Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Questions from WBG

2. Comment on the behavior of arbitrators (incl. yourself) over here (and here), wherein multiple arbitrators refused to engage a multitude of queries and concerns from multiple members of the community, despite the case being entirely situated on public evidence.
   In light of the mind-boggling arrogance, ivory-tower mentality, and flippant dismissiveness, displayed by a plurality of folks (including you), why do you see yourself as a good fit for the committee? Or do you find the traits to be desirable in an arb?

   The Antisemitism in Poland case was a low point for the committee, because it happened over the summer while we were all tied up with other issues. Three arbitrators agreed to draft the case, one resigned mid case, one was largely inactive, and the third (me) moved over to manage the Fram case. This meant that deadlines were missed and the normal expected level of discussion throughout the evidence and workshop phases did not happen. In addition, by the time we did put the proposed decision forward, the number of active committee members reduced to a very small amount, and the final decision was made by less people than I would have liked.
   
   I will say that I don't believe the outcome was incorrect, even if we as a committee failed in the aforementioned areas. Evidence was submitted, workshop proposals too - I certainly read and digested all of them before voting. It would have been better for committee members to participate in the earlier phases, of course, but that doesn't mean the voices of the participants were not heard. What's more, a lot has happened since the case and it may be that the decision should be revisited in light of these developments.
   
   I will hold my hands up to not making myself sufficiently available for the case, for not joining in discussions with the case participants. It ran in parallel to one of the most draining periods I have ever had to deal with on wiki, one which I am still feeling the after-effects from. If you feel that translates to "mind-boggling arrogance, ivory-tower mentality and flippant dismissiveness", then that is your prerogative - I don't. Worm^TT(talk) 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Which part of Vanamonde's comment:- