFC/U), all of which were deprecated via MfD, so it is no wonder that some disputes seem intractable. Another thing I observed in passing a couple of months ago is that if I'm deciding whether to comment in an AN/ANI thread, I typically won't bother to post if the point I would make has been made by others—except that if the thread suddenly morphs from a "what is to be done" thread into a "I propose we community-sanction this person" thread, suddenly my input in support or opposition to a sanction is significant even if my reasoning is indeed duplicative; this uncertainty may help evoke unnecessary duplicative comments. But as I say, this isn't the place for an organized critique of AN/ANI—but there needs to be such a place; I've asked a couple of editors if they'd like to start one, but if not, maybe I'll do so once the election is over. Also overdue for evaluation is the disputes resolution noticeboard (DRN) for content disputes; my impression is that it is working well, but I don't know that there's been any systematic review of it since its inception a couple of years ago. I don't know that the Arbitration Committee as a Committee can help much with AN/ANI, unless someone were to bring a case against editors acting problematically there and the Committee found someone was acting so poorly as to warrant sanctions, which I am not suggesting. I also note that in one situation this year, an AN thread on whether to ban a editor was explicitly closed with a result of "the community is hopelessly divided; we're punting this one to ArbCom"—whereupon the Committee accepted the case and decided it.
What aspects of the committee's work did you find most (or least) satisfying when you were a member? Do you expect this to change much in a new term?
The most satisfying, though this won't help the voters in evaluating me because by definition the instances were invisible, were the times when I was able to anticipate that something was likely to turn into a problem if not addressed, and head the problem off before it became a problem. Other satisfying times were when I wrote a decision or crafted some language that was broadly acceptable to the other arbitrators and the community and which helped resolve a dispute. Also fulfilling were times when a majority of the Committee was leaning toward a finding or a remedy that I thought was unfair—typically though not invariably, that I thought was unduly harsh—and was able to convince my colleagues to change their minds. Unsatisfying, but an integral part of the job, were the times when I was unable to convince my colleagues and wound up in dissent on a remedy or motion, sometimes a lonely dissent of one. Least "satisfying," but essential, were dealing with off-wiki harassment and similar situations; this role has decreased as the Office now deals with some of the most troublesome situations, but the Committee must still be involved with some of them.

Question from TH1980[edit]

I have encountered clique behavior at certain Wikipedia pages where members band together and establish de facto rule over them, rejecting out of hand any and all attempts by others to edit the pages and refusing to engage in meaningful discussions on the talk pages about the proposed edits. I have also been harassed and bullied by members of such cliques, up to and including being threatened with being page or topic banned, even though none of these clique members were admins and thus had no such power. Their attitude was basically "Get out! This is our page!" What is your stance regarding cliques who behave in such an uncivil manner?TH1980 (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, a situation such as you describe, in which a group of editors on a page entrench themselves and reject all edits to the page, regardless of their quality, and refuse to discuss the issues, is contrary to the wiki model of collaborative editing, and should be stopped. Of course, that sort of unacceptable situation needs to be distinguished from one in which an editor is trying to edit against a legitimate consensus, or in a way that's against policy, or is factually inaccurate, in which case the group of editors might actually be correct (although the editors should still be explaining themselves, and threats of seeking topic-bans should not be made lightly). Administrators and, where necessary, arbitrators need to carefully review the editing history to distinguish bad-faith page ownership from good-faith quality control and ensure that proposed edits are evaluated on their merits rather than reflexively or cliqueishly.

Question from Banedon[edit]

Suppose you are the only member on Arbcom so your vote is decisive on everything. What would be your preferred results from the Michael Hardy and TRM cases this year? For illustration the kind of answers I'm looking for would be, "sanction X, topic ban Y, implement Z" or "I would have voted for this remedy, but opposed this one". I'm particularly curious about how you would have voted in the results that split the current committee, including the ones that did not pass, e.g. this or this. Banedon (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. Regarding the Michael Hardy case, as I've said elsewhere, my preferred result would have been for the Committee not to have accepted the case. While there was some suboptimal user conduct involved, that squabble was not one of the one hundred most pressing disputes on Wikipedia this year, and there was nothing in it that I thought required an arbitration case. If, however, we take it as a given that the case was accepted—and that it wasn't going to be dismissed as unnecessary after the evidence was in—you can read for yourself how I would have approached it as an arbitrator, because in an unsuccessful effort to deescalate things on all sides, I workshopped the case and wrote up some proposals of my own, here. The tone of some of the wording in my workshop proposals was a bit more flippant than I would use in an actual decision, but you'll get a good sense of what I thought of everything. When the actual proposed decision was posted, there was some discussion about it on my talkpage, which may have helped lead to some improvements in the final decision as passed.

Sorry, but no comments from me on the second case you mentioned. I've had some sharp disagreements recently with the editor in question, and if I'd been on the Committee when that case arose, I would have recused myself.

Question from *thing goes[edit]

Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:

Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private?
Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?

--18:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have little technical expertise in the cybersecurity arena and am not someone who will be taking a lead in making policy or promoting technical advances in this area. I am always glad to follow reasonable guidelines for how information security of sensitive information can be preserved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from The Rambling Man[edit]

Your contribution history (this year alone) shows you barely participate in the addition of quality content to the encyclopedia. How can we trust that you understand the machinations of the debates around the policies and behaviours of those who actively contribute to the quality content of the project?
That's a fair question. My overall participation in Wikipedia has been lower than usual this year, and although I have had mainspace contributions, I haven't been a major author of the encyclopedia recently—a point also made by Iridescent here. I acknowledged my lower level of activity recently, and discussed some of the reasons for it, last week in this thread on my talkpage when some editors approached me and asked if I would run for arbitrator again. Some of my other scholarly and hobby activities that have taken up some of what would have been my wikitime this year are winding down, and I anticipate an increased rate of mainspace contributions in the future—but I've said that before, and I can certainly understand if some people are skeptical.

That said, I'm not exactly unknown to the mainspace either. I've written about 125 articles, albeit most of them in the early part of my wiki-career. I've participated in plenty of the "debates around the policies and behaviours of those who actively contribute to the quality content of the project" that you refer to, in various pages around the project over the past ten-plus years. And you and the other voters can read my writings about Wikipedia and Wikipedians over the past ten years, many linked from my userpage, and decide whether I seem attuned to the needs of both the encyclopedia and of the community and contributors that create and sustain it.

More importantly, though, you can decide whether I am sufficiently attuned to the needs of our more active content editors, whom I've always acknowledged as the backbone of what we do here, by evaluating the decisions I wrote and supported during my prior tenure on the Committee. I am sure that you, or any experienced editor, will disagree with one or more of the findings or remedies I supported in voting on over a hundred decisions, and you and I have disagreed from time to time over other matters as well. However, on the whole, I would like to think that my arbitration work showed respect for the work done by our content editors, while emphasizing that everyone's contributions must adhere to fundamental policies such as the use of reliable sources, the accurate citation of sources without misrepresentation or distortion of their contents, the avoidance of undue weight, and compliance with the biographies of living persons policy (always a high priority of mine). I also have always viewed, and continue to view, imposing sanctions that prevent or restrict a good-faith, knowledgeable content contributor from adding to Wikipedia as something to be avoided whenever possible—although sometimes unavoidable, as where keeping one problematic contributor active would risk driving others away.

Lastly, as you know, outside the occasional emergency situation, the Wikipedia arbitration process allows plenty of time and opportunity for interested parties and editors to share relevant evidence and information with the arbitrators before any decisions are made. If there is background information concerning a particular debate or policy or behavioral issue, which anyone believes the arbitrators should take into account in deciding a given dispute, there is ample opportunity to call it to the Committee's attention.
In relation to the recent 'Arbcom case' which saw my eventual de-sysopping and active sanctions against me, would you accept a case in which dozens of individuals had been canvassed and encouraged to contribute, all of whom had been notified because they had been in conflict with the subject for one reason or another over the past decade?
I don't think you are asking me to do this, but just for the avoidance of doubt, I'd prefer not to comment on the merits of the specific arbitration case involving yourself. As I mentioned above in response to another question, you and I have had a number of sharp on-wiki disagreements over the past couple of years, and if I'd been on the Committee when the case was brought against you, I would have recused myself.

Treating your question on a more general level, I would work hard not to be influenced to accept a case (or take any other kind of action) as the result of biased input brought about by unbalanced canvassing. At the same time, if an actual problem warranting arbitration exists, the compounding of the problem through a WP:CANVASS violation wouldn't make the original problem go away. My goal in such a situation would be to ensure that I had maximum available information on all sides of the question so that the ultimate decision would be the same as it would have been in the absence of the unbalanced canvassing.

Questions from Antony-22[edit]

In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
The basic "civility" principle that was used in ArbCom decisions ten years ago read, very simply, "editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other." I don't see that expectation as a problem, although we all know that enforcement raises questions of line-drawing. Harassment, in Wikipedia parlance, is generally defined as repeated (or, I might add, exceptionally severe) offensive behavior targeted at another editor with the intent of making that editor feel threatened, intimidated, uncomfortable, or to discourage them from editing.
Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals through formal programs in GLAM institutions, universities, and government agencies. This is perhaps causing some angst that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?
I believe reasonable standards of civility and decorum are readily attainable from all editors, regardless of what brought them to Wikipedia.
More specifically, let's say a professional at one of these institutions complains to ArbCom that another editor is using uncivil language that violates their organizations' internal rules, and thus their engagement with Wikipedia is jeopardizing their job. What considerations would go into ArbCom resolving such a case?
I am not sure I understand your question. You are positing a situation in which an editor says "my employer is threatening to fire me because some other people on Wikipedia are rude"? I've never heard of anything like that happening.
Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press in the past. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles?
In general, ArbCom's role does not include liaison with the press. In a couple of instances during my prior tenure as an arbitrator I was interviewed about the Committee's work, but I responded only on behalf of myself. If in an exceptional case the press reported a widespread and harmful misunderstanding of an ArbCom action, I might recommend that the arbitrators consult with the communications team at the Office regarding what, if anything, might be done to correct the record. But it is also true that in cases that are likely to attract attention, extra care at the drafting stage can help avoid such misunderstandings. I've caught a few such instances in recent years, both when I was and wasn't on the Committee, and suggested changes to the wording that may have alleviated an unwanted misreading of a principle, finding, or remedy.

Questions from Sarah777[edit]

Would you support the unconditional lifting of restrictions placed on me by Arbcom about 7 years ago?
I would certainly evaluate any such request you filed with an open mind, especially after that much time. In considering such an appeal, I would apply the test I used in the past regarding any such request, which primarily asks whether if the restrictions were lifted, whether the editor would be able to avoid the problems in his or her future editing that led to the restrictions' being imposed to begin with. That said, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to review your specific case and give an opinion regarding a hypothetical appeal on this questions page.
Do you accept that there is an in-built bias towards an "Anglo-Saxon" perspective on En Wikipedia?
In terms of the scope of article coverage, there is certainly greater coverage on English Wikipedia of topics relating to English-speaking peoples than others, because of both the availability of sources and the knowledge and interests of our editor base. There is also greater coverage of the developed than the developing world, for reasons which have been discussed at length all over the project. To that extent I'd say the answer to your question is yes. But if what you are really asking whether the article content is biased in favor of British perspectives as opposed to others in terms of NPOV, the answer is that I haven't observed that, though I haven't specifically looked at the issue.
Do you acknowledge that "civility" is often used as a political weapon by Admins to suppress perspectives they disagree with? Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure it's happened on occasion, and if and when it happens, it needs to be stopped. But it also happens that accusations of taking sides are advanced against administrators who are simply trying in good faith to enforce neutrality and decorum on contentious articles, and that shouldn't happen either.

Question from That man from Nantucket[edit]

Brad, can you please stop using Latin and legalese? Many find Arbcom members to be full of themselves. And this doesn't help. There is something to be said for speaking plainly.
Hi. Where have I used Latin or legalese, anywhere on this page, or anywhere at all on-wiki recently, actually? I've been doing my best to keep my responses and postings as straightforward as possible, and will continue to try to do that.

