Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Writ Keeper/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Question from User:Doc James

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

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

Question from Biblioworm

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. 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

1. this box thing is duuuuumb

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

Self(-indulgent) questions

2. So...seems like that statement is lacking. What's up with that?

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

2. Exactly how serious is this candidacy? It doesn't seem very.

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

2. Are you actually qualified?

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

Question from Rschen7754

2. In late 2014, you resigned the bureaucrat flag, and posted a statement here. As part of it, you said: "Closing RfAs sucks, and I hate it, and I don't want to do it anymore". I would presume that this is due to making difficult decisions when consensus is not clear, which the arbitration process also involves. Do you believe this will affect your candidacy or your ability to be an arbitrator? --Rschen7754 22:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

   That's a great question. (Well, I'm probably the wrong person to ask when it comes to affecting my candidacy; I'm sure it will, but you'd have to ask the voting body for more details.) But as far as my ability to be an arbitrator, no, I don't think so. First of all, "making difficult decisions when the consensus isn't clear" isn't why I dislike closing RfAs. Difficult decisions are whatever; I have no problem making or defending them. What I dislike about closing RfAs is telling a good-faith contributor that they're not good/trusted/whatever enough. RfA candidates, by and large, are people who are helping out and want to help out more, and it feels bad to tell them that they can't, when all they want to do is help (and most of the time, they haven't really even done anything wrong!). It never feels good to tell someone that they're not trustworthy or experienced enough to do something. Arbitration is different because, although one does "speak badly" of people, there are generally actual problems of some kind (otherwise, it wouldn't have gotten as far as arbitration, assuming the system worked correctly. The whos, hows, and whys will change, and nobody ever comes out of arbitration happy, but it's not the same as crushing the dreams of some innocent newbie, so to speak.

   Secondly, being on ArbCom is not like being a bureaucrat. I didn't resign just because I don't like closing RfAs or being a 'crat; I resigned mainly because we didn't need me to be a 'crat. With the burden of username changes shipped off to Meta, enwiki bureaucrats don't really have much to do; there are plenty of 'crats to handle the now-light workload. If the community doesn't need me as a 'crat, and I don't particularly enjoy being one, then I figured it made sense to stop being one; if RfAs weren't getting closed because there weren't enough 'crats around, I would've kept doing it. That's not true of ArbCom members; if the community elects me, then it needs me to keep going. I mean, I'm not going into this expecting to like being on ArbCom. But someone has to do it, and I figure I can probably do it as well as some other anonymous volunteer, so I'll do it.

Questions from BU Rob13

2. To be blunt, I'm concerned about this candidacy. "Eh, why not?" is perhaps the best summary of how the Arbitration Committee has made mistakes in the past, but even ignoring that, there's a serious lack of transparency in not bothering to explain any of your opinions about the Committee or what you bring to the table as a potential Arbitrator. I look forward to hearing your answer to Biblio's question to better suss that out, but on a more basic level, do you think transparency is important in the Arbitration Committee? How do you think a lack of transparency affects ArbCom's credibility within the community? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

   I'm sure you can be more blunt than that. :D Transparency is of course important, generally speaking. (Did you expect me to say anything else?) But it's not the primary, overriding concern. I can easily imagine, and so can you I'd bet, situations where doing things publicly is going to be worse than doing them privately. So it becomes a balancing act, and the balancing act will tend to favor one side or the other. Speaking personally, I would usually prefer doing things in the open unless there is a reason not to, but since I've never actually been on ArbCom myself, I'm loath to judge them, or offer concrete answers of my own, with too much finality; I don't actually know what that balancing act entails. Obviously a lack of transparency hurts the relationship with the community...but then again, y'know, ArbCom's job is to make tough decisions in cases where nothing else has worked. That's not going to endear ArbCom to anyone anyway. Which I'm not saying that ArbCom shouldn't care about how their relationship with the community, but in making decisions, on the degree of transparency as well as any other issue, "is this the right thing to do?" is (or should be) the operative question, not "will the community like or appreciate this?". (and again, my statement is the way it is not because I want to hide my opinions on things but because I thought it'd be funny, nothing more or less. If that loses me your vote, that's cool; I'm not really trying to change anyone's minds. Y'all can do that--or not--on your own.)

4. This directly follows from your response above. I don't attribute your lack of transparency to a malicious intent to deceive, just as I don't believe the current arbitrators sit in the Hall of Doom and conspire to keep us in the dark on basic issues not related to private matters, like how they came up with the scope of any given case. You're a good-faith contributor, certainly, so I expect you to have acted with good intentions, but that's a very low bar. To what degree do you think appearances matter for the Arbitration Committee? Do you think statements or conduct can become problematic even when intentions are good? If you do agree appearances matter, what appearance do you think your lack of statement gives off? Specifically, does it give the appearance of a potential arbitrator who values openness? Alternatively, if you don't think appearances matter when good intentions are present, how do you reconcile that with certain bright-line rules we have for editors and administrators? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

   Appearances matter for ArbCom, to be sure, but I'm not on ArbCom (yet?). The statement is a joke, and honestly the only appearance I'm really concerned about in this specific instance is whether it amused me. (Mission accomplished! :D ) If I were to actually be on ArbCom, then that's a different story, because things like arbitration cases aren't a laughing matter, so you should certainly expect more from me then. Like I said in my own question above, taking the election process lightly doesn't mean I'd be taking ArbCom itself lightly. But, like I say, if that's not your cup of tea, if you think that seriousness for one is predicated on seriousness for the other, then that's totally fair. I just like taking gentle jabs at the bureaucracy of it all every now and then, and I can't blame anyone who isn't a fan of that. I also respect it that you want more information about me in the statement, but I personally have never put much stock in 'em--they're inevitably going to be self-serving. something about chickens, pots, cars, and garages? I'd rather have a dialogue than a monologue, and if people would rather just oppose instead--which again is totally cool--I'm fine with that.

6. As you've indicated that you do not wish to hide your platform, whatever it may be, could you detail your platform with the standard 500-word limit on statements? What ideas/mentalities/etc do you bring to the table? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

   Quite honestly, I don't really have a platform. I'm not really coming at this from the perspective of an election, where I need to win the hearts and minds of the people or whatever (hence why I'm comfortable with doing silly things like a three-word statement). As far as ideas I bring to the table, I'd say the most relevant thing is my opinions about advanced rights; I think it's important to stay within the boundaries of the rules, and not be "creative" in their application. IAR in normal editing is one thing, but IAR has (almost) no place in the context of advanced rights. Perhaps ironic given my above jabs at bureaucracy, but limits on power is an important thing. Limits on power is why I expressed admittedly vague support to a lot of what Biblioworm said in the questions above, but, y'know, I've never been an arb, so I'm reluctant to make any definitive statements on those; I just don't really know what being an arb is like, and I'm loath to make concrete pronouncements without that knowledge.

Question from SilkTork

2. You say above "What I dislike about closing RfAs is telling a good-faith contributor that they're not good/trusted/whatever enough", and I understand this. You are of course aware that arbitration cases always concern good-faith editors. If it is clear that an editor is malicious, the case doesn't reach the Committee. There are times when in a case the majority decision is 6, and five Arbs have voted to desysop, and five have voted not to desysop. You now have the deciding vote. The admin has explained how they acted in good faith. Do you feel you might have a problem making that decision because of the consequences of desysopping or banning a popular and well respected admin who acted in good faith? If not, would you explain what for you would be the difference between "it feels bad to tell them that they can't, when all they want to do is help" in a Request for adminship and a Request for arbitration. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

   The difference is that an arbitration case at a split vote implies the existence of a problem. (Obviously people are disagreeing on how serious the problem is, or what to do about it, but I rather doubt that it would get so far if there were no problem at all; and if it did, then it'd be a pretty easy vote for me.) Sometimes people are a problem, however good their intentions, and I don't have trouble trying to fix problems. After all, I--like any admin--have blocked my fair share of apparently good-faith editors who, despite their best intentions, are just causing more trouble. The difference with RfA is that most of the time, the candidates have done nothing wrong. They've usually done nothing to earn their harsh judgement other than want to help out more. It's not just that they have good intentions, they also (usually) have good actions, too, so it hurts when you tell them, "I'm sorry but you just aren't good enough."

