Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Ks0stm/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?

Questions from Collect

2. 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.

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?

   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.

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) 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)

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. 21:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

1. 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.

Question from Rschen7754

2. 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.

Question from Mark Arsten

2. 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.

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?

   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.

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 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.

Questions from ThePlatypusofDoom

2. 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.

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?

   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.

4. 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.

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?

   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.

Question from *thing goes

1. 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)

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.

Question from Banedon

2. 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.

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?

   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.

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?

   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.

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?

   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 .

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?

   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.

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?

   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.

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?

   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.

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?