Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/LFaraone/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Question from Joshualouie711

2. In the past few months and years, your activity on Wikipedia has seemed to drop off. From the beginning of 2016 until now, you have only made 186 edits in 11 months, or roughly 17 edits per month. Arbitration is a demanding job, usually granted to users with more activity than this. Do you believe that, if elected Arbitrator, you will be active enough to effectively arbitrate cases and otherwise participate in Wikipedia?

   Yes. I've been following along over the past year, but took a bit of a break from active partipation to reflect after I left the committee at the beginning of 2016. I believe that's provided some useful perspective. I am confident I will have sufficient time to fully fulfil my duties.

Question from Biblioworm

2. 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:

1. 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.
2. Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).

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

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

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

1. Responses inline:
   

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

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

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

• Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:

1. Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.

   I think a formal requirement would be too limiting, but well-defined boundaries for cases are something I appreciate and will advocate for.

2. Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).

   "Tight restriction" sounds a lot better than "elimination" -- non-parties do provide value, especially in drawing the committee's attention to facts that parties do not themselves highlight.

• Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.

  I tried very hard to avoid blanket site-bans, but there's a certain point at which one has to ask, "if we're designing such a convoluted enforcement process just so an editor can constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, are they really providing net value?". Everything has limits.

• Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.

  This could tie administrator hands and allow for gaming — I'd support it as long as there were exceptions for "obvious" requests, or ones that are highly time-sensitive.

• Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.

  They're welcome to suggest a motion be made -- editors are not gagged and prohibited from making such a proposal. The threshold that one arbitrator has to agree with your proposal enough for them to propose it themselves seems reasonable. I note that this seems to be in conflict with your "people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted…" comment above, though.

Questions from Collect

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

   As I stated in 2013: I do not believe that the opening of a case should commit the Committee to any action, including the issuing of sanctions. While sanctionless cases perhaps would indicate that the Committee that more care should have been taken in the acceptance of the case, it is better to close a case without sanctions than to assign them just because one must do so. Several cases I've heard while on the committee have been closed without sanctions.

4. If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

   If I had written on your talk page "I do not like Collect.", then sure, it is reasonable to question my impartiality in a matter involving you. "an aversion" is vague enough to drive an ArbCom case through, though, so I'd prefer to comment on a more concrete example.

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?

   a. It would depend on the circumstances — in general, yes, attempts should be made to be accommodating.
   b. With regards to evidence limits, we have generally allowed requests to expand on a case-by-case basis.
   c. See (b).
   d. While I don't think it's a good idea for committee members to proactively splunk for evidence, it seems poor to tie arbitrators' hands if something germane is found during the review of presented evidence. If an arbitrator intends to present a substantial amount of evidence, they should recuse and add themselves as a case participant.

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

Question from Mark Arsten

2. Hi Luke, thanks for running for Arbcom. My questions are about account security.
   What are your thoughts on the handling of the recent incident in which several administrator accounts were compromised? Do you think that technical or policy changes need to be made as a result? Also, are you confident in the security of your e-mail and Wikipedia accounts?

   My day job is as a software engineer in the information security field, so I have a lot of strong feelings here :)

   I think that two-step verification should be mandatory for all administrators, stewards, and holders of other advanced permissions. I enabled it as soon as it was available, and encourage everyone else to do so in absence of a requirement. That said, I wouldn't support such a mandate unless a well-defined account recovery mechanism is established, to prevent editors from being locked out of their accounts because they accidentally took their phone for a swim. The policy should allow for exceptions, as not everyone has a mobile phone or other device to generate one-time passwords.

   2SV isn't a panacea — but more in-depth account compromise detection mechanisms (such as instrumentation to identify "suspicious" activity and raise roadblocks) aren't really warranted, since the false-positive rate would be too high.

   I use a password manager, use secure and distinct passwords for each service, enable two-step verification whenever available, and have evaluated the recovery flows for my important accounts to mitigate a password reset attack. That said:

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

   — Gene Spafford

Questions from Carrite

2. 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?

2. Do you read or post at Wikipediocracy? What is your opinion about this off-wiki criticism site? Do you feel it is a malicious venue for harassment or a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems or something in between these extremes?

   I read it occasionally, I've posted a few times, usually to answer topics relevant to my work or that discussed some committee actions. The existence of it or (something like it) is unavoidable; moreso, such an off-site venue can be healthy. I think there are many legitimate concerns voiced there, and have gained value from some of the discussions. It seems like the site is effective at policing some of the most unacceptable behaviour, although I would draw the line differently.

Question from Rschen7754

2. Some prominent guide writers from the last election were lukewarm about your candidacy, saying that there are "stronger candidates": [1]User:Boing! said Zebedee/ACE2015 How would you respond to this? --Rschen7754 04:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Opabinia

2. Case load is way down. Email volume is holding steady, but is still way down from its peak. ARCA requests are up slightly, but not too bad. Attention to this election is down compared to last year. We're slowly becoming irrelevant, and not in a bad way. Meanwhile, though, the most common community dispute resolution venue is ANI, with which there is long-standing and widespread dissatisfaction.

   I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. What do you think about this trend toward fewer cases? Do you have any ideas on how to improve the committee's efficiency at ARCA? What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?

4. What aspects of the committee's work did you find most (or least) satisfying when you were a member? Do you expect this to change much in a new term?

Question from *thing goes

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

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

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

Question from The Rambling Man

2. 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?