Question from User:Doc James[edit]

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
Different people mean different things by "paid editing," but I'll assume you're using the narrower definition of the term, meaning a situation in which a person unconnected with the subject of an article creates or edits the article in return for payment, in a commercial transaction. This is a violation of the terms of use and of policy and is impermissible—but as a practical matter, if the paid editor creates a neutral, well-balanced, reliably sourced article about a notable topic, the violation is relatively unlikely to be detected. (Of course, if paid editors could be counted on to write neutral, well-balanced, reliably sourced articles about only notable topics, paid editing might not be a problem; a key issue with paid editing is precisely that the conventional incentives to comply with these fundamental wiki policies are subverted.) The ArbCom may have a role to play when intractable violations of any important user-conduct policy are brought to its attention. However, again speaking practically rather than theoretically, most articles written by paid editors will first be identified as being promotional in nature or as dealing with non-notable topics, and will be revised or deleted on those bases, before an allegation of paid editing can be advanced or proved. Paid editing as such is more likely to be detected in the case of businesses publicly announcing the availability of editing services for payment. The understandable desire to prevent undisclosed paid editing should not become a basis for routine investigation into editors' off-wiki backgrounds and motivations, except in the most serious cases of abuse.

Questions from George Ho[edit]

If a person subject to the case avoided one of the phases of the accepted ArbCom case, how would the person's avoidance or boycott affect the overall results of the case?
I would be disappointed if an editor refused to explain his or her behavior that was being reviewed in an arbitration case. However, I would still try to decide the case fairly based on the evidence that is available. In some circumstances, such as where an editor is accused of sockpuppetry or off-wiki harassment and refuses to respond to direct questions from the arbitrators, inferences may be drawn from the non-response and action taken on that basis. In more typical cases based on on-wiki conduct, that will not usually be necessary.
The majority of the Committee voted to revoke a person's administrative privileges, yet that person resigns from those duties before the decision became final. What if that person did not resign and did let the decision be final? Would the Committee or that person be antagonized for the decision to revoke the privileges?
I am sorry, but I don't understand your question.

Newyorkbrad questions discussion[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions
Back to Table of Contents

Newyorkbrad general discussion[edit]

Part of a cadre of admins who mollycoddle the editor Beyond My Ken, taking complaints about non-constructive reverts and behavioral issues and dismissing them on technical grounds. Electing Newyorkbrad to the arbitration committee will create a more clique-y Wikipedia that protects disruptive and borderline abusive editors. Furry-friend (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, jeepers, you would deny me the mollycoddling I so richly deserve? (Try walking in my shoes sometime, I guarantee you won't feel coddled, molly- or otherwise. "Curdled" is more like it. Maybe I'm "mollycurdled" - is that a thing?)

That you would judge the very able and valuable Newyorkbrad by this one thing (assuming you were even right, which you're not) is an indication not you're really not thinking very deeply about people's qualifications, or, indeed, about what would happen if NYB was re-elected as an Arb. (Yes, "re-elected", because he was an Arbitrator from 2008-2013, and he was damn good at it. And the project didn't die of "clique-ishness".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, the next time you feel like mentioning me, please don't ping me, I'm not really interested in what you have to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm with Furry-friend, despite his obvious POV on the issue. It seems that there are many groups of editors and admins who are unnecessarily supportive of some editors despite their incivility or refusal to follow the rules on Wikipedia. This seems to be a case of that, although I haven't looked very deep and may be entirely wrong. Just my comment. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

IMO, Newyorkbrad has an amazing presence proven to me by his actions as one of three closing panelists in a recent controversial discussion. Newyorkbrad would serve as well or better than any have in this capacity. Paine Ellsworth ^u/c 23:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Language[edit]

In response to one of the questions raised for the candidate, I wish to say that I found his language straightforward and clear. As an ESL speaker, who has for years worked hard to express my ideas in English as clear as possible, I consider the candidate's writing skills admirable. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 04:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

question[edit]

How do you plan on dealing with people who have are transition from other wikia to english wikipedia with knowledge of how to utilize the site but are thought to be socks? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: If this is meant to be a question for me, the answer is that I do not believe in jumping to the conclusion that someone "must be" a sockpuppet or undisclosed alternate account merely because he or she shows familiarity with how to edit Wikipedia in his or her early edits. As you correctly point out, the editor might be familiar with wiki mark-up from another site using the software, or in a number of other ways. This exact issue came up recently in an RfA, in which someone claimed that the candidate "must have had" earlier accounts based on his early editing history, and I pointed out that this was not the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have seen a number of people blocked after an argument or debate on AFD's based upon an admin saying they are not a new account. Even when they say they are from other wiki, they are ignored. I find this to be quite unfair and wonder if changes will ever come to this issue. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Back to Table of Contents

Writ Keeper[edit]

Eh, why not? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Writ Keeper

Back to Table of Contents

Writ Keeper questions[edit]

Questions

==Individual questions==

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}}

Question from User:Doc James[edit]

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
I'm not really a fan of undisclosed paid editing, but I don't know that it's worth witch hunting for. By which I mean, paid editing is really only a problem to the extent that it leads to bad edits, and bad edits are a problem whether they come from paid editors or not. I know that subtle bias drift is just as much of a thing thst people are concerned about with paid editing, but again, that's not unique to paid editors--anyone who's a fan of a particular subject can do the same for their pet subject, whether they're getting paid or not. I don't know that paid editing requires special defenses from the community beyond the defenses we need to deal with those editing problems that it--non-uniquely--creates.
As to ArbCom's role, I'd think it's limited to judging cases and requests as they come, in the course of its normal role; I don't think ArbCom has the mandate to do anything beyond that. The ToU is set by the WMF; special enforcement of it should be the WMF's job. IMO.

Question from Biblioworm[edit]

Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:

Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:

Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.
Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).

Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.

Do you support these measures, and would you work to implement them if elected? If you do not support all of them, please specify which ones you do support.

Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

this box thing is duuuuumb

- Absolutely, and that's what I was hinting at when I answered my own question about qualifications with "is anyone?". But sadly, that's up to the ol' Uncle Pennybags, a.k.a. the WMF, and they probably would have legal issues of their own in taking those things over (I guess?) So, yeah, I would absolutely work to implement this, but I don't know that I'd actually be able to do much of anything.
- Answering your questions with:
  I'm sympathetic to this, but like I said below, evidence can change things. I'd be reluctant to declare and enforce such scope restriction before the evidence phase, which is of course the most chaotic part anyway. The point of ArbCom is to solve problems, and if the real problem only becomes apparent after evidence is presented, then such a strict scope could prevent ArbCom from even being able to try to solve the problem. That might be worth it, though, I'd have to think more about it.
  
  Yeah, but courtrooms also have a bunch of other stuff, too, importantly including lawyers who are (in theory) impartial advocates who can argue their case with a more objective eye than the parties in question--I'm no lawyer, but my impression was that only the lawyers themselves can speak (relatively) freely in court--the defendant and/or plaintiff can't, either, just like the gallery. Peanut galleries suck, and I'd be okay with more tightly restricting them (any specifics in mind?), but eliminating them entirely would be restricting the only voices that can be heard to those that are least likely to present evidence dispassionately, and that isn't going to help people come to the right conclusion in the end. Probably wouldn't reduce the intensity of the drama--though maybe the sheer volume of it.
- I'm not sure what you're looking for here. I mean, you say that the perception is that ArbCom "is currently" ban-happy, but I'm not sure how founded that perception is. ArbCom has banned exactly one person since the last election cycle, and for nearly half of the sitting arbs (6/14 by my count; Kirill Lokshin I think has been an arb before non-contiguously and so doesn't count), that's their only ArbCom siteban. So...ban-happy according to whom? My point is, although the principle of minimum force is a good thing and should be/remain a thing, I don't know that legislating it in this case is the answer. It seems like this is more of a "you want ArbCom to make different decisions" (that's a plural, generic "you", not *you specifically*) thing. Which is good, and fine, and why we have elections, but I don't know that codifying it into rules is the answer. Making a rule to the effect of "there must be disruption that's not restricted to a specific area for a siteban to happen" invites more drama over the interpretation of "disruption", "specific area", etc. I'm sympathetic to wanting to rein in the unilateral and arbitrary (hah) power of Arbcom, but I don't know that this is the way to do it (nor do I have any particular ideas of my own, other than running myself, and here we are).
- Sure, sounds reasonable. Though, perhaps in addition to a time limit, we have a minimum number of admins? So, if (say) three independent admins have weighed in and agreed, OR (say) 24 hours have passed without a dissent (to avoid things stalemating if there don't happen to be three at a time), then one can take action? A 24 hour wait isn't always necessary.
- How does this interact with your question about the peanut gallery? ;) No, but seriously, I'd need more information about this. Motions in the context of what? Within a case? In lieu of a case? If you mean in lieu of a case, then what kind of thing were you envisioning for it? Desysop requests? I don't know how many other kinds of disputes are so intractable as to require ArbCom, yet not so complex as to need a case altogether. Sounds reasonable, though.

Self(-indulgent) questions[edit]

So...seems like that statement is lacking. What's up with that?
I thought it'd be funny. But technically, my statement is allowed to link to another statement page (this one!) so it's not actually against the rules. But for the record, my alt accounts are User:White King (for mobile uses, never really caught on), User:WK-test (testing, obviously), and User:Cthulhufish (a joke account, got bored with it), I'd be willing to comply with da rulez, etc. etc. etc. I've also edited from a smattering of IPs lately; a lot of the mainspace editing I do these days is small-scale wikignoming, copyediting, AV type stuff that I usually don't bother to log in as. I 100% assert that any IP activity I've done is completely unobjectionable and in fact quite boring really.

Exactly how serious is this candidacy? It doesn't seem very.
It's not, but it is. I don't take this whole nomination-election process seriously. If I were somehow actually elected, I would take ArbCom itself pretty seriously indeed. But, y'know, I don't really care all that much about getting there. So, this is what y'all get.

Are you actually qualified?
Is anyone? I mean, the whole idea of volunteers doing the kind of things ArbCom does is kinda silly, honestly. But c'est la vie, and I don't think I'm particularly less qualified than anyone. To be fair though, I'm not as active these days as I have been (IP activity doesn't count, of course, since it can't be attached to my account). I mostly do CSD work these days, as far as admin tasks go. I would fully expect my onwiki time to increase if elected, but y'know, the reality is that this is a volunteer thing I do in my spare time. I'm light on content creation, too, with only 4 DYKs (one recent) to my name. So, depending on your viewpoint, that could disqualify me; I don't think it's of crucial importance, given that ArbCom doesn't do content, but your milage may (rightfully) vary. I was a 'crat, once upon a time; I resigned simply because it didn't seem like I could help much anymore. I became one mostly to help out with user renames, and when that move to Meta with SUL (and given that I lack the foreign language skills to be personally comfortable with doing WMF-wide renames), I figured I wasn't going to use the 'crat tools much any more, so I turned them in.

Question from Rschen7754[edit]

In late 2014, you resigned the bureaucrat flag, and posted a statement here. As part of it, you said: "Closing RfAs sucks, and I hate it, and I don't want to do it anymore". I would presume that this is due to making difficult decisions when consensus is not clear, which the arbitration process also involves. Do you believe this will affect your candidacy or your ability to be an arbitrator? --Rs chen 7754 22:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a great question. (Well, I'm probably the wrong person to ask when it comes to affecting my candidacy; I'm sure it will, but you'd have to ask the voting body for more details.) But as far as my ability to be an arbitrator, no, I don't think so. First of all, "making difficult decisions when the consensus isn't clear" isn't why I dislike closing RfAs. Difficult decisions are whatever; I have no problem making or defending them. What I dislike about closing RfAs is telling a good-faith contributor that they're not good/trusted/whatever enough. RfA candidates, by and large, are people who are helping out and want to help out more, and it feels bad to tell them that they can't, when all they want to do is help (and most of the time, they haven't really even done anything wrong!). It never feels good to tell someone that they're not trustworthy or experienced enough to do something. Arbitration is different because, although one does "speak badly" of people, there are generally actual problems of some kind (otherwise, it wouldn't have gotten as far as arbitration, assuming the system worked correctly. The whos, hows, and whys will change, and nobody ever comes out of arbitration happy, but it's not the same as crushing the dreams of some innocent newbie, so to speak.
Secondly, being on ArbCom is not like being a bureaucrat. I didn't resign just because I don't like closing RfAs or being a 'crat; I resigned mainly because we didn't need me to be a 'crat. With the burden of username changes shipped off to Meta, enwiki bureaucrats don't really have much to do; there are plenty of 'crats to handle the now-light workload. If the community doesn't need me as a 'crat, and I don't particularly enjoy being one, then I figured it made sense to stop being one; if RfAs weren't getting closed because there weren't enough 'crats around, I would've kept doing it. That's not true of ArbCom members; if the community elects me, then it needs me to keep going. I mean, I'm not going into this expecting to like being on ArbCom. But someone has to do it, and I figure I can probably do it as well as some other anonymous volunteer, so I'll do it.

Questions from BU Rob13[edit]

To be blunt, I'm concerned about this candidacy. "Eh, why not?" is perhaps the best summary of how the Arbitration Committee has made mistakes in the past, but even ignoring that, there's a serious lack of transparency in not bothering to explain any of your opinions about the Committee or what you bring to the table as a potential Arbitrator. I look forward to hearing your answer to Biblio's question to better suss that out, but on a more basic level, do you think transparency is important in the Arbitration Committee? How do you think a lack of transparency affects ArbCom's credibility within the community? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you can be more blunt than that. :D Transparency is of course important, generally speaking. (Did you expect me to say anything else?) But it's not the primary, overriding concern. I can easily imagine, and so can you I'd bet, situations where doing things publicly is going to be worse than doing them privately. So it becomes a balancing act, and the balancing act will tend to favor one side or the other. Speaking personally, I would usually prefer doing things in the open unless there is a reason not to, but since I've never actually been on ArbCom myself, I'm loath to judge them, or offer concrete answers of my own, with too much finality; I don't actually know what that balancing act entails. Obviously a lack of transparency hurts the relationship with the community...but then again, y'know, ArbCom's job is to make tough decisions in cases where nothing else has worked. That's not going to endear ArbCom to anyone anyway. Which I'm not saying that ArbCom shouldn't care about how their relationship with the community, but in making decisions, on the degree of transparency as well as any other issue, "is this the right thing to do?" is (or should be) the operative question, not "will the community like or appreciate this?". (and again, my statement is the way it is not because I want to hide my opinions on things but because I thought it'd be funny, nothing more or less. If that loses me your vote, that's cool; I'm not really trying to change anyone's minds. Y'all can do that--or not--on your own.)
This directly follows from your response above. I don't attribute your lack of transparency to a malicious intent to deceive, just as I don't believe the current arbitrators sit in the Hall of Doom and conspire to keep us in the dark on basic issues not related to private matters, like how they came up with the scope of any given case. You're a good-faith contributor, certainly, so I expect you to have acted with good intentions, but that's a very low bar. To what degree do you think appearances matter for the Arbitration Committee? Do you think statements or conduct can become problematic even when intentions are good? If you do agree appearances matter, what appearance do you think your lack of statement gives off? Specifically, does it give the appearance of a potential arbitrator who values openness? Alternatively, if you don't think appearances matter when good intentions are present, how do you reconcile that with certain bright-line rules we have for editors and administrators? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Appearances matter for ArbCom, to be sure, but I'm not on ArbCom (yet?). The statement is a joke, and honestly the only appearance I'm really concerned about in this specific instance is whether it amused me. (Mission accomplished! :D ) If I were to actually be on ArbCom, then that's a different story, because things like arbitration cases aren't a laughing matter, so you should certainly expect more from me then. Like I said in my own question above, taking the election process lightly doesn't mean I'd be taking ArbCom itself lightly. But, like I say, if that's not your cup of tea, if you think that seriousness for one is predicated on seriousness for the other, then that's totally fair. I just like taking gentle jabs at the bureaucracy of it all every now and then, and I can't blame anyone who isn't a fan of that. I also respect it that you want more information about me in the statement, but I personally have never put much stock in 'em--they're inevitably going to be self-serving. something about chickens, pots, cars, and garages? I'd rather have a dialogue than a monologue, and if people would rather just oppose instead--which again is totally cool--I'm fine with that.
As you've indicated that you do not wish to hide your platform, whatever it may be, could you detail your platform with the standard 500-word limit on statements? What ideas/mentalities/etc do you bring to the table? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I don't really have a platform. I'm not really coming at this from the perspective of an election, where I need to win the hearts and minds of the people or whatever (hence why I'm comfortable with doing silly things like a three-word statement). As far as ideas I bring to the table, I'd say the most relevant thing is my opinions about advanced rights; I think it's important to stay within the boundaries of the rules, and not be "creative" in their application. IAR in normal editing is one thing, but IAR has (almost) no place in the context of advanced rights. Perhaps ironic given my above jabs at bureaucracy, but limits on power is an important thing. Limits on power is why I expressed admittedly vague support to a lot of what Biblioworm said in the questions above, but, y'know, I've never been an arb, so I'm reluctant to make any definitive statements on those; I just don't really know what being an arb is like, and I'm loath to make concrete pronouncements without that knowledge.

Question from SilkTork[edit]

You say above "What I dislike about closing RfAs is telling a good-faith contributor that they're not good/trusted/whatever enough", and I understand this. You are of course aware that arbitration cases always concern good-faith editors. If it is clear that an editor is malicious, the case doesn't reach the Committee. There are times when in a case the majority decision is 6, and five Arbs have voted to desysop, and five have voted not to desysop. You now have the deciding vote. The admin has explained how they acted in good faith. Do you feel you might have a problem making that decision because of the consequences of desysopping or banning a popular and well respected admin who acted in good faith? If not, would you explain what for you would be the difference between "it feels bad to tell them that they can't, when all they want to do is help" in a Request for adminship and a Request for arbitration. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The difference is that an arbitration case at a split vote implies the existence of a problem. (Obviously people are disagreeing on how serious the problem is, or what to do about it, but I rather doubt that it would get so far if there were no problem at all; and if it did, then it'd be a pretty easy vote for me.) Sometimes people are a problem, however good their intentions, and I don't have trouble trying to fix problems. After all, I--like any admin--have blocked my fair share of apparently good-faith editors who, despite their best intentions, are just causing more trouble. The difference with RfA is that most of the time, the candidates have done nothing wrong. They've usually done nothing to earn their harsh judgement other than want to help out more. It's not just that they have good intentions, they also (usually) have good actions, too, so it hurts when you tell them, "I'm sorry but you just aren't good enough."
If someone that I had judged unfavorably in an arbitration decision were to come up to me and ask me "where did I go wrong?", then I'd be able to tell them something--if not, then I'd have been doing a very poor job as arbitrator. If the same happened of an RfA, most of the time I wouldn't have an answer, because they haven't done anything wrong. That's the difference, and that difference hurts.
I'm not sure if I'm reading your answer correctly. It looks as though you are saying that when there is a split vote at an arbitration case it is clear that there is a problem with the user, but when there is a split vote in an RfA there isn't a problem with the user. While there are cases of RfAs where people are opposing because they feel the candidate is not ready, a good deal of opposes in hung RfAs are to do with genuine concerns folks have about the candidate's judgement, temperament, and impartiality. And often these are also the sort of concerns that will split an Arbitration Committee. However, my understanding of the 'Crat's role in a hung RfA is not to pass judgement on the candidate, but to assess the consensus of those taking part in the discussion. While in an Arb case, the Committee member's role is very much to pass judgement on the individual. So, after reading your answer, I'm still not clear on why you would feel comfortable making a direct personal judgement on an individual which may involve not just the humiliation of stripping them of their tools and status but also publicly banning them from editing Wikipedia, but have qualms about assessing if the community are saying that a volunteer is not ready today for adminship but can try again in a few months time. You are aware that a number of Committee members struggle with the demands of the role, some cannot handle it and leave mid-term, others take breaks and the rest of the Committee cover for them. My concern here, based on your reasons for retiring as a 'Crat, is that you are a well meaning and sensitive individual who might find the decision making and very public and sometime quite hostile personal criticism of those decisions (because there are always those who will feel you are wrong) to be so taxing that you become unable to operate effectively. What I am looking for, I suppose, is some clarity regarding your understanding of the role, and how - despite your sensitive nature - you will be able to cope. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, thanks for your favorable opinion of me as a person (at least I'd interpret that favorably), even if it's not what you're looking for in an arb. You're right, of course, that 'crats don't actively judge the candidate of an RfA themselves, and instead interpret the consensus of the community, and despite my word choice above, that's what I did in my time as a 'crat. I'd like to think my contributions to 'cratchats, such as they are, reflect that. But that's a tangent; while I know, intellectually, that that's what I did as a 'crat, that's not how it felt. Now, you're also right that being an arb will involve similar-in-feels judgements. What I'm trying to get at in describing the difference is that, in arbitration, there is a problem that needs to be solved. I don't mean that in a problem-user sense; more a situation, a dispute that needs resolving. Sometimes the solution requires that someone gets metaphorically smacked, but it's the situation that I'd be mainly focused on addressing (and preventing future instances of). I guess that's a fine line, and while I say now that that fine distinction is enough, I guess I can't really know for sure unless and until I'm elected. I guess the only other thing I can say is to repeat that it wasn't that I couldn't continue being a 'crat; I could've kept going without too much trouble. It's just that it didn't seem like I needed to be one; there were and still are more than enough 'crats to handle the workload, so if I didn't particularly enjoy it, it didn't hurt anything to resign. If I'm elected, that case is altered. But, at the end of the day, I guess it's up to y'all (particularly with your first-hand knowledge of ArbCom, SilkTork) to make that call.

Questions from Collect[edit]

Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
The trivial answer is "no", but a more interesting answer would require you to define your terms. Do you include things like "admonishments" (ugh, what a word), recommendations and the like? If not, then it's a pretty easy no. If so, then a case that doesn't lead to anything raises the question of why the case was accepted to begin with. But then again, evidence changes things; if ArbCom judged everything just based on the case request, then cases should be a hell of a lot shorter. So still no.
If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?
This sounds like a trap question; it sounds like you have a particular case in mind though the question is couched in generics. I don't mean that you're maliciously laying a trap for me, just that it sounds like you're thinking of something more specific. Generally, without any more details than that, I would say yes, that is sufficient to say that the administrator isn't impartial. But context is key, and I wouldn't hold myself to that unless I got more details on the specific situation.
a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?
yay mediawiki

1. Sure, and my impression, from what I've seen, is that ArbCom generally does so. But there'd have to be a "within reason" clause.
2. I don't see why not, with the natural proviso that ginormous walls of text usually don't help to convince anyone of anything. Brevity is wit, they say.
3. Not as such. I'd think a better solution for a problem like this would be to have a short "closing statements" period after evidence, where only parties can add to the page, and only to rebut and sum up. d) As written, that sounds like "none". If there's new evidence, kick the case back to evidence phase (or maybe the closing statements phase?). One would like to not ignore any evidence, because evidence is evidence, but I don't particularly see a reason to keep the process so rigid at the expense of transparency.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from uninvolved Drmies[edit]

So, Writ Keeper, you're an admin, a former crat, you've written some useful content (in the underdeveloped area of Mongolian shamanism, for instance), you have common sense, you don't take yourself or other unserious matters too seriously, you have pretty decent manners, you've never been blocked or gotten into any other trouble as far as I can tell, you got some serious technical skills, you're pretty mature, you got a college degree and can write your way out of a paper bag, you got friends in high places, you're diplomatic and deferential to your elders--well, I can almost say almost all these things about almost anybody. But why? Drmies (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Didn't you read my statement? :D
No, but really, I can't really say, as weird as that sounds. At some point in the last month or two Bishonen offhandedly mentioned that I should run for Arbcom, and I, equally offhandedly, said something to the effect of "no way". I mean, it doesn't sound like a fun job. But, to the dismay of all the people who just want Arbcom to slowly disappear, it still seems like someone has to do it. I feel like I could do it. Part of me puckishly wants to see how far I get with an eleven-character statement, so there's that. So, why not? I...guess I kinda just want to see what would happen.

Question from Mark Arsten[edit]

Hi Writ Keeper, thanks for running for Arbcom. My questions are about account security.
What are your thoughts on the handling of the recent incident in which several administrator accounts were compromised? Do you think that technical or policy changes need to be made as a result? Also, are you confident in the security of your e-mail and Wikipedia accounts?
Well, it seems to have been handled about as well as could be expected; lucky that the people responsible didn't have more nefarious goals in mind. Certainly a shame that it happened at all, but the weakest part of any computer system is the user, so I can't say I'm terribly surprised that it did. We got off pretty easy. As far as changes, 2FA is a pretty good start; nice that they did that. (My account has it, for those keeping score.) It'd be nice to have a 2FA requirement for people with sensitive permissions, but that probably wouldn't go over very well; TOTP clients aren't always easy to set up, especially for those without access to a smartphone, so it would incur a non-trivial burden of technical knowledge on people. Upping the password complexity requirements might also be a good idea, but there again, I don't think we can apply that retroactively, and forcing everyone to change their passwords (to force them to comply with the new standard) is not great, either. Policy-wise, beyond how we already handle compromised accounts and perhaps adding a strong recommendation advocating 2FA and proper password discipline, I don't know what else there is to do; after all, it's not like we'd have any way to *enforce* rules about password safety. I suppose we could have someone trusted (stewards?) run a password cracker on accounts with sensitive permissions, and then lock the relevant accounts. That would probably sketch people out, though.
I'm fairly confident in my own password security; the passwords to both my Wikipedia account and email account have non-trivial passwords, and both are protected by a form of 2FA.

Questions from Carrite[edit]

Thanks for running. This year's ArbCom took very few cases and seems to have kept to deadlines more expeditiously. I think most everyone can agree that this was for the good. What do you think was the biggest mistake made by ArbCom in 2016? What letter grade (A to F) would you give their performance? What could they do better?

Do you read or post at Wikipediocracy? What is your opinion about this off-wiki criticism site? Do you feel it is a malicious venue for harassment or a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems or something in between these extremes?
I do read it on occasion, and I've posted a handful of times--I think my edit count is still in the single digits, though, and nothing of tremendous interest, I'd bet. (For the record, I would rather pack my bags than put more than three words in my statement. :D ) I don't really have that much of an opinion on it either way, honestly. Sometimes interesting stuff gets posted there, sometimes stuff that I don't really like or appreciate gets posted there too, but y'know, I could say the same about Wikipedia itself, and yet here I am, so... Mostly I think there's just too much bad blood between the two for there to be much in the way of constructive dialogue. No comment on whose fault that is; it might just be a reflection of different cultures at this point, with Wikipediocracy favoring a more rough-n-tumble approach, which has pluses and minuses of its own. (Certainly, they don't struggle to define civility the way Wikipedia does.) It's a shame, because intelligent criticism is something Wikipedia needs, and whatever their faults, there are certainly some intelligent people over there. I just don't know that people on either side would listen to the other.

Questions from Opabinia[edit]

My cat 🐱 wanted to post this, but I told him he'd just get himself blocked again, because arbcom is Very Serious Business after all ;)

Case load is way down. Email volume is holding steady, but is still way down from its peak. ARCA requests are up slightly, but not too bad. Attention to this election is down compared to last year. We're slowly becoming irrelevant, and not in a bad way. Meanwhile, though, the most common community dispute resolution venue is ANI, with which there is long-standing and widespread dissatisfaction.
I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. What do you think about this trend toward fewer cases? Do you have any ideas on how to improve the committee's efficiency at ARCA? What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?
Fewer cases sounds like a good thing at face value, but I wonder that it's not more influenced by fear of/distaste for ArbCom, and sheer fatigue at the process of it all, rather than an absolute reduction in disputes. Streamlining the ArbCom process is probably a good idea that might help with at least some of that. No particular ideas about ARCA; it's a side of things I haven't really looked at, and I'm not sure I'm the only one. So, more eyes might be the answer; it's certainly something that it would make sense to look at more, were I to be elected. I would imagine that ARCA requests would naturally go up over time anyway, as the the body of work (i.e. completed cases) that ARCA works from increases in proportion. Sadly, I doubt the committee can do much about ANI; ArbCom isn't of course legislative in nature, so it can't change much about it directly, and indirect changes--say, relieving some of ANI's workload by loosening requirements for accepting a case--probably wouldn't fly, and certainly couldn't be done by ArbCom unilaterally, since it's an expansion of ArbCom's power in a time where it seems like people would rather it be reduced.
What aspects of the committee's work do you expect to find most (or least) satisfying?
Well, I'd probably guess that accepting unban requests might be the most satisfying (though how many of those are actually acceptable would probably factor into that). Being drafter on a case is probably least satisfying, if I had to guess.
A similar question was asked by Worm That Turned last year, and I think it's a good one for those new to the committee. There's a long history of arbitrators being targeted by trolls and harassers, sometimes escalating to the point of outing, off-site abuse, and even interfering with arbitrators' real lives. Are you prepared for these possibilities?
Yeah, I think it's fine. Doesn't sound fun, but is what it is. There was a time where I would've been worried about that a lot, but that time has mostly passed.

Questions from Spike789[edit]

What do you plan to do when you get elected, and how are you going to convince people that you will be successful? Since the only think you said was "why not"?
I'm just going to do ArbCom things. I'm going to do my best to provide a reasonable voice on ArbCom and try to tell and do what's right. Like I've said, I'm not trying to convince anyone. People are either going to vote for me or not. I know this is called an election, but I'm not on the campaign trail. I'm just throwing my name in a hat. If y'all still need convincing, then feel free to vote oppose for me; no skin off my back.

Questions from Dr.saze[edit]

Hello, I want you to know I wanted to vote for you since the beginning of the campaign. But I have a question. Lots of "important" editors wanted to block me because they had another opinion about adding AFI's nominations than me. They were really mean to me and I had not enough support to fight back. Could you do something for AFI nomination's future, or you are not very interested of it? You know, I am really sorry I am helting you with these maybe unimportant future, but I am just feeling in your personality good changes could come in.

Thanks for answers.

Thanks for your kind words, and sorry to disappoint, but changing the AFI nomination process isn't something that's within ArbCom's purview, and it's not really something I know all that much about. Can't really say anything about it.

Question from *thing goes[edit]

Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:

Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private?
Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?

--18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about how the mailing-list is set up, or what potentially sensitive information is actually shared on it. So nope, can't say I'd strive for any changes in that department, since I don't know what it's like to begin with. Hopefully the most important stuff isn't sent over emails to begin with, but...

Question from The Rambling Man[edit]

Your contribution history (this year alone) shows you barely participate in the addition of quality content to the encyclopedia. How can we trust that you understand the machinations of the debates around the policies and behaviours of those who actively contribute to the quality content of the project?
Well, that's ultimately up to you. For myself, "ArbCom doesn't rule on content" is a thing we hear. I actually was asked at one point in time to apply for the Mediation Committee, which actually does rule on content. I declined because of precisely this reason; without all that much content to my name, I don't have the experience or context to be able to judge such things effectively. At least in theory, ArbCom rules on editor behavior, not content, so there shouldn't be as much required.But it's not like context isn't helpful or important; more is always useful. It's a question of how much is necessary. So, it sounds like we might disagree on how much one needs. Ultimately, it's your call.
In relation to the recent 'Arbcom case' which saw my eventual de-sysopping and active sanctions against me, would you accept a case in which dozens of individuals had been canvassed and encouraged to contribute, all of whom had been notified because they had been in conflict with the subject for one reason or another over the past decade?
Maybe. Fruit of the poisonous tree is a long-standing principle of (at least U.S.) law enforcement, but this ain't law enforcement. Canvassing would have to be borne in mind, and as such perhaps extra restrictions, or even total bans, on contributions from non-parties on the evidence page (and certainly on the workshop page, honestly I don't really know what the point of the workshop even is), but at the end of the day, Arbcom, perhaps more so than any other form of decision making on Wikipedia, isn't a popular vote. Ironic, I know, since it involves actual voting, but the point is that the sheer numbers won't directly affect the result. There's certainly something to be said for thirty people overwhelming one in a flood of out-of-context evidence that's just too much for the one person to rebut, which increasing the evidence restrictions would help with. But declining any and all cases out of hand, regardless of merits? I wouldn't go that far.

Questions from Antony-22[edit]

In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
There's no such thing as free speech on Wikipedia, so enforcing civility neither harms nor helps it. Which is to say that while yes, enforcing civility does harm free speech (in the sense that it would make one think twice about saying something), that's not necessarily a bad thing, since Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech. Free speech, as in the right to free speech, is not really a good way to frame the civility debate; it tends to force an absolute answer (the right to free speech cannot be abrogated) to what is a relative question (to what extent do we tolerate heated/uncivil dialogue in what can be passionate discourse). It suggests easy answers where there are none. Also, there is no line between incivility and harassment; the two aren't closely related. They're not two points on the same spectrum. It's possible to be uncivil without harassment, and it's possible to harass without being incivil, and it's possible to do both, or neither.
Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals through formal programs in GLAM institutions, universities, and government agencies. This is perhaps causing some angst that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?
That is the heart of the civility debate, and if there were easy answers to it, we'd probably have found them right now. Ideally, one would be able to moderate oneself in the presence of others; if one person says something that upsets someone else, and that someone else--respectfully--expresses their upset, then one would moderate themselves to allow the discussion to continue. We're never going to find a single behavioral code to follow in all situations, because people are different; a conversation between two long-time colleagues who are--and know each other to be--comfortable with some four-letter words and weird jokes shouldn't be judged the same way as a conversation with a wide-eyed newbie, nor should it be restrained in favor of the lowest common denominator (an impractical suggestion even if it was palatable; there's always someone who can get offended by any given thing), yet one can't expect everyone else to have the same comfort, either. It's a place where mistakes and upsets would be inevitable, and perhaps even frequent; the point is that such mistakes should be identified and worked on.
More specifically, let's say a professional at one of these institutions complains to ArbCom that another editor is using uncivil language that violates their organizations' internal rules, and thus their engagement with Wikipedia is jeopardizing their job. What considerations would go into ArbCom resolving such a case?
Well, the first question is, "why is that at ArbCom"? Without further context, that doesn't sound like a problem for ArbCom at all. It's also not ArbCom's problem to keep people in their jobs; our concern is about the rules of Wikipedia, not the internal rules of some organization. Which isn't to say that there isn't also a problem with the editor to begin with; it would just have to be looked at and judged in the context of Wikipedia.
Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press in the past. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles?
Not officially, no; ArbCom is not a PR organization. I certainly have absolutely no interest in writing press releases.

Questions from George Ho[edit]

If a person subject to the case avoided one of the phases of the accepted ArbCom case, how would the person's avoidance or boycott affect the overall results of the case?
Deliberately avoided? Like, I think I talked above about putting a case on hold if a party can't attend. But if they're just choosing not to, that's different. The case will probably suffer for not having them be represented--more eyes are usually better, especially eyes from different sides--but it's their choice to participate or not, so it wouldn't affect the actual proceedings.
The majority of the Committee voted to revoke a person's administrative privileges, yet that person resigns from those duties before the decision became final. What if that person did not resign and did let the decision be final? Would the Committee or that person be antagonized for the decision to revoke the privileges?
I...don't understand your question. Who would be antagonizing whom? are you sure that "antagonized" is the word you're looking for?

Question from Fish and Karate[edit]

Eh, why?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Writ Keeper questions discussion[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Writ Keeper/Questions
Back to Table of Contents

Writ Keeper general discussion[edit]

indifferent?[edit]

Sorry to say this but the "Eh, why not?" suggests indifference and feels off-putting. First impressions matter, particularly when interacting with strangers.Victimofleisure (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I like it. Halbared (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Back to Table of Contents

[1] Råman, Jari. Regulating Secure Software Development: Analysing the Potential Regulatory Solutions for the Lack of Security in Software. Lapland University Press. ISBN 9789524840347. Retrieved 16 November 2016.

[lfaraone 1]