After much contemplation, I've decided to once again place my hat in the ring.
For those of you who don't know me, I've been here five years and focus mostly on Wiki-gnoming -- tasks such as vandal fighting, copy editing and other page cleanups, and updating articles. I tend to stay away from more contentious areas of the 'pedia, though I do have experience with WP:Requested moves.
I ran for Arbcom previously in 2011 and 2014, losing both times, and know well that I am an underdog this time around too.
I do still stand by the statement I made in 2014:
"I'm running because I honestly believe in the core mission of Wikipedia: Creating an encyclopedia. I believe the Arbitration Committee -- and each arbitrator, individually -- should focus first on what is best for the encyclopedia.
"I'm also running because I believe ArbComm is lacking in a few key areas. First, the current committee lacks members who aren't admins. I feel bringing the perspective of "the average user" to the committee is a plus. Secondly, the committee moves slowly. Too often cases take many weeks, or even months to decide, leaving editors in limbo. Third, ArbComm lacks transparency. Too much happens off site, hidden away in emails and a private wiki."
As for the standard disclosures, I am over the age of 18 and meet the requirements for access to private data, and am willing to sign the necessary agreement. I have the following doppelgänger accounts: User:Hot Stop (my former account name), User:Hotstoponwiki and User:Calidum Sistere. I have not used other accounts, though I did edit anonymously prior to registered my account in April 2011.
Thank you for your consideration, and I truly hope you really think about your vote before casting your ballot.
Hi Calidum, 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'll answer your last question first, and say I'm very confident in the security of my email address. I use a dedicated, Wikipedia-only gmail address, and have used two-factor authorization on the account. Given the recent hack, I don't feel fully confident in my account here, though I never edit from public computers to help mitigate that risk. I believe it is time for Wikipedia to consider requiring two-factor authorization for certain trusted users (whether they are all administrators or some other group remains to be seen) going forward, though I do understand not all users would be comfortable with or able to do so. I'm also not familiar with how our two-factor system works.
This is your third candidacy for ArbCom; in the past two elections (WP:ACE2011, WP:ACE2014), your level of support has not passed 25%, combined. Some guide writers during those cycles had concerns about your temperament. What is different about your candidacy this time around? --Rschen7754 01:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I think, or would hope, that I'm more mature now than I was then and have learned to avoid certain problem and simply walk away when things can get heated. I'd also hope temperament isn't the only factor voters consider.
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 must admit I have not followed ArbCom closely this year. I do find it amazing that the committee had to include a reminder for itself in the remedies of the Michael Hardy case. I think that speaks volumes about how the committee has handled cases of late.
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?
To be honest, I've never posted on the site and visited it a couple times in the past, but not of late. So I can't really pass judgment on it. I do, think, however, there should be a place where users can speak freely about Wikipedia, including criticism.
Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
Absolutely not. It is unfair to the parties in a case to have such a mindset.
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?
Yes, it absolutely is an indication the admin is no longer impartial. In fact, not only is it a violation of WP:INVOLVED, it may also be a personal attack depending on the exact nature of the statement in question.
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. There should be some latitude given, but this is 2016 and it's hard for me to imagine someone truly being aware from the Internet for such an extended period of time that they would not be able to edit at all. As the saying goes, "justice delayed is justice denied." b. Again, I think there is a place for reasonable accommodations in such instances. c. This really would depend on the nature of the evidence itself. If it's the seventh instance of an editor edit warring over a particular topic, then I'm not sure how additional time would matter. If it's a new allegation altogether, sure, the party should have time to rebut it. I would have assumed that the role of an impartial arbitrator would preclude him or her from presenting evidence, but it appears our relevant policies don't address the issue. That being said, I would say they should not present evidence, because this isn't some sort of kangaroo court.
Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
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.)
I've taken the liberty of breaking up the questions here for readability. In general, I would say the Arbitration Committee should be responsible for just that -- arbitration. One way to reduce the burden would be to -- with the community's consent -- task another user group with assigning functionary tools. Stewards would seem to be the optimal group to handle that task, though the committee could maintain oversight of those who have functionary tools on this Wikipedia. The other areas you mention - legal issues, privacy matters and off-site harrasment -- seem like things best handled by the WMF. I would, however, have some concern about having "outsiders" (for lack of a better term) policing the English Wikipedia community, and I'd imagine I'm not alone in that regard. These are certainly conversations worth having.
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).
For your first point, I am in general agreement with the idea that the committee should state which issues will be addressed when a case begins. I would be hesitant to goes as far as saying only those items will be considered, because issues not previously under consideration could come up in evidence. However, I would say if new issues do arise during the course of a case, the committee should make it clear that the scope of the case has been expanded to include those issues, and allow the parties additional time if necessary to address those concerns.M/br>To your second point, I would favor taking some steps to limit the "peanut galleries" as you put it. But I would be wary of limiting the evidence page to only parties, because it could put one or more parties at a disadvantage (not everyone before the committee may have the ability to find diffs and old edits, for example). This is something that would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis (no pun intended).
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.
Of course. This falls perfectly in line with the principle of escalating punishments. Sitebans should only be considered in the most extreme circumstances or where all other measures have failed.
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.
A 24-hour minimum seems reasonable, as parties should have the right to defend themselves. Of course, sanctions should be allowed within that 24-hour window if the disruption continues after the report is filed at AE to prevent users from gaming the systems.
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.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but I would have some apprehension about implementing it. As you mentioned above, "peanut galleries" can be an issue, and giving others the ability to make motions would seemingly not improve upon that.
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.
As I said in my previous answers, I would support most of these, with the exception of the final proposal listed. Making reforms and improvements to the committee is something I believe in. I also think several other ideas tossed around before are worth consider, such as assigning certain cases to panels of five to seven arbitrators instead of the whole committee to reduce workload, and merging the workshop and evidence pages to streamline cases. I appreciate your questions and would certainly answer any follow ups you may have.
and merging the workshop and evidence pages to streamline cases. A very good idea. That is something I never thought of. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on Wikipedia's gender gap? What steps do you think should be taken to close the gender gap, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of women and minorities? ThePlatypusofDoom(talk) 19:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
As someone who works in the media -- newspapers specifically -- I understand the need for a diverse community. This means diverse in terms of gender, race, socioeconomic background, political views and more. As to what can be done, there is no silver bullet to fix the problem. One thing I think should be considered is outreach efforts to attract more editors -- of all backgrounds. It's no secret the number of active editors has largely been static in recent years while the number of active admins has been in a constant state of decline for several years.
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-standingandwidespreaddissatisfaction.
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?
The reason why the committee's caseload is down is because the community is handling more and more disputes on its own at places such as ANI. This is a good thing to me, because the committee should only handle disputes when the community is unable to do so or when other attempts have failed. There will still be other issues too complex for the community to act, and that's where the committee comes in.
What aspects of the committee's work do you expect to find most (or least) satisfying?
I would like to promote transparency on the committee, and ensure parties to all cases are on a level playing field. Working to do so -- representing in a way the average user -- is what I would find satisfying.
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've been on Wikipedia for five years, and on the Internet many years before that, so I think I'm more than ready.
You mentioned two-factor authentication for your e-mail-account. 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?
Encrypted is obviously preferred to un-encrypted. That being said, I'm not a technology expert so I'm not sure I'm fully qualified to answer your question. I would like to see less work done by the committee over email, however, but I do understand more sensitive information would still need to be discussed there.
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?
Well I would have recused myself from the case you reference. That being said, I don't think a user should be rewarded for a such a blatant abuse of process.
In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
I'm less worried about protecting free speech than I am building and improving an encyclopedia. An occasional bought of "incivility" shouldn't be cause for serious punishment. Harassment, however, has no place on Wikipedia. That would include things like wiki-stalking -- following a user from article to article, dispute to dispute or removing a user's contributions or photos -- constant insults, repeated trivial complaints at the drama boards, outing attempts and off-site badgering, among others.
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 would refer to my above answer for my feelings on incivility and how it should be handled.
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?
Without knowing the specifics of such an incident, I don't believe this would be a case that would fall under the committee's purview unless there were some other factors in play.
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?
To some extent, yes. I think in certain instances the committee as a whole -- or an individual member chosen by the committee -- should do so. As a member of the press (though not one who covers Wikipedia or technology in general), I would want to know if I were wrong.
What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's roll in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
Undisclosed paid editing is unacceptable. The terms of use are central to Wikipedia, and the committee should enforce them as necessary. There are certain areas, however, best left to the foundation, like DMCA matters.
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?
A user declining to participate in any or all phases should not be seen as an admission of guilt, or be used against the user. Obviously, I wouldn't recommend a user do so because it gives them less of a chance to defend themselves.
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?
Leaning towards support; Anyone who has been trying to help with ArbCom since 2011 is likely serious.--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It's also nice to have non-admins on the committee. We need someone to represent the perspectives of that key group in our community. Edge3 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I've long thought this as well. ArbCom is too admin-topheavy. While there's going to be a natural tendency for those the community trusts well enough for adminship to also be good candidates for ArbCom, there are innumerable long-term, content-creation-focused editors who do not want to be admins, sucked into a daily grind of administrative tasks, but who do have the time to set aside for deliberative, slow-moving arbitration work. While trust is involved in both roles, they're very different. Adminship is about addressing the urgent (which is often not important, just time sensitive) and the tedious (and sometimes the fragile), while arbitration is about addressing the important and the intractable. It's not a good thing for ArbCom to be 100% admins, as this introduces a pro-bureacracy, pro-enforcement, less content-editor-supportive and less learning-to-get-along institutional approach, one that has been the primary source of dissatisfaction with ArbCom. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a loose cannon editor with tendency toward drama and petty vindictiveness. ARBCOM is like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. Calidum in such a high position would be a disaster of huge proportions, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉✓ 08:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The irony of someone who was just given a two-month timeout for harassment calling me vindictive is not lost on me. Looks like I'm about to lose the coveted somehow still allowed to edit despite being blocked ten times in two years demographic [1] demographic. Oh well. Calidum¤
Not all harassment is harassment, and not all harassment is attributed to the actual individual perpetrating the harassment, is it, Calidum? -- WV ● ✉✓ 21:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Advice to Calidum: don't feed. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I do think we need to think of ways to encourage more non-admins to apply to the ArbCom. I understand you may have concerns with this particular candidate, but the non-admin voting bloc is a very important (and sometimes ignored) part of the community. Edge3 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that.Halbared (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes: Wikipedia needs to tilt the balance of power to editors, not admins[edit]
Editors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. In recent years, the number of editors has been dropping off. This is in large part because Wikipedia is being taken over by admins, moving toward a hierarchical culture that drives off editors, particularly new ones, who thrive in a more egalitarian environment. We need a demonstration that nonadmins can win elections like this as a first step toward returning Wikipedia to an editor driven environment rather than an admin ruled environment. For this reason I've voted in favor of Calidum and against all the other candidates. Warren Dew (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Back to Table of Contents
I’m Amanda (aka DQ or DeltaQuad) and I have been serving on the committee for the past two years. In that time, I’ve drafted on 5 cases, and been drafter designate on another, and held two CUOS appointment cycles. While following through with my work on the committee, I remain active in the areas I was in before Arbitration. I am also on my way to getting my first good article, Colmar-Meyenheim Air Base.
The perspective of sitting on the committee definitely changes your view. Incumbent and experienced members are becoming even more critical to the proper functioning of the committee with no topic area cases this past year, only user conduct cases. Incumbents help avoid mistakes that previous committees have made and not only provides background but an understanding of past issues for the committee, whether they are similar or a review of a past decision. With members that know this history the committee definitely has opportunities to show it can do better this year.
The committee going forward needs to collaborate more, really discuss the issues it is presented with, and come to a solid, well rounded resolution. Cases are the biggest example of this. More than just the drafting arbitrators need to be involved in earlier stages of cases. This can also be augmented by regular meetings to discuss the issues facing the committee at the time.
Arbitrators also need to be aware and conscious of omnibusing and case scope issues. This year we have had cases that should have been declined or had a corrected scope to correctly address the underlying issues. Yet they continued as is in the interest of time or resolving the issue at hand, which in the end hurts the case parties and related topic areas.
With my continual willingness to learn and adapt, retaining knowledge of past committees, and always remaining a community voice when it comes to votes, I ask you to elect me again for the 2017-18 committee.
Disclosures: A list of my accounts and I already and will continue to comply with the WMF Identification Policy.
Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
The existence of a case should never imply sanctions. It's exactly what happened with the Michael hardy case at the end of the day, no sanctions were ever imposed. The best way to handle situations ("case"s, if you will) is to resolve the issues at hand with the minimal amount of sanctions that still allow a group of users to edit, fall down and build themselves back up to be better editors. It allows growth individually as editors and as an encyclopedia 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?
Yes, the administrator is then no longer impartial and is considered involved. The administrator think they can be impartial, but it can still cause underlying unilaterality to occur with the editor. Several times over the past two years, the Arbitration Committee has highlighted that there are many administrators around to deal with any given situation. Therefore, even if the administrator thinks they are the only editor in the area, it does not give them a green light to act partisan and unilaterally.
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?
There is actually a case where I voted on something similar to this. Arbitrators understand that there are sometimes inevitable delays to someones access to Wikipedia, and I would provide reasonable opportunity for them to do so. That said, if there is reason to believe that someone is making up excuses (not saying that was the case with my vote), then Arbitrators should give thought to such attempts to disrupt proceedings and the best interest of the encyclopedia.
Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
Where editors are accused of something, they should be allowed a decent amount of space to respond. There are definitely exemptions to that though, such as evidence that is removed as out of scope, or someone defending each of 50 diffs which arbitrators can use common sense to process. This is all assuming that "such a person" is meant to have the meaning of "a person".
Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
Courtesy has been extended to allow a single rebuttal per person before, but I would also encourage people to provide analysis of evidences on the workshop page if that would sufficiently allow for what they need to post.
Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?
So there are two different types of evidence I want to differentiate from in this case, pre-case conduct and conduct during a case. Conduct that occurs during a case is absolutely fair game, especially after evidence closure, as the committee retains full jurisdiction over it's proceedings. As for pre-case conduct, if an Arbitrator is reasonably connecting their evidence with evidence already provided (ie. someone links to a diff in a discussion, and the Arbitrator links another diff from that discussion) that is also fair game. If it's through digging of their own, then I would expect them to submit it during the evidence phase as a recused arbitrator.
Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
On your user page, you state that you have Borderline personality disorder, or BPD. The relevant Wikipedia page states that BDP is "characterized by unstable relationships with other people, unstable sense of self, and unstable emotions." As Worm That Turned has stated on your previous run for Arbitrator, "Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, [and] you may be threatened or harassed." How do you expect BPD to affect your decision-making capability should you be re-elected as Arbitrator?
I expect it to affect my decision making abilities just as much as it did this past term. To quantify that, it didn't. My personality, who I am, and how I act is not defined by my disorder, nor is any mental health challenge the same from person to person. The article you link to also leaves out a very important aspect, those who are high functioning with their BPD. In a nutshell it means I can interact and integrate better in society with fewer problems than those with low-functioning BPD.
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.)
"Functionary issues" is a very broad term. While, yes, I am in support of removing matters in general away from ArbCom, specifics may warrant a different answer. If your speaking of all functionary issues, including appointments, I disagree. Any auditing function removed from arbcom would ultimately come back up to us as a heavily involved dispute the community would not be able to resolve, or if the community does become involved again, then we'll have issues like the 2010 CU/OS elections where only 1/12 applicants were appointed, and eventually we'd regain the issue RfA is having by not having enough (active) functionaries. If we are talking about breaking it into a group instead...possibly...that's a very large rabbit hole to dive down on an RfC level. As for issues that are perhaps too sensitive and too large of an issue for ArbCom, especially where we don't have the resources to handle the issue. I absolutely support removing that, and I dare say the majority of the current committee wants that gone too. Ultimately issues such as legal issues, privacy matters, conflict of interest investigations, pedophilia advocacy, off-wiki harassment (including but not limited to stalker blogs, hosted domains to harass a user, interference with life or work) are all legal responsibilities of the WMF as they host the site. We do not have the proper training, the proper professional contacts or access to them, nor are we elected to deal with it. To put it lightly we'd do a crappy job on a very sensitive issue. When they don't enforce or deal with an issue as such, it falls to the next person in the hierarchy, ArbCom.
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 agree that ArbCom should clearly state a case scope at the beginning of a case, and explain it in detail. Putting that in a form of questions is definitely an interesting idea, and not one I had considered. The problem I see with limiting ArbCom to those issues dissenting opinions is not all Arbitrators can comment within maybe the first two days of case, so we risk a further delay in the case from an affirmative scope. From there, if an Arb wishes to raise an issue, especially one the community validly raises, they are stuck and forced into that option. Ideally of course, ArbCom wouldn't need to change scope late in the game, but it's still needed as an option.
Streamline ArbCom case procedures by: 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).
ArbCom isn't a courtroom, though. While the community has struggled with the issue at hand, they are most often more educated on the matter than Arbitrators would be. Therefore their input, especially outside reasonable views, are helpful in deliberations, and may even help users headed toward sanctions see light. That said, Arbitators are (most of the time) not career lawyers and don't write the best or clearest decisions. Community involvement, especially former Arbitrator involvement can be specifically of aid to the committee.
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 have definitely seen examples where ArbCom has been to hasty to go with sanctions (as some would say "throw the book") at parties. Anything other than the banhammer at the end of the day is preferable and should be strived for. The TRM case was a clear example of something that overstretched what needed to be done. That said, there are limited cases where the hammer is in fact needed.
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.
I support this. Admins can block under standard block reasons if the disruption is heavy enough that it can not wait for an AE block, or if an AE contributors conduct crosses the line.
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.
I'm open to the idea. My concern would revolve around the implementation. Perennial proposals, or multiple versions with a couple words changed of a proposal, or motions like "ArbCom should unelect itself" are what I would hope to avoid. Honestly, this does not need to turn into another area where people can polarize their issues further, and I feel that several motions would be proposed for bans through this method. So it absolutely would need a filter just beyond an Arb endorsing it.
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.
During the years of 2015 and 2016, your activity decreased substantially; for 9 months of your term, you made less than 50 edits a month. If reelected, do you believe that you will be able to remain active as an arbitrator, while still remaining well-grounded in the community? --Rschen7754 06:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
While I do think that an activity chart can be an indicator of general activity, it's a poor measure for someone's actual contribution to a project. I compiled a brief table to include my admin, CU, and OS actions for the months you speak of. Only 3 of those listed months do I drop below 100 edits/actions. This does not of course include non-arb emails, keeping up by reading what's going on in the community, UTRS Development, the occasional assistance with ACC as a project, bot fixing and building, OTRS diversions, IRC, and other wikis to list a few. My point comes down to if I'm not here making an edit somewhere, the majority of the time i'm still around the community answering questions, helping out.
Hey DeltaQuad, thanks for standing for re-election. I really appreciate your willingness to work with other projects and people in cases with cross-wiki implications, and hope that other arbitrators follow your example! From my own outside perspective, I think that ArbCom has a bit of a bureaucracy problem, with a very formalistic and structured way of doing business that runs contrary to most other wiki-institutions. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be quite strange sometimes, such as when the Committee mandated an additional protection level which has now been co-opted by the community. Or the recently-proposed modification to the procedure for removing advanced permissions, which many have criticized for being too bureaucratic and long. Do you think that this is a problem overall, and what could be done to prevent it in the future? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom, without a doubt, has bureaucratic processes to it. Sometimes that work for the better, sometimes that just screw things up. 500/30 protection came from a community driven platform, and honestly, Arbitrators were shocked to learn of it's implementation and had no clue that there was even a proposal. Had I known, I would have stopped by and encouraged the community not to follow through with implementing it. Just because ArbCom thinks something is a good idea, does not mean it is. I still oppose the general idea of arbitration 500/30. My opinions on the removal of advanced permissions including my oppose are there, so i'm not going to split the discussion to answer this question, as the motion is still active. I don't think bureaucracy in general is what we are trying to prevent here at all, as process is definitely needed at times. That said, we are running up against complication vs. simplicity. The default desire when someone asks about something, requests clarification, or has a heavy dispute with someone we try and make it even clearer by explaining it. The more we explain things excessively, the more like mud things become. Why not just try to simplify it? I think encouraging remedies, decisions, motions, and more like that can help us to get past the complicated bureaucracy we create. For now, I will continue to oppose excessive over complications to issues, and strive to keep it as simple as possible with the best protection and least collateral for the encyclopedia.
Hi Amanda, 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?
Seeing multiple administrator accounts being comprised is definitely concerning. Any account being compromised is concerning. I've seen stewards, checkusers, and the WMF working around the clock to resolve the issues. The simple fact about this is people need strong passwords and minimize the attempts at engineering to break into their account. That said, ArbCom does not create, modify or invalidate policy. I trust that the community working in hand with the Foundation could come up with an appropriate policy as they see fit. As for my email and Wikipedia accounts, yes, they are secure. 2FA was enabled on my email a long time ago, I have it on my account onwiki now that it's available, and continue to recommend it for anyone who has privileged access.
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?
This is a very political question, whether it's meant to be or not. All this years cases were user conduct cases, so if I point to anything there, it's more my opinion on whether or not I felt my fellow Arbitrators voted in the right direction or not, and I don't think splitting the committee and the committee-elect on these views is the most collaborative way to go. One thing we did struggle with this year was ARCA. Requests sat there for a lot longer than I would have liked, and I was part of the problem. This year I started to work on getting the committee together for verbal meetings which keeps everyone on track, hears all viewpoints, and prioritizes business that needs to be handled and get done. One of my main drives this next year to improve the committee workflow for the benefit of each Wikipedian. This only helps the situation.
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've definitely seen a lot worse sites out there such as stalker blogs, outing websites, and a lot worse i'm not going to mention here. I do read Wikipediocracy along with some other off-site venues on occasions, more so when required by ArbWork. I have no objection to off-wiki criticism sites in general, if that is their sole scope. It sometimes makes someone think harder about their opinions on something. WPO is not something I regularly subscribe to though as debates often become pot shots at another person that pissed them off. Once people get into doxing other Wikipedia editors or making harassing statements (often repeated) about them, I oppose that completely. Sites like WPO can be a positive tool...but how often that actually occurs I'd tie to the level and amount of crap in any given thread.
Hello, and thanks for running. What changes do you want to bring to ArbCom? What do you think is the biggest problem with ArbCom right now? ThePlatypusofDoom(talk) 17:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The answer to your questions are directly in my nomination statement, and the other is a duplicate of Carrite's question above. Please look at those respectively. I'd be more than happy to answer follow up questions you may have.
I debated whether to post these for the current arbs after asking the former arbs, and decided the fairest thing to do is post them with the disclaimer that it's fine to ignore my ramblings ;)
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-standingandwidespreaddissatisfaction.
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?
It worries me a little that we have not seen any content area disputes come to the committee this year. Yes, ARCA is where a lot of the already existing areas are at, and that's something that needs to be focused on. But there are always disputes, heavy disputes that don't come to ArbCom. I expect to see ITN/DYK hit our door step eventually. The committee with the extra time at the moment should be taking the time to dive into the community to assist with dispute resolution before things need to get to a level of Arbitration. This could mean helping ANI, but we don't want 15 Arbs flowing into ANI, so finding your own area to help would be the best way. ARCA can be efficient once again, it just purely needs the collaboration of the Arbitrators. I want to add that while emails are down from it's peak, they are still heavy in numbers in my view, a fair amount of them being either unblock requests or people wish for Arbitration because they don't like how their article is written. Also, there may be lest interest in community members joining arbcom, and less questions this year, but considering the mass message sending there will likely still be a significant amount of votes.
What aspects of the committee's work did you find most (or least) satisfying since you've been a member? Do you expect this to change much in a new term?
The most satisfying part of the Committee's work is when we are able to assist people in resolving those disputes or issues, and they come to understand each other's views. That could be at any venue ArbCom has, so it's not one specific area. I sure hope that it only increases going into 2017
You were one of the drafting arbitrators on the Michael Hardy case. As part of the proposed decision of the case, it was proposed that four editors who were not parties to the case be placed on probation for 1 month. You originally supported the remedy but later switched to oppose "by request of the community". There were concerns noted on the talk page that those who were possibly going to be sanctioned had not been given notice or an opportunity to present evidence in their defense before the proposed decision was posted, and there was disagreement in the arbitrators' votes as to whether sanctioning a non-party in a case remedy was proper. Looking back on it, do you have any thoughts on whether the remedy and the process by which it was proposed were proper?
Simple answer, no. The affected people did not have the time to present evidence on the matter, nor did they know they were being considered, and throwing something on at the end was a mistake. It has likely had the effect of worrying users about bringing cases to ArbCom in the future. I apologize for that error, and without a doubt, it's ingrained in me that I might be part of the cause on why ArbCom won't get as many cases in the future. It's one that I will not repeat. At the very least I can also prevent future Arbitrators from proposing such remedies out of turn.
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?
"sufficently secure and private" is a very vague term. It's definitely not secure in the sense of someone could do a number of things (anything from MIM to Social Engineering) to gain access to that email. That's why ArbCom has a disclaimer about communications.
If we were to implement something such as PGP encryption, this would be problem for several reasons. 1) Encryption with endpoint users: Some arb will hit the wrong button, encrypt the message to the end user that doesn't use PGP, and they are confused 2) Many arbs use webmail: With webmail, you have to trust someone else's extension, which when it comes to security, I don't unless someone I trust has taken an indepth look at it 3) Future ArbComs: Future Arbitration Committees will simply be unable to review the content, as encryption is end-user, or if there is a way to create a group one, a new one has to be uploaded every year plus resignations, and redistributed 4) No mobile mail: A lot of Arbs stay up with email using a mobile device. Forcing encryption removes that ability and further slows response 5) Hard to setup: PGP is not an easy thing to set up. It's a very detailed process. Several arbs would need a walk through tutorial one-on-one to accomplish this. That and it's needed to be explained to new arbs every year. And i'm sure more reasons would come up...
I do think it's a good idea to have, but a horrible idea for the committee to adopt an internal policy on. That said, I'd be willing to receive a PGP encrypted message to pass onto other Arbs via Arbwiki or something.
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?
I will never understand a topic area about any specific surgical procedure or more likely in your case, a complex mathematical formula. There will always be topic areas that Arbitrators never fully understand. That said, machinations are fundamentally the same, it's just different subjects that they occur on. I also have aspects of my daily life now, that deal with people targeting each other and trying to gain the upper hand daily. My track record (if you go in and look at proposed decisions) through 2015 content cases, shows exactly that like the Wifione case.
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 think my track record speaks clearly as I declined the Fram ARC which would have easily turned into that, and I also opposed the acceptance of your case as is.
In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
[2]. Incivility is when your having a conversation and add a few words that aren't completely clean to make your point. Harassment is going out of your way to make someone feel uncomfortable, especially multiple times.
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?
[citation needed]. I hate to try and state the obvious here, but maybe through collaboration and consensus? Last I heard (and know from being on ArbCom and getting the endless businesses and/or profressionals wanting Arbitration over their page, plus what I see in OTRS) business will either go out of their way to try and follow our rules, even after being blocked, or just cut their losses and send (extremely) uncivil emails.
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?
If we are at that point, I'd have to ask the question, "Why are we here?"....To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
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?
Absolutely not. Wait...you mean after all these years no one has at least written an essay with all the timesinks we have on WP?
There's recently been some discussion about the changing case load of ArbCom. What are your thoughts on how ArbCom should begin to operate as most of the problematic topic areas have already been "handled" in past cases? Would you push for a move away from the time-consuming cases to more motions, amendments, and clarifications? Perhaps more succinctly, do you see ArbCom as entering more of a "maintenance phase"?
We can't be entering "maintenance phase". Maintenance is routine work that is keeping up a system in it's normal state. ArbCom has to adapt to it's changing environment, so we are now moving into a growth phase. This is the time for the committee to (try) and restore it's faith in part with the community. Outreach is a key way to do this where individual Arbs are working from within the community, and not just dealing with disputes put at it's door step. It shows we are genuinely interested in assisting with dispute resolution and improve the encyclopedia.
There should be no particular push to have issues with ArbCom resolved in one format. Each has it's own reason on why it exists. There are topic areas out there that still have not come to ArbCom, but will one day, so to try and push that into a motion or work it into a previous case scope, could be disastrous. What should be done is the community and ArbCom need to collaborate to improve existing processes to best serve the community while this downtime exists.
What would your ideal TRM / interactions at DYK or ITN case have looked like (including scope, results, etc)? Banedon (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
It is completely unfair for me to rehash a closed case, whether that be to the community, the parties, or to my colleagues. It's how drama starts, as it's not something we can fix at this point in time. It's good to have the philosophical discussions about what we do with certain parts of cases, as it brings better ideas forward for future Arbitration cases. At the same time though, people don't have a chance to respond to what I am saying and your asking me to vote on behalf of my Arbitrators. It's completely inappropriate to do so.
What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
My position hasn't changed much since the Wifione case. The only change I would make to that would be changing the first sentence to say that undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by the WMF and is not local policy.
What is currently written as policy on WP:PAID is a mashup of the Conflict of Interest policy and the WMF Terms of use. The page was only marked a policy page after a bold edit by a user. There was no formal RfC to prohibit or change the paid editing policy on the English Wikipedia. While I am aware that input was requested by the WMF for the modification of the terms of use, it was not implemented as a global policy. Furthermore, that represented all global editors and had many contributors that are not local to the English Wikipedia.
Looking at the actual paid editing terms in the terms of use, a Wikimedia project may individually adopt a policy that overrides the terms of use, and is to be listed at m:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies. English Wikipedia doesn't have one. Looking further into enforcement provisions, the Terms of Use allows, but does not mandate any enforcement of this policy, leaving it up to the individual project to decide if they wish to handle it.
All that said, there are RfCs that have been conducted surrounding paid editing that have all failed to obtain any consensus on the issue. For those who are concerned that paid editors are going to have a negative effect on Wikipedia, the previous ArbCom decision on the matter outlines clearly how we already have the tools to manage it. "The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy." [Wifione case]
It's the WMF's responsibility to enforce the terms of use, as it is their policy. As noted in other questions, ArbCom has limited resources or legal defense in this area also, and therefore would put committee members at more legal risk for taking up this issue.
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?
It may or may not affect the overall case. It's very circumstantial, especially if the editor is a main party to the case or not. It's really their main place to provide a defense to anything that has been said against them, and their chance to present issues that they are faced with in the scope of the case. I don't like to see parties not provide a defense, but I see that as their right, which I fully respect.
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?
@Sarah777: If you look, those four accounts were blocked by DeltaQuad as old accounts. Not entirely sure why (account security, maybe?) but it's not a block for any actual disruption. ~ Rob13Talk 20:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
OK - thanks. I wasn't sure why there were so many dead accounts - I thought duplicate accounts were verboten on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
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) 12:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@BlackAmerican: I see that you did voice a question on her"Questions for this candidate" page, therefore might this question (above) be better suited to be repositioned there, along with your other question, as well as deleted from here? It doesn't seem that it belongs in the "discussion" when it's in fact a question directly for her. (NB: I in no way am meaning to be rude; just trying to ensure that things are in their appropriate place, so as to minimize clutter and/or misplaced items) PolymathGirl (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that we must still deal with bias issues, whether gender or other. People will always harbor biases; however, when it comes to any type of public decision, there are always other factors to consider, which is how I determined that DeltaQuad would be an excellent choice in this capacity. We must learn to leave our biases at home and harbor them only in private, because in the public arena, only intelligence, wisdom, willingness to help others and perhaps achievements on some levels, only these factors will improve things, whether they be reference works, nations or global issues. Paine Ellsworthu/c 18:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
In an ongoing effort to combat the Gender bias on Wikipedia, there's something to be said for including women in all administrative groups/levels. Albeit I'm biased, however, considering furthermore that A. she's got experience since 2014, as well as B. her GLBT minority status and BPD mental health disclosure (from her User page), it seems that she's an important person to have on board if we're actually going to be serious about "countering systemic bias" (versus just "feel good" measures). Having that perspective, combined with her 2 years of experience, makes her a solid candidate.
This may be my first time ever participating in any sort of election here on Wikipedia, however I'm just "calling it as I see it," and reminding people that we can't just "well-wish"; that we have to take active measures to combat systemic biases, by consciously including oft-overlooked minorities. (the same could be said for Mkdw's statement about work on those minority task forces) PolymathGirl (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Back to Table of Contents
I've been at Wikipedia for the last nine years as editor and administrator. Over those years I've worked with new articles and drafts, trying to keep improvable ones from being deleted--and removing the others, while trying to give realistic advice to new editors and dealing with questions about reliable sources.
As a member of Arb Com for the last two years, I've helped reach fair and realistic decisions. We have unsolved problems where some progress has been made in the two years, and I want to continue the effort: simplifying procedure, rationalizing Arbitration Enforcement, dealing with outing, and accommodating our rules to the terms of use. I hope I have been a voice for editors interested in the quality of the encyclopedia; their efforts can sometimes be lost in the bureaucracy.
My real name and my background are on my user page; I am identified to the foundation, I've signed the necessary agreements. I have an alternate active account as User:DGG (NYPL) for use as a volunteer Wikipedian in Residence at the New York Public Library; for other accounts I have used in the past see User:DGG/accounts
Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
It dependson what we find during the case. Accepting a case means we think that something is in our jurisdiction , but it does not mean tha we pre-judgethe result.
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?
Nobody should be openly stating personal aversion to other editors on their talk page or anywhere else on WP--The principle is No Personal Attacks. So I assume you mean the admin has given negative criticism to the work the person has been doing here. Normally it's fine that they follow up and try to get the editor to solve the problem, but if they become over-involved in the matter, they should let some other admin take over, as a precaution to ensure objectivity.
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?
For a/, b/ and c/ , arb com should be -- and is -- flexible in these matters, to be fair in the individual circumstances. For d/, arbs examine the statements in a case, and look into the background; if they find something relevant that hasn't been discussed, they should ask about it. But if they are taking on a major role in presenting the evidence they should instead recuse from the case. None of these points have a yes-no answer. For most of them, either way of handling the matter can lead to injustice and poor decisions--and all of them have been problems for one or another of the recent cases. I would never claim that we made the correct decision always, but I think showing the need to adapt to the particular circumstances is better than a absolute rule for any of them. The very purpose of having an arb com is the ability to dealwith equivocal problems--the obvious ones should be settled without us.
Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
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.
1a/ If you mean that arb com should not appoint and monitor functionaries, who else do you suggest do it? It's a very small part of our functions. 1b/As far as dealing with privacy, etc. , who do you suggest deal with it? The foundation? Arb com 's experience with them the past two years -- and, I've been told earlier than that-- is that they allot very few people to this work, and though the staff they do allot are excellent, they are overburdened & in consequence much too slow and unresponsive. If arb com does not deal with these, nobody will. We already use them for backup in the most difficult cases, and even that seems to be too much for them to handle 2/ It is not necessarily clear at the beginning of a case what the actual issues are likely to be--we accept case son the basis of the statements of the parties, but the evidence often leads us in unforeseen directions. It's difficult enough to make correct decisions at the end of the process, without foreclosing options at the beginning. However, Iwould liketo see us make more use of a Q&A format. 3/ By the time a case opens, the parties have usually said all they are likely to say of any value, and the most important contributions are likely to be from other observers, who are as much witnesses as spectators. 4/ we do prefer topic bans when possible. We have increasingly been using them. They often do not work smoothly, for there is great difficulty in defining the exact scope, and that tends to lead to wikilawering about the boundaries. Nowadays, most cases that might result in topic bans are dealt with before they get to us. 5/ AE can certainly use improvement. The problem is to make it more sticky than an ordinary block, but not so sticky that errors cannot be corrected. I do not know how to achieve the right balance; the only thing I am sure of is that we have not yet got it. Your proposal of a time delay for comments makes sense to me, and that might be a partial solution. 6/ Yes, Allowing proposed motions might be useful, but I am not sure just what you have in mind ?
Hi David, 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?
There is such a thing as password paranoia. For WP accounts, there is no irreversible damage anyone with less than developer permissions can do. Even oversighted data is visible in various illegitimate mirrors. A more significant problem is the mailing lists--and here password paranoia sets in, since I and several other current arbs have no access to the mailing list archives because there was no acceptable technical way to authorize us. IRC is a real danger, but I do not use IRC. My passwords for WP and email are distinct from anything else I use. I will use 2FA until the WP version has been better tested.
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 will generalize to the entire 2 years I've been on arb com. In one case, an editor being harassed outside WP asked that we deal with it in a way that might avoid bringing harm on them in the RW, though at the expense of the person's standing in WP. We did so, but it failed to protect them. We should have known it wasn't likely to work.
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. I do not post there. It is both a malicious venue for harassment and a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems. As a general rule, everything very useful is also dangerous, though the proportion varies.
Are you pleased or disappointed with what the committee has done during your tenure?
pleased we accomplish what we did; displeased that we did not accomplish more
What decision, if any, during your tenure do you feel has been most enhanced through your personal contribution, in the sense that you feel that your presence made a positive difference? I suppose I'm asking what you are most proud of contributing to the proceedings you have been a part of.
The Rambling Man, remedy 1,[3] in the hope that it makes clear that arb com will actively enforce policies about admin behavior.
It's a long time ago, but during the WifiOne case I expressed concern that an admin had blocked a user who had not edited for a long time and the reason for the block seemed unclear. You seemed to share that concern, and said you would look into it with a view to unblocking. It's water under many bridges by now, and probably supremely irrelevant, but I'm still curious about any follow-through there was - did anything at all ever come of that?
Begoon, Please give me the link.
Sorry. I spent half an hour looking for an exact diff, and can't find one. Wikipedia search is shit. Perhaps I misremembered. I think his name was Makrandjoshi, and I see that user was actually unblocked - but I probably got that wrong too. --Begoon 14:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I debated whether to post these for the current arbs after asking the former arbs, and decided the fairest thing to do is post them with the disclaimer that it's fine to ignore my ramblings ;)
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-standingandwidespreaddissatisfaction.
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?
In the past, most arb com members have not participated at AN/I. Reason's vary: even before arbcom, ==just as you said--I found the procedure there so chaotic and unsatisfactory that I stayed away unless there was something specific I could do. Now, I am in addition reluctant to comment because it might over-influence the discussion--certainly I'm now very reluctant to close. A few arb com members do now actively participate. Perhaps the rest of use should consider it: it might lend some stability. At ARCA most of the problem has been the committee's fault--we need as a group to be more systematic in dealing with them. As an additional problem, AE may not be chaotic, but I often consider it much too rigid and arbitrary and very unwilling to consider individual circumstances. Normally arb com members deliberately leave it to others, unless there's a question of explaining the original intent. Perhaps we should offer more guidance.
What aspects of the committee's work did you find most (or least) satisfying since you've been a member? Do you expect this to change much in a new term?
The first year was difficult, because almost none of the existing arbs were willing to support changes in the direction of less rigid procedure, or a willingness to enforce the terms of use (or even consider them binding) , especially about undeclared paid editors, or an openness to disclosing in-committee votes even when privacy was not needed, or a willingness to consider the balance between the gain for the encyclopedia and proper treatment for people. Many of the votes in that period showed almost nobody supporting my proposals, and I had very little practical role in drafting cases. This year is better: even though on many of these questions I am still in a minority, I am not usually alone.
I have a question about this edit [4]. Switching positions here can be interpreted as being open-minded and willing to change your opinion in the face of contrary arguments. It can also be interpreted as succumbing to peer pressure. What are your thoughts on this, and do you think that blinding every arbitrator from how the other arbitrators are voting is desirable? Banedon (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Neither; Choosing between the two remedies was a matter of guesswork about what would be sufficient, and it might have seemed like personal over-stringency if I alone held out for the stronger. It was pointed out in discussions that the stronger remedy could be adopted later if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
The practical risk from the email system that arbcom uses is not from the transmission of the mail or the mail server, but that someone with authorized access to the contents chooses to disclose it. This has happened in the past, long before I joined arb com, and no technical measures can prevent it.
While I have been on arb com, everyone is very careful about this; the policy is already unmistakably clear. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
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?
Do you mean a case against the people canvassing, or a case against some other person, about which a lot of people have canvassed?
In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
Harassment is usually deliberate ,though sometimes people who lack sensitivity can cross over into it without realizing. But in general, enforcing a reasonable amount of civility helps free speech, by encouraging more people to join the discussion--or the project.
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 has to be a balance, but where the balance lies is not obvious. Fortunately, our existing contributor base is considerable more polite than in earlier years.
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?
This is normally dealt with elsewhere. Even when privacy is involved, we have OTRS.
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?
Sensible people do not do their own press releases, but leave it for specialists.
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?
We can only judge on the basis of the evidence we have, the arguments presented, and the indications that people are will to change, but we try to be fair to everyone involved.
I am very pleased to see DGG running for this important position. I have had many Wikipedia encounters with DGG over the years and have always found DGG to be very positive, helpful, and fair.--Rpclod (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
DGG is in my view an excellent candidate, due to his consistent dedication to the web of concepts underlying WP, his organizational and analytical prowess, and his keen wit. I strongly agree that "A person who just comes here once should be helped to do what they intend." So important! WP cannot survive over the long term without constantly attracting new talent, and this means welcoming, encouraging, and educating newcomers. This line was the closer for me: "As a general rule, everything very useful is also dangerous, though the proportion varies." Victimofleisure (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I have encountered DGG during periods that I have frequented AfD, and found him to be reasonable, knowledgeable in wikipedia policy and consensus, level headed, calm, and respectful. I think he will make a fine arbitrator. Fieari (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Willing to take a balanced position on outing versus undisclosed paid editing and therefore has my support. Has done a good job so far. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
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) 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Back to Table of Contents
I'm Doug Weller and have been a member of ArbCom for two years. I've had this account for 10+1⁄2 years and have a dormant account, User:DougWeller, which has 2 edits, the first six months before I created this account. I've been an Admin for just over 8 years. I wasn't planning to run and told several people I wouldn't, but the dearth of candidates has changed my mind.
It's been an interesting two years for me, and very different years. As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, 2015 saw many more cases than this year - 18 vs only 4 this year. I think that this year's committee has by and large managed to deal with cases faster than last year but we've still had some problems, particularly with scope (as noted by other candidates as well).
DeltaQuad is absolutely correct when she suggests that cases shouldn't be left just to the drafters and that all of us need to be more active at the opening phases of the case. I'd also like to see more Arb input at the Workshop phase, particularly with drafters making proposals at that stage rather than wait for the Proposed decision stage. I did that when I was a drafter at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. The workshop phase should be the heart of the process.
Another area which definitely needs improvement and isn't obvious is dealing with email. It's all too easy to let it fall behind and weeks later find issues that haven't been resolved. Nagging sometimes helps (thanks User:Opabinia regalis for your nags) but isn't enough. We already have regular phone conferences with the WMF, usually once a month. I think I've been part of all of them, and at times we Arbs have stayed in the conference after the WMF have left and discussed issues, which has been useful, depending on how many Arbs were around. A few weeks ago DQ organised an Arb-only phone conference, and we were able to go through the list of outstanding items with an efficiency I haven't seen at any other time on the Committee. I see that she has mentioned regular meetings in her statement, and it's something I will definitely push for if I'm elected. We should always have one in the opening stages of a case, particularly to make sure whether the case is really necessary and the scope. The mailing list is good but not good enough for this.
As for my non-ArbCom activities, I'm still a relatively active editor in a wide range of areas, although I'm most interested in archaeology. And there's the usual anti-vandal work, chasing sock puppets, etc.
Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
Recycling my old answer as experience hasn't changed my mind: A case can be opened if it’s decided that there is a serious enough problem to investigate and that sanctions may be necessary if the evidence warrants them, but with no presupposition that sanctions will be required. And if after digging into the evidence it turns out that there isn’t anything serious enough to warrant sanctions, it would be nonsense to sanction someone anyway.
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?
Generally yes, although there may be unusual circumstances that would allow an Admin to act. WP:INVOLVED clearly says "Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." I guess one example where action might be taken is if the editor is rapidly adding libellous BLP violations that will need oversighting and instant action is needed to stop them. In such circumstances the Admin should ask for a review of their block. This doesn't work the other way around, by the way. I've seen editors recently who seem to believe that if they criticise an Admin that Admin becomes involved. That's not the case.
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?
I presume you mean unable to use the Internet to take part in a case, which might be for various reasons, eg illness. I've argued this year that we should postpone a case because the person involved would have difficulties responding. However, we should only do this when we are convinced that this is not a delaying tactic. We do have a problem with over-strict word limits. I don't think we need to allow more words per editor offering evidence, but we do need to take into account the amount of evidence being offered. In other words, if 2 editors offer the same evidence, only one response is required. I don't know exactly how we should do this. We've discussed it this year but reached no conclusion, so it should be on the committee's internal agenda in January so that it can go forward with clearer and improved word limits. Sure, we could stop the clock or tell them to use the Workshop. It should also be added to the new committee's agenda so that we are consistent over cases. It's already been pointed out by another Arb that all conduct during the case should be taken into account, and that includes conduct during the Workshop phase and the PD phase even if no other editor cites it as evidence. I don't think that individual Arbs should go fishing for evidence during the PD phase as a matter of course, and we in any case normally expect other editors to provide evidence. But one possible scenario is that during the PD phase we are given privately evidence relative to behavior that has occurred during the PD phase, either on or off-wiki, we might well decide to add it to the case. But that should be a joint decision, not an individual one.
Thank you. Collect (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering. The regular meetings of the ctte make much sense. How will you deal with the inevitable calls for published minutes, etc. (even with appropriate secrecy or vagueness about sensitive matters)? More burden, but it seems inescapable, almost part and parcel of the meeting idea. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Phone conferences differ from email threads in that they are real time - you aren't listening to someone's comment the next day. We also have discussions on our own wiki. It's an interesting question where you'd draw the line. And would we then be expected to respond to comments and questions? Will people really want to know who's doing what? Will we be asked for performance indicators? Agh. I just don't know. We've only had one and that was several weeks ago, and none are scheduled at the moment. So they are a good idea and I hope become a regular feature as a partial substitute for the slower email and arbwiki process, but phone conferences are only an extension of those processes, and we don't keep minutes for them. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with any requests for minutes although I guess my first response would be to determine what use they would be and go from there. As you suggest, they wouldn't be our actual internal minutes as we can't reveal emails, etc. and a lot of our discussion would normally concern private emails.
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.)
I don't know what you mean by "functionary issues", We of course are functionaries and approve the positions of other functionaries, so we can't realistically divorce ourselves from them. We have over the two years of my term been divesting ourselves of some responsibilities, eg child protection. And we don't deal with legal matters. As for off-wiki harassment, as much as I'd like to see the WMF deal with it, we're the natural port of call for editors who don't wish to make their problems public. We could I guess just tell them to contact the WMF, but I doubt that would be very productive. We do liaise with the WMF over such issues and they are looking into providing harassment training. I doubt any of that will be enough and I agree it would be nice if we didn't have to deal with it. I'd like to see COI and (undeclared) paid editing dealt with by the foundation.
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.
Given that we can't tell what issues will arise during the case or what evidence will be submitted during a case, I don't think we should hobble ourselves in advance and I doubt that the community would want us to prohibit ourselves from dealing with unforeseen issues. For instance we always take into account the behavior of parties during a case, and that's unpredictable. We have however had problems with scope and we need to find a way to make sure that the scope of a case is clearly outlined and focussed and that the rationale is clear. An unfocused scope can lead to an unfocused case, and scopes too wide or too narrow usually also create problems. We need to ensure that all active Arbs take part in deciding the scope of a case, probably by a combination of email and phone conference. Phone conferences have their down side as time zones interfere with participation, but they can be more fruitful than extended email threads. I'd like to see the committee having them at the beginning of each case.
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).
You're suggesting restrictions on community participation. Unlike a court, I think we should welcome relevant observations and suggestions. I've found them very helpful and they have at times caused me to reconsider and change my position. We of course need to try to avoid disruption of any kind, and I'd be an idiot to say it never happens, but we should also welcome constructive participation.
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.
That's an unfortunate but understandable impression. I would never want to site ban a productive editor just because of problems in one topic field, and I think that's the general opinion among my colleagues.
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.
We certainly want to avoid the sort of quick closure with no action that led to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement, and we did state there that administrators can act unilaterally. I think our other statements there make it clear we expect Administrators to act responsibly, and I don't recall instances of the sort of abuse you mention, although there may have been some. I wouldn't want to make any time limit mandatory without discussion at the AE talk page. I wouldn't necessarily object to some time limit with of course the caveat that there may be situations where faster action is justified.
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.
If we could define the boundaries and ensure that we weren't creating another drama forum, this might be an excellent idea.
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.}}
Hi Doug, 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'm generally pleased with the response - it was fast and has sped up the adoption of stronger security measures. Accounts have been globally locked quickly and the situation is being constantly monitored. At least one new software change has been implemented and more are forthcoming. I'd like to see technical changes to make it easy to recover my account if I lose my token, and understand that's being worked on. As for policy, I think we need to revisit the issue of inactive (as Admins, not editors) or barely active Admins, as they are probably the least likely Admins to change to 2FA. I've changed my passwords and although I'm pretty confident they are secure I am considering using 2FA, I just need to reassure myself I can't lose my e-mail or Wikipedia accounts permanently by accident or carelessness or my part! I have had a committed identity for some time now.
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?
Probably the Hardy case. But of course that was a messy situation to begin with. Grade? I've given grades on everything from Master's theses to children's spelling and like some sort of guideline, but given that we've done a pretty good job but there's clearly room for improvement, I'd say a B. And as I've said above and in my statement, issues like scope, involvement of other arbs at all stages and not just the drafters, use by us of the Workshop and phone conferences would be a good start.
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've read it from time to time when someone's brought a link to my attention, but otherwise I generally avoid it. I'm not a member but can understand why some good Wikipedians participate. It's a curate's egg. I appreciated it when someone brought up an off-wiki attack on me which was quickly refuted. And there are worse sites that focus on us.
Thanks for running again. With regards to your points about phone conferencing, do you have any ideas on how the accessibility issue with respect to deafness could be overcome? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
That's an excellent question. My wife is very hard of hearing, so it's one that I would work very hard to solve if we find it's an actual issue. Since I'm responding only minutes after you've asked it I don't have a definite answer, but it has reminded me I'm making a mistake in using the word "phone" as these are "voice" conferences and use a web interface - I think the one we used last can be used with a real phone, but I used it with headphones and a mike. So whether some sort of speech-to-text software could interface with it, I don't know. But I'll ask! I have found out that the conferencing system used by the WMF in their voice conferences with us does have a stream to text facility. They didn't know about it and are going to test it at my request.
I debated whether to post these for the current arbs after asking the former arbs, and decided the fairest thing to do is post them with the disclaimer that it's fine to ignore my ramblings ;)
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-standingandwidespreaddissatisfaction.
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?
As I commented during the discussion at WT:AC#Declining caseload, I agree that the spread of sanctions to cover more contentious topic areas has made a lot of difference. I don't think it's just shuffled stuff off to AE, it actually seems to have reduced editwarring. It may in some cases have been a motivation for editors to leave a topic area, but I have no figures for that. Next year may be different with the American political scene apparently undergoing major changes which may see long term conflict. ARCA has been somewhat more frustrating for me this year, with requests staying open for far too long. I'll comment on that below. I've got no metrics for ANI either, but my impression is that it isn't quite as dismal as it was some time ago. By its nature it will always attract the most problematic of editors. It's a community venue and I'd be unhappy to see our powers extend to trying to change or police it, even if we could find a policy justification. The only thing I can think of may be seen as too radical, and that's to set up a clerking mechanism similar to the one we use (which of course doesn't always work optimally). We've got no remit to set one up so it would have to come from the community via an RfC, which might be very interesting. Who knows, something creative might come from another community look at the issues. But I don't see it as our role to suggest such an RfC (and as I recall we decided not to propose an RfC in another situation.
What aspects of the committee's work did you find most (or least) satisfying since you've been a member? Do you expect this to change much in a new term?
The slowness and at times very low participation in discussions, leaving issues raised by email unanswered for weeks and ARCA requests dangling. You've helped a lot on the email side, but it shouldn't depend on one or two people bearing the bulk of the burden of nagging and responding. In part it's because we are a committee, and worse than that one that never meets physically. Other than case deadlines, which are fairly often not met, we generally don't have other deadlines imposed upon us either externally or internally. And even in the rare cases that we do we don't always meet them either. But maybe setting ourselves more deadlines would be useful. The one voice conference we had worked very well I thought, going through a lot of business quickly, with decisions made, tasks assigned, etc. But although there was discussion about having another one that didn't happen. It was great that DeltaQuad set it up, but I'd suggest trying to use the WMF facilities - I'm sure they've been offered - as that way we aren't dependent on one or two people having the capacity, and any of us can set one up at any time. If we have these regularly I think things will change. If we don't, not so much. Things will start off well for a month or so and then slow down again. Then there's drafting. Fewer cases this year have made this less of a problem, but as I've said we need more arbitrators participating at all stages of drafting where possible (multiple concurrent cases can obviously make this more difficult). Although we concluded 4 cases this year, but one of them was left over from 2015 so it hasn't been as much of a problem.
In his comment here, The Devil's Advocate criticized your decision to not recuse from the "Race and Intelligence" arbitration case (although I'm aware the rest of Arbcom accepted your decision about that). Could you please explain what level of involvement in disputes covered by a case should require an arbitrator to recuse, in your opinion?
WP:ARBCOND outlines the policy regarding recusals, and it is difficult to give more precise rules about what level of involvement would require recusal because it always depends on the circumstances of the case. The rules for Arb recusal are different from those regarding admin involvement (WP:INVOLVED). One issue is that an admin usually acts alone to perform an administrative action, whereas an Arb acts in conjunction with the Committee. Arbitration procedures are slow and methodical and there is plenty of time for editors or members of the Committee to say whether they think a particular Arb should recuse.
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?
Not my area of expertise. We definitely need to make sure we have strong passwords we don't use elsewhere and hopefully 2FA, which I'm doing. I see that DeltaQuad has dealt with the technical aspects, that's her area of expertise. It sounds as though the problems wouldn't be easy to overcome.
Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?
I think we are all aware of the need for strong passwords and 2FA. I'll certainly strive to make our communications as secure as practical - but it doesn't look as though encrypted email is going to be practical for us. I see that Email encryption says it's difficult for users.
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 voted to accept your case "with the understanding that the case will not be limited to TRM and George Ho." That unfortunately didn't happen. It raises an interesting issue - if an acceptance vote is conditional, and that condition isn't met, and if the case is accepted by only one vote, where does that leave us? I've already said that I think we need more voice conferences and that we should have one or more when we are considering accepting a case, in particular to determine scope but also where necessary to discuss circumstances such as you describe and how they might affect the case. My direct answer to your question is that I think we should accept or reject cases based solely on the merits of the case. The committee has to be able to work through evidence that might have come from the sort of canvassing that occurred in your case or edits from people recruited off-wiki in cases such as Gamergate. Maybe the new committee should discuss the issue when they discuss scope, but in the end the answer to canvassing is our ability to to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, and if we can't do that then we will be failing our resonsibilities.
In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
Without knowing what you mean by "free speech" I'm not sure how to respond. There's an essay WP:Free speech which might interest you. Having said that, I have no doubt that some people find it difficult to contribute in an uncivil atmosphere. Some withdraw, others respond with more incivility or anger. Neither response is conducive to fruitful discussion, which is presumably one of our goals in even being concerned about civility. We define harassment as "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." Incivility becomes harassment when it is targetting someone with the intention of pushing them out of a discussion or a field of editing. Determining whether the boundary between them has been breached can sometimes be tricky but at other times is very obvious.
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 haven't seen evidence that this has become a problem. It's possible that a shifting demographic might bring about changes in our policies dealing with civility and harassment and our role in that would not be in formulating new policies but in applying changed policies to cases. In the meantime, just as we expect editors used to writing original research for journal articles to follow our no original research policy when editing, we expect all editors to adhere to our standards of conduct and to accept the consequences when they don't.
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'm not sure how that could happen. In my experience no organisation I've worked for, and I've been an academic at a major university and worked for a large government body, has suggested that someone's job would be at risk because of something similar to what you describe. We have no way of enforcing any other organisation's policies, we can only enforce our own. On a related note, and if there were very unusual circumstances that I haven't imagined, we don't take cases that haven't gone through several lower level dispute resolutions processes which have failed to resolve the issue.
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?
Definitely not. Individual members have done that at their peril, but if anyone should it's the Foundation. It's not our role and shouldn't be.
Would you support the unconditional lifting of restrictions placed on me by Arbcom about 7 years ago?
I don't know the case or you. But you've had a clean block record for well over five years, which is encouraging. I'd advise you to bring your request to WP:ARCA and if I'm on the committee when you do I can assure you I'll approach your request without bias.
Do you accept that there is an in-built bias towards an "Anglo-Saxon" perspective on En Wikipedia?
Not sure what you mean by Anglo-Saxon. There's a clear bias towards native English speakers I'd say, but they aren't all Anglo-Saxon. And of course towards developed countries. I suspect that many of the smaller Wikipedias have a more nationalist bias, but that's no excuse for not trying to fix any imbalance here.
Do you acknowledge that "civility" is often used as a political weapon by Admins to suppress perspectives they disagree with? Sarah777 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't recall any instances, although with over 500 Admins it might well happen occasionally. I hope that if it happened often it would be brought to the attention of the community, as clearly that's not acceptable. I am presuming that you mean Admins sanctioning editors for incivility in order to suppress their perspective which would be a misuse of Admin tools.
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?
In the DangerousPanda case, Dangerous Panda didn't participate in the evidence phase. We need to be sure that parties are both aware of the case and able to participate and that they realise that non-participation isn't a way to avoid possible sanctions, but it's their choice whether or not to take part in the case.
Rephrasing or specifying the questions: 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 by many people for the decision to revoke the privileges?
I'm still not sure what you mean. However, I'm guessing that as "antagonize" means "to make someone dislike you or feel opposed to you" you might mean would the committee or that person be criticised or attacked, something like that. But if I'm right, that means you're asking me to speculate about the way in which "many people" would respond, and even in context I probably wouldn't want to try, without a specific context I can't even try.
Your anti-vandalism work seems to include keeping relevant but unwelcome (to you) information off Wikipedia. For years you have obstructed posting that Ramses III has haplogroup E1b1a, and that this haplogroup is associated with the Bantu Expansion. This is a ridiculous abuse of power.
As I and others have tried to tell you, it's a matter of our policy on sources. Nothing to do with vandalism. The peer reviewed source in question does not say that E1B1a is associated with the Bantu expansion (and wasn't aimed at tracing his ancestry or origin), and combining sources to make an argument is WP:Original research. The Ramesses III article says, twice in fact, that he has E1B1a. I added it to the article a year ago.[5] I'm not sure why you repeated it. If you wish to discuss this further, please do it on my talk page or an article talk page. Doug Wellertalk 22:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This comment "I'd like to see COI and (undeclared) paid editing dealt with by the foundation" is not realistic. COI and undisclosed paid editing are significant issues that will need a collaboration between the community, arbcom, and the WMF to address. Due to this I am unable to support. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: That's a minor sentence in an answer to a six-part question, and I think you are reading far too much into it. The question has a very blue-sky quality and nothing less than a five thousand word essay would be required to properly address the points raised, so it should be assumed that the text quoted above was not intended as the last word on COI. The WMF will never notice COI editing so the community has an indispensable role in drawing attention to potential problems, and admins/arbcom may be involved in escalation or enforcement. Arbcom is unable to make policy and can only act to resolve otherwise intractable disputes. By the way, see Ask new users to disclose paid editing for a related proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Happy to hear further clarification from Dough on this. Agree arbcom should not make policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: - it's only unrealistic if you interpret it as saying "only dealt with by the foundation". And looking at what I wrote again, it does suggest that they do nothing, which of course isn't true - they did a lot of work on the Orangemoody case. I believe that they also keep records of reports to them about paid editing - you may know more about this than I do. Of course these issues need collaboration between the community, Arbcom and the WMF. If we left it to the WMF not much would happen. It would be nice to think that they might be proactive - was it you who suggested they could go after a few big offenders by setting up 'sting' operations? I;d be very surprised if they took that up. On the other hand, when they do learn about paid editing they could send out a letter explaining the TOU - it might help in some cases although it probably wouldn't make a big difference. My main concern is that they expect us to do the lion's share.
John is right of course, that was just a very brief part of my answers to Biblioworm's 6 part question and in no way adequately expresses my opinions or quandaries in regard to handling paid editing (or COI). I'll have a go but I'm not writing an essay here! I see you support Salvidrim!, and I agree with all 3 paragraphs in his point 2. On the privacy issue, I'm a bit conflicted. Here and elsewhere I've made my real name public (which has left me and at times my wife open to harassment, unfortunately). In an ideal world we all would, but even just on my own experience I can understand why some people want to keep their identities private. But using privacy to avoid detection as an undisclosed paid editor, sock, etc, makes me uncomfortable. I believe that the WMF isn't quite as hot on privacy as our community is, particularly in regard to identifying IP addresses with users. I know this isn't a paid editing or COI issue, but there's nothing in the TOU to prevent identifying an IP address with a known sock, but we tend to avoid it even in the case of long time abusers. I think they would take the same attitude towards using IP addresses in investigations into paid editing. As to our role, I'm not convinced that we should be proactively investigating paid editing as a committee. Among other things we don't have a remit to do it, as you know. Personally, I'd be unhappy to be in a position of ruling that someone is an undisclosed paid editor, simply because it would expose me and my family to a lawsuit if it turned out they weren't. I've already had one company try to get my IP address (they failed) because of an action I took as an Admin. I'm much happier dealing with unpaid editing the way Salvadrim! suggests. I think the registration process discussed at Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 10#A process at account registration might be worth pursuing further, but I suspect it would be rejected. Doug Wellertalk 16:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for repinging. It is strange as this one[6] did not go through? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I know that the WMF does a fair bit regarding undisclosed paid editing. The community works the best they can on this issue as well. We now need an arbcom that takes the problem seriously.
My concern is that I interpret what you wrote as saying undisclosed paid editing is not an issue arbcom should help address (and by extension not a major issue overall). Agree that "sting operations" that break others terms of us are not appropriate. I have suggested collaborating with Upworks; however, and that collaboration does move forwards.
Having being legally attacked by a fellow Wikipedia, which required getting legal counsel for 9 months, I also "understand why some people want to keep their identities private".
Arbcom, it appears to me at this point in time, is not interested in handing the private details required to enforce the TOU. They also appear disinclined to allow other admins to take on the work. As such a change in arbcom members might be good.
While I believe those here deserve a degree of privacy, this should not extend to job postings that advertise paid Wikipedia editing. We are not here to build some anonymous online utopia but an encyclopedia. If people are following the TOU these details should not be private to begin with, and if the are not others bringing the details up on WP should not be a bannable offense. At least that is my position.
I agree that arbcom does not decide policy. The community; however, is currently undecided on this issue. Arbcom, of which you were a member, unfortunately enforced their personal position on the matter regardless of our undecided policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: I think that there are a number of major issues that ArbCom can't address, I don't follow that your line of argument there. I'm not sure how we can allow or disallow Admins to take on the work. Depending on what "take on the work" means, such work might be constrained by policy, but we don't enforce policy where there's no case before us. Doug Wellertalk 21:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
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) 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a tricky question. The different wikipedias have different rules, and there are editors here who are blocked elsewhere. We should treat all editors here fairly though and not assume they will commit blockable offences here. But you are asking about socks. I don't know if you mean socks of editors blocked elsewhere or accounts here running socks. If they are accounts here running socks an investigation at WP:SPI might look into it. But it's something I would do in my role as an Administrator, it's not part of the Committee's role. Doug Wellertalk 22:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Given Arbcom's importance and the small field so far, I ask for your support for this nomination.
Background
I joined Wikipedia in April 2007 and became an admin in 2008. I was elected to a two-year Arbcom term in 2014, but retired early to spend more time writing articles (see below). I've been a Checkuser since 2015. I used to be an Oversighter but gave it back - I wasn't routinely using it and there seemed no point in holding the permission for the sake of it.
Dispute resolution experience
Per my 2014 statement, as an admin I try to focus on good communications, a calm attitude and a willingness to consider feedback. I also work hard at simply "taking care" - ie. viewing and reviewing materials before responding. Some recent examples:
References to real-life activities are unverifiable; however as this comes up occasionally I have professional experience in commercial mediation and HR.
Content experience
I believe a decent content contribution record is essential in understanding dispute context and the potential impact of Arbcom sanctions. Most of my contributions are in naval or Australian history; generally I research and expand pages to C- or B-class, but I've also written one FA, 5 GAs, ~10 DYK's and created around 60 new articles. My Featured and Good Articles are here; some recent B-class articles are here, here and here. I'm also active in WP:SHIPS and Milhist, and used to be informal co-ordinator of WikiProject Ports.
Arbcom: What needs changing
Statement of the obvious: an arbitrator needs a clear grasp of policy, patience, good communication and a commitment to effective outcomes. I pursued these on Arbcom last time, and would do so again. Last time I also made three commitments for Arbcom change. How I think I went (plus additional commitments) are at this subpage.
Time
I spend 10-15 hours/week editing or researching for Wikipedia, and can devote this time to Arbcom plus an additional 5-10 hours/week as required.
My record shows I don't consider Arbcom a "job for life"; I worked on the Committee for a year, then left to spend the next year writing articles and working at ANI. One year later, I’d like to again contribute to resolving the kind of complex cases that are Arbcom's work.
Technical info
I have one test account that made five edits in 2009 and was legitimately declared to Arbcom at the time. I am also User:Euryalus2. I am identified to the WMF as a former Arbitrator and checkuser.
Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
No. There must always be due consideration of the option that no sanctions will ultimately be required to resolve the issues in a case. All cases should be approached with an open mind to the possible outcomes.
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?
In general, yes - provided their actions go beyond this disclaimer at WP:INVOLVED: "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."
So if an administrator has interacted with an editor in an admin capacity only, and done so in "calm and reasonable discussion," they might reasonably be seen as acting impartially if they subsequently use the tools. But for avoidance of doubt, if an admin tells an editor that they personally dislike them, they should probably leave subsequent janitorial action to someone else. An editor who feels an admin is acting partially should raise it with that admin and, if required, escalate it to AN/ANI and/or Arbcom.
Note that the above is a general statement; I'm not aware if this question refers to any specific incident.
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. Yes of course. Editing is a volunteer activity and real life commitments come first. However there's a reasonableness test, and a very extended delay can become unfair for other participants. If a key case participant seeks a delay because they're going to be away, then the Committee should make genuine efforts to accommodate that. However if they request indefinite or very long delay, then there may come a time when the case should proceed on the evidence at hand. Named parties also have no strict obligation to take part; if they wish, they can let their editing record speak for itself. There can be no instinctive prejudice against a case participant who doesn't take part in the actual case.
b. Yes. There are word limits for cases but I've always supported extensions for those that request them.
c. Not usually, though the Committee shouldn't let formality obstruct fairness. Rebuttal ideally occurs in the /Workshop phase, which gives plenty of time to respond to last-minute material introduced at /Evidence. New allegations or evidence should not be raised in the Workshop itself (though obviously rebuttal itself can involve the provision of new material). Short version: I think this issue can be addressed by careful adherence to the purpose of the current case phases.
d. Arbitrators are not limited to resolving a case only on the material presented in the /Evidence phase, but they should be aware of this section in ARBPOL. Further, subject to the usual disclaimers on confidential matters, if an arbitrator has entirely new evidence that they want to rely on in a PD they should also raise it during earlier case phases so participants can respond. This not a Star Chamber, and there should be no evidence "surprises" at the PD stage.
Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
If editor A and Editor B are interaction banned with each other. Per BANEX, Can editor A bring complaints about editor B that are not about the interaction ban to dispute boards or admin talk pages?
I sense this may be about a specific example, about which I'd need more context to give a definitive answer. But as a rule of thumb: No, subject to the exceptions in WP:BANEX dot point one. Worth noting that interaction bans can be challenging to apply, so one-off breaches are sometimes deserving of good faith.
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.)
Yes in principle. Per WP:ARBPOL, the first and central duty of Arbcom is: ” to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve.” This is the activity against which we assess the suitability of ArbCom candidates. Other than a general view of how responsible and well-meaning they seem, we aren't selecting ArbCom members with the skill sets to expertly handle child safety, libel, stalking or offwiki vilification. These are specialist fields whose legal or wellbeing components are better handled by professional staff. Despite this, we vest them in Committee in the absence of other places to go.
In a perfect world these tasks would be redistributed to paid professionals , and the Committee could focus on its primary purpose - resolving intractable onwiki conduct issues. I know this has been a priority for other ArbCom members over time, if re-elected I would also make it a priority to pursue with the WMF.
However, two issues:
- Regrettably we're not yet at that perfect world. From memory of 2015 the WMF took some steps forward in taking over child protection and in providing limited support for victims of online stalking; but there was a long way to go. Assuming no further WMF action, the Committee ends up being the least worst place for these issues to reside, and we as a community should pick the arbitrators who will do the least worst job at it while keeping up the pressure for additional professional expertise. Note "least worst", not "next best."
- A smaller and unrelated qualifier on the principle: while agreeing on child safety, libel and harassment matters, I'm not clear on the reference to redistributing functionary issues. If it refers to functionary candidate vetting, I support the Committee continuing its current role. This is a swift and useful task which the Committee seems able to provide without an overt conflict of interest. In the spirit of “it ain’t broke” I would leave this where it is. If the reference is to hearing complaints about functionary misconduct, I would leave this with the Committee too as it fits within the primary Arbcom role.
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.
Yes to the first half - I've committed to case scope statements as outlined here. Yes in principle to the second, noting that cases sometimes take unexpected turns as evidence comes to light, so there must be some capacity for published revisions. These should be very much an exception rather than the rule, and should occur via onwiki amendment (and discussion) on the case page.
Streamline ArbCom procedures by: 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).
Support "tightly restricting" and note that if the case scope is made very clear at the outset it should be easier to keep subsequent contributions on topic.
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.
Agree with greater consideration of temporary rather than indefinite bans. Agree that topic bans should always be seriously considered where applicable (note for example this case which I co-drafted and for which topic bans and 1RR were the maximum action required).
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.
Agreed, and already committed to here. 24 hours seems a decent minimum period, and consistent with what at least informally applies on certain discussion at ANI. I don't support turning AE discussions into a slow-moving !vote, but a brief waiting period would at least allow discussion of the issue. Note that an exception would have to apply to matters involving immediate and ongoing disruption to editing.
In passing, in 2015 there was a general view that Committee members shouldn't contribute at AE for fear of becoming too involved in disputes and having to recuse in later cases. In hindsight I don't agree with this; the Committee should be actively involved in providing advice at AE on how to interpret its decisions.
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.
Interesting idea; if there's genuine community backing for such a mechanism I'd be happy to support with some modest conditions about scope, and on speedy removal of frivolous motions or personal attacks.
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.
A final general comment: Hopefully the above demonstrates support for streamlining and simplifying the Committee's tasks, and particularly for devolving those for which the Committee is not well suited to perform. It's worth adding that these proposals for change are not a reflection on any current or past Committee; they are an endorsement of the need for some evolution in Arbcom's role. Older procedures fitted the times; some new procedures may currently be required.
Hi Euryalus, 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?
The incident: The practicalities of this immediate incident were handled pretty well - compromised accounts were swiftly globally locked, and their edits reverted. I suspect we still haven't seen the end of these current compromised accounts, and am concerned that it remains unclear how their passwords were obtained, and what they have in common. Damage to date was mild vandalism, but let's not assume that this continues with any further hacked accounts in this set. As a statement of the obvious I suggest every administrator should change their password and activate 2FA.
Technical improvement: I support the introduction of 2-factor authentication as a technical improvement to account security. I think the timing of this is coincidental, but its worth having. It might also help to mandate password changes after a certain time; though I appreciate this risks a drop in password quality.
Policy improvements: The single most useful change was removing admin permissions from inactive accounts. To a lesser extent, enforcing activity requirements for CU/OS also offers security gains. And as a statement of the obvious, everyone should follow the advice at WP:PASSWORD. In passing that policy refers to limited WMF audits of password strength; I've not seen this occur in practice but suggest it would be an excellent idea.
My accounts: No one should ever feel entirely confident in the security of their accounts. However I've activated 2FA and taken the other usual security steps, and that has proved sufficient so far.
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?
Hi Carrite. Hard to see any major issues in what was a fairly quiet year. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the Michael Hardy case turned a comparatively minor dispute into a larger one, but that's water under the bridge. Overall a B+ for the year, with points for meeting deadlines, managing a smooth functionary election and revisiting some older remedies and decisions.
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'm aware of the site but am not a regular reader and have never posted there. It's probably both a positive and a negative, depending on the issue and participants; I'm not close enough to it to offer more specific views.
Addendum: Have now had more of a read of the site. Regrettably my view on it reads like a statement of the obvious, but here it is anyway:
- Philosophically, I support the concept of criticism sites provided they focus on organisations and not individuals. There needs to be an opportunity for people to point out the flaws in any large institution like en-WP - and if discussions flow freely at an offwiki site and then lead to useful suggestions for on-wiki change, that's great. Of course if participants wants those suggestions for change enacted, they'll need to bring them back on-wiki first. In passing I do also wonder if Wikipediocracy has been around so long that it has itself become an institution.
- On a cursory read, there's some useful criticism and analysis at Wikipediocracy, particularly in the blog posts. There's also plenty of random personal abuse between long-term contributors, but that seems to be the nature of the place and most participants don't seem to mind. However: as a statement of the obvious, its easy for open forum discussions to move from banter to personal attacks to outing and vilification. When this occurs, the site itself risks crossing the line into a venue for harassment of others. I haven't read every thread, and offwiki sites are (usually) outside the remit of Arbcom; but I can imagine this harassment occurring if thread moderation isn't strong.
- Overall I support the concept of Wikipediocracy. But I reaffirm my earlier view that the site is "somewhere in between" your descriptors, depending on the day-to-day content and how the moderators respond to harassing posts.
I appreciate that this is a predictable response, but your question deserved the courtesy of a more detailed reply.
You resigned halfway through your two-year term in December 2015. You explain this as follows: "My record shows I don't consider Arbcom a "job for life"; I worked on the Committee for a year, then left to spend the next year writing articles and working at ANI. One year later, I’d like to again contribute to resolving the kind of complex cases that are Arbcom's work." Others might say that you did not complete your elected term, and look at your candidacy negatively because of this. What would you say to this line of thinking? --Rschen7754 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for what is an entirely fair question. Apologies for the long answer and what reads like overly formal wording.
The philosophical bit
Arbcom members are elected to do a specific job for a specific time. This sits alongside the reality of a volunteer website which encourages every editor to contribute wherever they feel most useful. I was elected to Arbcom in 2014, hopefully did a reasonable job of it over time, and then felt that I could make an equally valuable contribution in a different area. As I'm an opponent of holding advanced permissions just because you can, I was content to carefully wind up my Arbcom tasks and pass the spot along to the next batch of janitors. Mildly, I don't think criticism should attach to any editor who chooses to move between janitorial and content work from time to time; both activities are of value and I'd contend that janitors who have an understanding of content work are actually more effective in interpreting dispute context and resolution.
The practicalities
Noting the above: it's obviously essential that anyone who chooses to vacate a position does so in a responsible way. Arbcom deals with protracted and complicated issues, and they're not helped by an Arbitrator just disappearing along the way. That's why I took the following steps when stepping down:
1. Early warning: First, I deliberately timed my announcement to allow my place to be filled at a regular election. The retirement was flagged in September 2015 so candidates could evaluate their November election runs with full knowledge of the number of vacancies and the continuing Committee skill set; 2. Post-election: After the 2015 Arbcom elections, I remained on the Committee to participate fully in its work until the formal handover on December 31. This was done to ensure that my decision to return to fulltime content work would not disrupt any ongoing Arbcom dispute. From memory my last general Committee action (which was to vote on a ban issue) was less than 24 hours before my term officially expired on December 31; 3. Loose ends: Post handover, I remained with the Committee through to mid-January 2016 to finish up the Kevin Gorman case. Only then, with all obvious tasks from my term resolved, did I move on to the content work I'd initially resigned to do.
The above reads defensively, but it's not intended to be. I suppose the point I'm seeking to convey is that I took (and take) the Committee's responsibilities seriously, made sure I completed outstanding tasks and ensured a smooth transition before moving on to equally worthwhile content creation work.
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-standingandwidespreaddissatisfaction.
I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia.
Thanks for the questions. Apologies for the very lengthy reply.
On ANI ANI has strengths and weaknesses. Simple disruptive editing, returning trolls and obviously offensive conduct can be addressed pretty fast. It’s also a useful forum for editors with an interest in dispute resolution, to offer advice or comments on day-to-day conduct issues before (or instead of) becoming janitors themselves.Where ANI falls down is with obscure or lengthy disputes, especially ones with fault on all sides. These tend to stagnate or get even worse at ANI as editors pile on, walls of text develop and tangential remedies get proposed and ignored. The length of the ANI thread becomes inversely proportional to the likelihood of an effective close, and participants get frustrated, bored or bitter as time moves on. ANI’s janitors get overwhelmed with the thread minutiae, and the entire thing then gets archived without action. Unsurprisingly, this is sub-optimal.
In addition, there’s little corporate memory at ANI. It’s possible to be subtly disruptive for quite a while - running up vague admonishments and warnings - before anyone notices the pattern. It’s also possible to drag another editor to ANI multiple times in quick succession, seeking sanctions on the basis that ”where there’s smoke there’s fire.” These both arise because ANI’s archives are insufficiently used, and there are too few “regulars” to give swift recall of the history of current arguments.
So should we send all these unresolved cases from ANI to Arbcom? No. That may have happened in the past when there were 100 Arb cases a year, but not today. Some reasons why: - It’s not why we have Arbcom: the last resort cannot also be the first response and to make it so would cut too much across community involvement in the way it handles its affairs; - Current Arbcom processes are far too slow and bureaucratic to deal with that many cases; and - By the time an ANI dispute reaches the massive spammy stage where it won’t be locally solved, most participants are exhausted and unwilling to spend another six weeks relitigating it from scratch.
So what should be done? The ANI answer is not rocket science. We need: - more experienced editors (and/or admins) willing to take part in ANI disputes of all kinds - greater internal consistency and corporate memory in the way ANI disputes get handled, and - most importantly, more editors/janitors willing to wade in on the long and acrimonious threads, before they metastasize into something no one can resolve.
And one more: we need more focus on ANI ‘’responses’’ that are calm, careful and courteous – it never hurts to be polite and responsive, and it can do wonders in bringing disputes to a close.
Some very self-serving examples of what I mean in closing complex ANI threads are here, here and here.
In passing, I appreciate the irony of this ANI-related wall of text to highlight the problems of ANI walls of text.
What about dispute resolution generally? I’m more optimistic about general (non-ANI) dispute resolution on en-WP, because it happens every day across millions of talkpages and for the most part it’s seamless, good-natured and consensus-driven. There are exceptions (for example some of the areas subject to DS); but the community handles most “content” conflicts quite well. Structures like the Teahouse and Third Opinions are also useful when tempers get frayed, but regrettably the supportingconcept of editor mentoring seems to have entirely died.
And despite the sunny optimism above, we still struggle with the responses to genuine harassment and abuse, especially where it intersects with offwiki sites. I can expand on that in a separate question if preferred; the issue is also amply demonstrated in some recent Arbcom cases and in discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Harassment.
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 In general it reflects some good decisions by the current committee in rejecting requests that might be dealt with elsewhere. There are also occasional peaks in troughs in activity – 2015 had many more cases than 2016, and some (eg. Gamergate) were appropriately Arbcom’s to resolve. Less positively, it might suggest an ongoing weariness with the length and formality of Arbcom proceedings, and an unjustified fear that being party to proceedings is to risk sanctions for no reason. To the extent these views are held in the community, the Committee needs to act to address them. Overall, the trend away from Arbcom cases is a good one if (and only if) the matters remitted back to ANI or elsewhere are then actually effectively dealt with at those locations.
ARCA efficiency Speaking from my own experience, the biggest problems at ARCA are in maintaining the whole Committee’s focus on the minute details of old cases, and then obtaining majority support for any particular outcome. ARCA often involves careful re-reading of old cases, reinterpretation of the findings, consideration of whether time has healed old wounds, and so on. There may then be two or three equally valid proposals on the table. When each attracts some but not majority support, the entire ARCA stalls.
So, how about this as an untested suggestion: ARCA could be more effective if the Committee delegated each particular matter to subcommittees of (say) 5 or 7 Arbs, who could then resolve it by majority vote. This would allow greater focus, reduce the formality of proceedings and deliver swifter responses. The subcommittees could operate for fixed terms (like the old BASC and AUSC memberships); or a new group could be formed for each ARCA. I prefer the former, but either would be a step forward. And presumably the whole committee could over-rule a subcommittee if they thought it had the resolution wrong.
Like I said, just an untested suggestion. From past experience ARCA can certainly be sclerotic; and the above might be worth a try.
What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI? The Committee can help at ANI in their roles as experienced editors or regular admins. I appreciate there’s a risk that a matter you resolve at ANI later becomes an Arbcom case from which you must recuse; but with 15 Arbs the occasional recusal is no big deal. I continued to work at ANI during my term on the Committee, and from memory I only needed to recuse on one matter throughout my term.
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 part of my past Committee work was when the workshop phase was effectively used to bring participants to the table and get discussion under way. That’s the only advantage of Arbcom’s formality – it can keep discussion on track, give everyone a fair say and help bring the real issues to the fore. As an example, I think the workshop was effectively used here. FWIW the least satisfying part of my past experience was the Committee's semi-regular failure to reach consensus on emailed ban appeals, even where the issues were pretty plain. This has likely been addressed by devolution from BASC to UTRS
Given there’s one hour to voting, I may as well reiterate that this matches the view in my candidate statement – Arbcom is most rewarding when participants communicate well, have a calm attitude and show willingness to consider feedback.I wouldn’t expect this to change in a new term.
And I suppose I’d also add this general point: Arbcom work is also more satisfying when Committee members and case participants remember that this is a volunteer website, and that ‘’most’’ people are here to make a good faith contribution to the sum of human knowledge. Arbcom isn’t a court and no one is “on trial;” the role of proceedings is to break the back of a difficult dispute so that regular editing can resume. Matters that reach Arbcom can be grinding, tedious, obtuse and (sometimes) obscure; it’s useful (and more rewarding for all) if they’re approached with the above spirit in mind.
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?
No one should ever assume their emails are entirely private and secure. Arbitrators (and other functionaries like CU/OS) routinely have access to confidential personal information. They should take every reasonable step to (a) protect that information from unintended circulation, and (b) ensure that it's used only for the purpose for which it was collected. If email encryption is workable in the context of Arbcom email accounts and archives, then I'd be in favour of its introduction as an additional security measure.
I'd also add that there's a role for good user conduct alongside technical protections. By that I mean unique and complex passwords that are regularly changed; and not logging in to Arbcom email accounts via unsecured networks or public PCs.
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?
The canvassing was a clear breach of the policy, by a long-term editor who should have known better. I would have supported sanctions against that editor at the time, to prevent this ongoing disruption of the case. The canvassing itself would not have affected my views on whether to accept the case; these would be based on the merits of the argument and not the number of people arguing it.
The question didn't ask about case outcomes, but here's some views in passing: Case outcomes are not about "punishing" people, they're about making sure content work continues at maximum effectiveness. On which basis I would have opposed the desysop motion (PD remedy 1) for the same reasons as Opabinia regalis, and opposed the topic ban (PD remedy 3). I would have supported PD remedies 4 and 7.2. I would probably also have supported a no-fault interaction ban, though experience shows i-bans can be an ineffective tool.
In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
Mildly, enforcing civility is nothing to do with free speech; its to do with ensuring that the editing environment is conducive to the process of effective, collaborative content creation. If people are seeking a right to free speech, they can go to any one of millions of other sites or bulletin boards and exercise it to their heart's content. If they want to work collaboratively on an encyclopedia, then they should come here. In passing, Wikipedia is a privately owned website and there is no inherent "right to free speech" that attaches to being an editor.
There's quite detailed policy on incivility, and I won't rehearse its entire contents here. The key point is really these lines: - "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable."
Civility usually only means keeping sufficient rein on your temper that you're not routinely rude or belittling toward your fellow editors. A civil editing environment encourages more and better content creation; gross incivility is corrosive to editing, and reduces community enthusiasm for building an encyclopaedia. It's important to note that I'm very clearly not referring to someone occasionally using a "bad word" or getting irritated at some one-off incident; what I am referring to is long-term unprovoked abusiveness that reduces the community's willingness to continue making content contributions. Someone or other said this is a shop floor and we are not here to sing kumbaya. That's correct, and we should (a) not go about hunting for things to be offended by, and (b) remember that this is an encyclopaedia and not a social media site. But part of this being a shop floor (and an encyclopaedia) is that people are genuinely here to work on article content; they should be able to do so without having to put up with personal abuse.
Harassment is best described by this, from (paraphrasing from the policy): a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons … [to] make the target feel threatened or intimidated, or discourage them from editing.” It also includes actual or attempted outing, bullying, on- or offwiki stalking, and any actual real-world threats.
Harassment is different from incivility in degree, and often also in motivation and type of conduct. Perceived incivility can sometimes be unintentional or the “heat of the moment”; genuine harassment is not. There's no credible excuse for harassment; editors who engage in it are routinely removed from the community.
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?
At the risk of repeating other people's answer to this question: any changes to Wikipedia's standards of conduct for editing would be a matter for the community as a whole. Arbcom is a dispute resolution body and does not have a mandate for policy change. if there was a movement toward bringing in new or modified standards of conduct, they should proceed via RfC's on the relevant policy pages.
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?
This is a volunteer website, and not subject to the internal rules of any editor's personal workplace. As with anything else, if someone finds that their volunteer activities conflict with their work responsibilities they will need to make their own decision about how to reconcile the two.
But regardless of anyone's workplace rules, if another editor is uncivil to the point of disrupting the editing environment, then the issue should be raised directly with that editor, and if that fails it should be taken to ANI.
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. Arbcom members are welcome to talk to reporters on their own behalf, just like any other editor (but subject to observing confidentiality requirements on any private information). But Arbcom is just one part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, and Arbcom members have no special authority to speak to reporters as if they are representing either the Wikipedia community or dispute resolution as a whole. If media comment is required on behalf of Wikipedia it should come from communication staff at the WMF.
What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
Strongly oppose undisclosed paid editing. Broadly oppose disclosed paid editing as well, but accept that it is permitted under certain conditions per WP:PAID.
Note that Arbcom does not have the power to change this policy by fiat; the community owns its policies and needs to drive any change.
The Terms of Use are binding on everyone who uses en-WP. Some TOU aspects (for example the clause on DMCA Compliance) are enforced by the WMF. Others are joint (for example bans on certain users can be global or local) or are enforced by groups like Arbcom on local wikis. Relevant to this question: the en-WP Arbcom's role is to enforce en-WP's policies on user conduct. The WMF has Terms of Use that apply to paid editing, but permits local wikis to impose different standards. On en-WP the WMF Terms of Use clause on paid editing is replicated in its entirety at WP:PAID, and this wording is therefore within Arbcom's responsibility to enforce.
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?
Hi. I answered this in the question from Collect, above:- Named parties have no strict obligation to take part; if they wish, they can let their editing record speak for itself. That may or may not be a wise choice, but either way it's entirely a matter for them. There can be no instinctive prejudice from the Committee against a named party who doesn't choose to take part.
Shall final decisions on a case made at least ten years ago be upheld? If so, do involved parties have abilities to propose amendments to those decisions? If decisions are not to be upheld by the community, how can you amend the decisions made ten years ago?
Old Arbcom decisions remain in force unless/until they are modified via ARCA or by Committee motion. Proposed amendments to old decisions can be posted at WP:ARCA.
a) Can an ArbCom's choice to pass a remedy prompt an involved party to do something to avoid a remedy before the case is closed? b) How would that involved party's choice to perform or request an alternative to a remedy affect ArbCom's decisions on the case? c) If the involved person can't counter the remedy by alternatives before case closure, how would the passed remedy affect the involved party/parties?
Do something like what? People,propose alternative remedies all the time, usually in the Workshop phase. Are you talking about alternative proposals during the actual PD? If so, they'd be considered in good faith by the committee. However I get the sense that you've got a specific scenario in mind; if so it would help to know what it was so there could be a more specific answer.
On question (c): apologies but it's not clear what you're asking: if someone can't get a change to a remedy affecting them, then they're affected by whatever the remedy says in relation to their editing.
I'll specify: 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?
Apologies, I still don't understand what you're asking. If someone gets desysopped, they get desysopped. If they resign before the case closes, the Committee resolution usually reflects that decision and imposes conditions (if any) on regaining the tools.
My areas of interest overlap with those of Euryalus. My interactions over the years have been uniformly positive.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
i mean, he has an interest in Australian navy and knows the difference between dead reckoning and a chronometer. if that isn't cool enough for u, i dont know what is EggsInMyPockets (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This was removed from the main Questions page. On balance the second half does relate to approaches to dispute resolution, so have brought it here. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There seems to be a lack of minority articles in Wikipedia. There also seems to be a lot of attacks on female editors and people of color editors who are turned off and attacked as per various articles. There is also a number of articles of people of color and women who lack articles based on lack of sources. How do you plan on overcoming this BlackAmerican (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. There's two separate issues here: content and conduct.
On content: - you're right that there are major gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of topics about women, and topics outside the English-speaking world (or Anglo-Saxon culture). It's something for the community to address by encouraging more content creation and diversifying the editor population. There's a great essay on this at WP:BIAS - I draw particular attention to this good advice: "Read about the perspectives and issues of concern to others. Attempt to represent these in your editing. Invite others to edit. Be respectful of others. Work to understand your own biases and avoid reflecting them in your editing."
Arbcom has no particular role in addressing content gaps; how I personally plan to address this aspect of the issue is by continuing as an active content contributor, including on articles relating to my own under-represented (South Pacific) region.
On conduct: - the editing environment should both maximise high-quality content creation and ensure that all editors are treated equally regardless of ethnicity, gender or any other personal characteristic. If an editor's conduct is actively disruptive to the content creation process or is driving away others on personal grounds, then that is appropriately a matter for the dispute resolution process of which Arbcom is a part. This applies to all editors, across all topics. We don't need hypersensitivity and we don't need a "cookie cutter" approach; we just need common sense, a willingness to act against disruption, and a focus on outcomes over bureaucracy.
That's the approach I've previously taken as an administrator and former arbitrator, and would be what I brought to the Committee if re-elected this year.
Hi y'all! I’m Ks0stm. I’ve been an administrator for five years and an arbitration clerk for four years. While I tend to work in administration areas of the project, I have nine good articles, three DYKs, and a featured picture to my name. I also have experience handling sensitive and confidential information from my work as an oversighter.
As an arbitration clerk, I’ve observed that when the community is asked for their input, the quality of proceedings is enhanced, particularly with cases. Arbitrators should take full advantage of the workshop to get input from the community on the proposed decision, so that they can refine it before putting it up for voting. Doing so ensures the final outcome of the case is more tailored to the needs of the community.
I’ve also come to understand that arbitrators who have strong ties within the community, outside of arbitration proceedings, have a better understanding of its issues and needs. The committee and its members should strive to welcome the opinions, concerns, and ideas of community members and be responsive to them in a timely manner. Arbitrators do not cease to be regular editors, and they should continue to work for the betterment of the encyclopedia outside of ArbCom proceedings.
Finally, the committee should carefully consider the appropriate scope for each situation. Scopes that are too large have a tendency to result in proceedings that are slow and difficult to manage, while scopes that are too narrow overlook key aspects of a problem and undermine the Committee’s ability to solve complicated situations. When the committee chooses the right scope and clearly communicates it, the solutions are clear, focused, and targeted to problems that the community hasn’t successfully solved on its own.
It is with much deliberation that I submit my candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. The decision was born mainly out of a desire to improve the quality and efficiency of service provided to the community by the committee. I look forward to the opportunity to continue serving the community and working with all of you to build a better encyclopedia. Anyone who has any questions, advice, opinions, or concerns for me should feel free contact me, either via my questions page, talk page, email, or on IRC.
As an oversighter, I have signed the non-disclosure agreement, and meet the requirements specified in the access to nonpublic information policy. I have six alternate accounts, all of which are declared on my userpage.
Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
Sanctions are not inevitable from any given case. Sanctions are one of a few options the committee can use as remedies in a case (and perhaps the most often used), but they're not the only ones. During the Rambling Man case there was a non-sanction remedy. The Michael Hardy case was an entire case that ended without sanctions. Unfortunately, though, I would say that because of the nature of arbitration, the types of situations that make it to the committee, and the nature of the ones that get accepted as cases, sanctions are necessary more often than not.
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?
Most of the time, yes, but it depends on the specifics of the situation. If the administrator is openly denouncing an editor on their talk page then I would say they're not impartial.
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) Sure, why not. Temporary injunctions can be used as necessary to prevent issues occurring while the case is delayed. As a general rule, I would consider it a best practice to give all parties a reasonable opportunity to participate in a case, so long as they are not intentionally avoiding participating. b) Any party to a case can always request a length/diff limit extension if they feel they need additional space to present evidence, including rebuttals. If they need it and stay focused with their use of the extra space, I see no reason not to grant extra space. c) This seems like a slippery slope. Editors implicated in last minute evidence should have a chance to respond, but you've got to keep a limit on it so that the evidence phase doesn't drag on in an infinite loop of last-minute additions and responses. As such, extensions need to be handled on a case by case basis and carefully managed. d) Very rarely. Arbitrators should present new evidence in the proposed decision only when it is particularly relevant and will make a large difference in the outcome of the case. When done, the arbitrators should always give the parties involved a chance to respond to the evidence before proceeding with any associated principles, findings of fact, or remedies.
Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
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.
1. Currently the only other body as well equipped to handle the sensitive matters that ArbCom handles is the WMF. I would tend to support the Foundation taking on this body of work from the Arbitration Committee, but I think they are unlikely to be receptive to that. As for functionary matters, the Arbitration Committee is comprised entirely of functionaries, and ArbCom appoints the functionaries, which means they would be involved in functionary matters regardless. Beyond that, someone needs to oversee the functionaries, and the WMF won't do it, so it's left to ArbCom. 2. I would very much support ArbCom being clearer about scope, albeit perhaps without the part about requiring that ArbCom address only those issues. The Arbitration Committee needs to more carefully consider the scope of its proceedings, and that scope needs to be more clearly communicated to the parties involved. As for restricting comment to only the parties in a case, I would not support; participation by the community is very much necessary to the proper functioning of arbitration cases, and limiting it would, in my opinion, reduce the effectiveness of the process. This can be seen with the AE2 case, which suffered as a result of having no workshop phase for community input. 3. Each case requires its own consideration, but I agree with the principle that the minimum sanction needed to prevent disruption should be used. While bans are occasionally needed to keep a user from disrupting the project, they are perhaps most effective when the user has disrupted across multiple topic areas or been uncooperative with lesser sanctions. 4. Leaving AE requests open a minimum time should be common practice, with the stipulation that if a block is necessary to prevent ongoing disruption it should be made whether the minimum time has elapsed or not. In this type of situation the AE request can be left open the remainder of the minimum time as an appeal request. 5. I like the idea of more community input, but this would have the potential to go pear-shaped very quickly if not done just right, so I'd have to see the specific details of such a reform to even begin saying whether I would support or oppose it. It would be unwise to commit to such a large change in the arbitration process without much deliberation as to the appropriate way to implement it.
This is your third fourth candidacy for ArbCom. What is different this time around? Rschen7754 22:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
When I last ran two years ago, I was running just because I thought I wouldn't be a bad arbitrator. I had no opinions on the working of the committee, and I was a status quo candidate. This year I still think I would be a good arbitrator, but I also have ideas to improve the functionality of ArbCom and more insight into what the committee needs to be efficient and effective. One of these is to increase the usage of the workshop phase of cases by the committee. I go into detail about my prime example of that, the AE2 case, in my answer to Carrite's first question. Further, the Arbitration Committee needs to more carefully consider the scope of its proceedings. Proceedings with too large a scope tend to be unwieldy and drag on much longer than they ought, while proceedings with too narrow of scopes tend to miss key aspects of a situation. Better consideration of scope could fix this. The current removal of permissions motion at WP:A/R/M is a good example of something recent being done with too large a scope. Recently, the Rambling Man case was an example of a case with too narrow of a scope; it should have more broadly examined conduct at DYK and ITN. So, in essence, this year I believe that if elected I will not only be a good arbitrator, but that I will also be able to improve the quality of arbitration proceedings and level of service provided to the community by the committee as a whole.
Hi Ks0stm, 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, as far as the recent events, I believe that they were handled admirably by administrators and the stewards. Unfortunately, they do leave us in a bit of a quandary: How do we ensure that the accounts of those with advanced tools are secure. I would like to see a widespread adoption of two-factor authentication among administrators and functionaries, but I wouldn't go so far as to say we should make it mandatory, since I know there are some admins out there without smartphones or other devices with which to easily use two-factor authentication. I would say that for admin and functionary accounts which do not enable two-factor authentication there should be alternate security methods, but since I do not know what other security features are technically possible with MediaWiki I would defer to the developers on what those could be. As far as personal security, I now have two-factor authentication enabled on both my SUL and my linked email address, so I am quite confident in the security of my account.
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 would give ArbCom a solid B on their performance in the past year. Cases proceeded more efficiently than usual, and the committee made strides in improving its internal coordination, with the initiation of conference calls with the WMF and coordination meetings set up by arbitrators. Unfortunately, ARCAs tended to be rather inefficient and sometimes lost focus, and emails sometimes took a while to get replies beyond the initial moderation. I feel the committee could benefit greatly from further improving their internal organization, as this would hopefully result in further increases in case efficiency and an increase in the efficiency of ARCAs and internal business.
If there's one outlier to this generally decent performance, it's the AE2 case. The proposed decision was less than stellar. That case's proposed decision phase dragged on for over a month and a half, and even with that extended duration only 3 out of 16 remedies and 0 out of 3 special enforcement provisions passed. This inefficiency was likely precipitated by the case's lack of a workshop phase. I am highly confident the proposed decision could have been more effective and the case closed in a more timely manner had the drafting arbitrator used the workshop phase to get input on their proposed decision and make changes as necessary before moving on to voting.
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 may have taken a look at it once or twice in the past, but very rarely, and as far as I can remember I've never posted. I know it has a reputation for drama, but other than that I really don't know enough about it to have any opinions on it.
What are your thoughts on Wikipedia's gender gap? What steps do you think should be taken to close the gender gap, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of women and minorities? ThePlatypusofDoom(talk) 22:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to be completely honest here: I don't know. The gender gap is certainly a problem, but not one that is as easily fixed as identified. My best idea for working to close it is to encourage more student assignments from classes in women's studies and the various minority studies disciplines. Even then, it's not guaranteed to fix the discrepancy between the number of male and female editors or to greatly counteract systematic bias.
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-standingandwidespreaddissatisfaction.
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?
Honestly, I feel like the reduction in case load is because of effective use of discretionary sanctions and general sanctions. I feel like these sanctions prevent disputes from requiring arbitration (or re-arbitration) when they otherwise would end up ripe for a case.
As for ANI, well, there's a reason it has redirects like you mentioned and WP:CESSPIT. I think that the best way the committee could assist ANI is for arbitrators to show up and help as community members with dispute resolution. Beyond that, I don't see much ArbCom could do to improve the noticeboard's functioning.
ARCA is a different story. I've come to see it as a fairly inefficient process, both time-wise and productivity-wise. My big suggestion to make that run more smoothly is for the arbitrators to coordinate better on them. If we could get the arbitrators to have weekly discussions where they laid out their thoughts on ongoing ARCAs both to each other and on wiki I feel like it would greatly reduce the amount of time they languish waiting for arbitrator input.
What aspects of the committee's work do you expect to find most (or least) satisfying?
Well, I'm not entirely sure here. I'd say that, pending how I feel on the non-public work that I don't know about, I would find coordinating the committee to make sure the committee gets things done in an expedient manner would be one thing I would focus on. In essence, anything I can do to make the committee more efficient and more responsive is work that I would find highly satisfying.
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?
Yes, or at least as much as anyone can be without actually having experienced it before. I'm not worried one bit about outing; I'm pretty open about my identity. As for off-site abuse/harassment, trolling, or interference with my life, I'm confident that I will be able to handle anything thrown at me with mechanisms I have developed ever since my first run for ArbCom.
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 would probably not be comfortable using something as technically advanced as email encryption, especially given 1) the greatest risk to ArbCom communications is someone gaining unauthorized access to an email account, and the second greatest risk an arbitrator leaking information, and 2) it may restrict arbitrators from using the email platform of their choice. However, I would make it work should the committee decide to implement email encryption. That said, I think ArbCom communications are sufficiently secure so long arbitrators use password best practices and enable two-factor authentication for access to their email.
You write in your statement that "Arbitrators should take full advantage of the workshop to get input from the community on the proposed decision, so that they can refine it before putting it up for voting. Doing so ensures the final outcome of the case is more tailored to the needs of the community." If what the committee does is implement the will of the community members, why not resolve every dispute at ANI? Banedon (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
A dispute being at arbitration almost always means that it could not be solved by the community at ANI. The intention of getting feedback during the workshop phase is to determine whether or not the parties and/or community feel given findings of fact accurately summarize the dispute and given remedies are necessary and will be effective. This allows unnecessary elements to be reconsidered, unclear parts to be clarified, and missing elements to be considered and potentially added before moving on to the proposed decision phase. Such feedback is taken into consideration by the arbitrators, and is to help ensure that the proposed decision is the most effective solution possible.
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?
My main interests have always been in the administrative part of the project, but I'm not a complete neophyte when it comes to producing content. I have produced three DYKs, nine GAs (a host of small highways in Kansas and Storm Prediction Center) and one featured picture (File:May 20, 2013 Moore, Oklahoma tornado.JPG) so far in my editing career. As a part of my editing, I make sure to keep up with debates going on around the project, including regarding content and those who produce it. In the event that an arbitration case were to occur surrounding aspect of content creation or contributors I was unfamiliar with, I would make sure to be extra thorough in researching the background involved so that I was as informed as possible.
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 handle it the same as any other case request. If the case request showed that the community had tried and failed to resolve the issues at hand, I would vote to accept, and I would decline otherwise. If the case was accepted, the conduct of the parties related to the issues at hand could be examined, including the canvassing.
In any respect, canvassing is unhelpful because it bogs down the case request. The flood of comments that follows increases the amount of material that arbitrators have to sift through when deciding whether or not to accept the case. This can result in delays to the acceptance or rejection of a case request. Further, canvassing doesn't actually affect the merits of the request for arbitration, but it does increase the possibility of hostile confrontation in a situation where tensions are already running high. When these are put together, it makes canvassing a rather pointless endeavor that merely increases the usual headaches of a request for arbitration while accomplishing nothing.
In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
Honestly, it neither helps nor harms free speech. Just because someone can say something doesn't mean they should. One can say a great many things that would be considered free speech but still be uncivil. Incivility can cross the line into harassment when one person repeatedly/regularly targets another person with incivility, or when one egregiously breaches behavioral standards in their words or actions towards another user .
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?
People need to recognize that Wikipedia is a collaborative, collegial environment. While Wikipedia does not have a particularly formal environment, it also does not have one so casual that editors should be conducting themselves in a manner that drives off users more accustomed to a professional environment. The proper solution is for both sides to recognize the difference in standards between the two, and to do their best to be accepting and accommodating.
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?
Has the community failed to resolve the issue at hand? If not, ArbCom should not even be involved. If the community has been unable to resolve the situation, and a case became necessary, then I would think the points mentioned in my replies to your first two questions would be worth taking into consideration.
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?
Perhaps, but on a voluntary basis. If an arbitrator wants to take the time to talk to the press about a case in their individual capacity, then that's their prerogative, but I don't think that ArbCom as a unit should be ensuring that stories written about arbitration matters are factually accurate; the onus for ensuring factual media coverage is on the reporter and the outlet/agency they work for.
What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
Undisclosed paid editing is not allowed under the terms of use. ArbCom is not the owner of Wikipedia, and thus it is not ArbCom's duty to enforce the website's terms of use. That would be within the Wikimedia Foundation's remit. However, this does not prevent ArbCom from enforcing a local policy on paid editing along with any other applicable Wikipedia policies in normal arbitration proceedings, provided that the community has been unable to resolve the situation on its own.
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?