   If someone that I had judged unfavorably in an arbitration decision were to come up to me and ask me "where did I go wrong?", then I'd be able to tell them something--if not, then I'd have been doing a very poor job as arbitrator. If the same happened of an RfA, most of the time I wouldn't have an answer, because they haven't done anything wrong. That's the difference, and that difference hurts.

4. I'm not sure if I'm reading your answer correctly. It looks as though you are saying that when there is a split vote at an arbitration case it is clear that there is a problem with the user, but when there is a split vote in an RfA there isn't a problem with the user. While there are cases of RfAs where people are opposing because they feel the candidate is not ready, a good deal of opposes in hung RfAs are to do with genuine concerns folks have about the candidate's judgement, temperament, and impartiality. And often these are also the sort of concerns that will split an Arbitration Committee. However, my understanding of the 'Crat's role in a hung RfA is not to pass judgement on the candidate, but to assess the consensus of those taking part in the discussion. While in an Arb case, the Committee member's role is very much to pass judgement on the individual. So, after reading your answer, I'm still not clear on why you would feel comfortable making a direct personal judgement on an individual which may involve not just the humiliation of stripping them of their tools and status but also publicly banning them from editing Wikipedia, but have qualms about assessing if the community are saying that a volunteer is not ready today for adminship but can try again in a few months time. You are aware that a number of Committee members struggle with the demands of the role, some cannot handle it and leave mid-term, others take breaks and the rest of the Committee cover for them. My concern here, based on your reasons for retiring as a 'Crat, is that you are a well meaning and sensitive individual who might find the decision making and very public and sometime quite hostile personal criticism of those decisions (because there are always those who will feel you are wrong) to be so taxing that you become unable to operate effectively. What I am looking for, I suppose, is some clarity regarding your understanding of the role, and how - despite your sensitive nature - you will be able to cope. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

   Well, thanks for your favorable opinion of me as a person (at least I'd interpret that favorably), even if it's not what you're looking for in an arb. You're right, of course, that 'crats don't actively judge the candidate of an RfA themselves, and instead interpret the consensus of the community, and despite my word choice above, that's what I did in my time as a 'crat. I'd like to think my contributions to 'cratchats, such as they are, reflect that. But that's a tangent; while I know, intellectually, that that's what I did as a 'crat, that's not how it felt. Now, you're also right that being an arb will involve similar-in-feels judgements. What I'm trying to get at in describing the difference is that, in arbitration, there is a problem that needs to be solved. I don't mean that in a problem-user sense; more a situation, a dispute that needs resolving. Sometimes the solution requires that someone gets metaphorically smacked, but it's the situation that I'd be mainly focused on addressing (and preventing future instances of). I guess that's a fine line, and while I say now that that fine distinction is enough, I guess I can't really know for sure unless and until I'm elected. I guess the only other thing I can say is to repeat that it wasn't that I couldn't continue being a 'crat; I could've kept going without too much trouble. It's just that it didn't seem like I needed to be one; there were and still are more than enough 'crats to handle the workload, so if I didn't particularly enjoy it, it didn't hurt anything to resign. If I'm elected, that case is altered. But, at the end of the day, I guess it's up to y'all (particularly with your first-hand knowledge of ArbCom, SilkTork) to make that call.

Questions from Collect

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

   The trivial answer is "no", but a more interesting answer would require you to define your terms. Do you include things like "admonishments" (ugh, what a word), recommendations and the like? If not, then it's a pretty easy no. If so, then a case that doesn't lead to anything raises the question of why the case was accepted to begin with. But then again, evidence changes things; if ArbCom judged everything just based on the case request, then cases should be a hell of a lot shorter. So still no.

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?

   This sounds like a trap question; it sounds like you have a particular case in mind though the question is couched in generics. I don't mean that you're maliciously laying a trap for me, just that it sounds like you're thinking of something more specific. Generally, without any more details than that, I would say yes, that is sufficient to say that the administrator isn't impartial. But context is key, and I wouldn't hold myself to that unless I got more details on the specific situation.

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?

   yay mediawiki

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

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

Question from uninvolved Drmies

2. So, Writ Keeper, you're an admin, a former crat, you've written some useful content (in the underdeveloped area of Mongolian shamanism, for instance), you have common sense, you don't take yourself or other unserious matters too seriously, you have pretty decent manners, you've never been blocked or gotten into any other trouble as far as I can tell, you got some serious technical skills, you're pretty mature, you got a college degree and can write your way out of a paper bag, you got friends in high places, you're diplomatic and deferential to your elders--well, I can almost say almost all these things about almost anybody. But why? Drmies (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

   Didn't you read my statement? :D
   No, but really, I can't really say, as weird as that sounds. At some point in the last month or two Bishonen offhandedly mentioned that I should run for Arbcom, and I, equally offhandedly, said something to the effect of "no way". I mean, it doesn't sound like a fun job. But, to the dismay of all the people who just want Arbcom to slowly disappear, it still seems like someone has to do it. I feel like I could do it. Part of me puckishly wants to see how far I get with an eleven-character statement, so there's that. So, why not? I...guess I kinda just want to see what would happen.

Question from Mark Arsten

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

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

Questions from Carrite

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

Questions from Opabinia

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

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?

   Fewer cases sounds like a good thing at face value, but I wonder that it's not more influenced by fear of/distaste for ArbCom, and sheer fatigue at the process of it all, rather than an absolute reduction in disputes. Streamlining the ArbCom process is probably a good idea that might help with at least some of that. No particular ideas about ARCA; it's a side of things I haven't really looked at, and I'm not sure I'm the only one. So, more eyes might be the answer; it's certainly something that it would make sense to look at more, were I to be elected. I would imagine that ARCA requests would naturally go up over time anyway, as the the body of work (i.e. completed cases) that ARCA works from increases in proportion. Sadly, I doubt the committee can do much about ANI; ArbCom isn't of course legislative in nature, so it can't change much about it directly, and indirect changes--say, relieving some of ANI's workload by loosening requirements for accepting a case--probably wouldn't fly, and certainly couldn't be done by ArbCom unilaterally, since it's an expansion of ArbCom's power in a time where it seems like people would rather it be reduced.

4. What aspects of the committee's work do you expect to find most (or least) satisfying?

   Well, I'd probably guess that accepting unban requests might be the most satisfying (though how many of those are actually acceptable would probably factor into that). Being drafter on a case is probably least satisfying, if I had to guess.

6. A similar question was asked by Worm That Turned last year, and I think it's a good one for those new to the committee. There's a long history of arbitrators being targeted by trolls and harassers, sometimes escalating to the point of outing, off-site abuse, and even interfering with arbitrators' real lives. Are you prepared for these possibilities?

   Yeah, I think it's fine. Doesn't sound fun, but is what it is. There was a time where I would've been worried about that a lot, but that time has mostly passed.

Questions from Spike789

2. What do you plan to do when you get elected, and how are you going to convince people that you will be successful? Since the only think you said was "why not"?

   I'm just going to do ArbCom things. I'm going to do my best to provide a reasonable voice on ArbCom and try to tell and do what's right. Like I've said, I'm not trying to convince anyone. People are either going to vote for me or not. I know this is called an election, but I'm not on the campaign trail. I'm just throwing my name in a hat. If y'all still need convincing, then feel free to vote oppose for me; no skin off my back.

Questions from Dr.saze

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

Thanks for answers.

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

Question from *thing goes

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?

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

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

Question from The Rambling Man

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?

   Well, that's ultimately up to you. For myself, "ArbCom doesn't rule on content" is a thing we hear. I actually was asked at one point in time to apply for the Mediation Committee, which actually does rule on content. I declined because of precisely this reason; without all that much content to my name, I don't have the experience or context to be able to judge such things effectively. At least in theory, ArbCom rules on editor behavior, not content, so there shouldn't be as much required.But it's not like context isn't helpful or important; more is always useful. It's a question of how much is necessary. So, it sounds like we might disagree on how much one needs. Ultimately, it's your call.

4. In relation to the recent 'Arbcom case' which saw my eventual de-sysopping and active sanctions against me, would you accept a case in which dozens of individuals had been canvassed and encouraged to contribute, all of whom had been notified because they had been in conflict with the subject for one reason or another over the past decade?

   Maybe. Fruit of the poisonous tree is a long-standing principle of (at least U.S.) law enforcement, but this ain't law enforcement. Canvassing would have to be borne in mind, and as such perhaps extra restrictions, or even total bans, on contributions from non-parties on the evidence page (and certainly on the workshop page, honestly I don't really know what the point of the workshop even is), but at the end of the day, Arbcom, perhaps more so than any other form of decision making on Wikipedia, isn't a popular vote. Ironic, I know, since it involves actual voting, but the point is that the sheer numbers won't directly affect the result. There's certainly something to be said for thirty people overwhelming one in a flood of out-of-context evidence that's just too much for the one person to rebut, which increasing the evidence restrictions would help with. But declining any and all cases out of hand, regardless of merits? I wouldn't go that far.

Questions from Antony-22

2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?

   There's no such thing as free speech on Wikipedia, so enforcing civility neither harms nor helps it. Which is to say that while yes, enforcing civility does harm free speech (in the sense that it would make one think twice about saying something), that's not necessarily a bad thing, since Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech. Free speech, as in the right to free speech, is not really a good way to frame the civility debate; it tends to force an absolute answer (the right to free speech cannot be abrogated) to what is a relative question (to what extent do we tolerate heated/uncivil dialogue in what can be passionate discourse). It suggests easy answers where there are none. Also, there is no line between incivility and harassment; the two aren't closely related. They're not two points on the same spectrum. It's possible to be uncivil without harassment, and it's possible to harass without being incivil, and it's possible to do both, or neither.

4. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals through formal programs in GLAM institutions, universities, and government agencies. This is perhaps causing some angst that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?

   That is the heart of the civility debate, and if there were easy answers to it, we'd probably have found them right now. Ideally, one would be able to moderate oneself in the presence of others; if one person says something that upsets someone else, and that someone else--respectfully--expresses their upset, then one would moderate themselves to allow the discussion to continue. We're never going to find a single behavioral code to follow in all situations, because people are different; a conversation between two long-time colleagues who are--and know each other to be--comfortable with some four-letter words and weird jokes shouldn't be judged the same way as a conversation with a wide-eyed newbie, nor should it be restrained in favor of the lowest common denominator (an impractical suggestion even if it was palatable; there's always someone who can get offended by any given thing), yet one can't expect everyone else to have the same comfort, either. It's a place where mistakes and upsets would be inevitable, and perhaps even frequent; the point is that such mistakes should be identified and worked on.

6. More specifically, let's say a professional at one of these institutions complains to ArbCom that another editor is using uncivil language that violates their organizations' internal rules, and thus their engagement with Wikipedia is jeopardizing their job. What considerations would go into ArbCom resolving such a case?

   Well, the first question is, "why is that at ArbCom"? Without further context, that doesn't sound like a problem for ArbCom at all. It's also not ArbCom's problem to keep people in their jobs; our concern is about the rules of Wikipedia, not the internal rules of some organization. Which isn't to say that there isn't also a problem with the editor to begin with; it would just have to be looked at and judged in the context of Wikipedia.

8. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press in the past. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles?

   Not officially, no; ArbCom is not a PR organization. I certainly have absolutely no interest in writing press releases.

Questions from George Ho

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

   Deliberately avoided? Like, I think I talked above about putting a case on hold if a party can't attend. But if they're just choosing not to, that's different. The case will probably suffer for not having them be represented--more eyes are usually better, especially eyes from different sides--but it's their choice to participate or not, so it wouldn't affect the actual proceedings.

4. 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?

Question from Fish and Karate

2. Eh, why?

   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Question from Black America

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) 04:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)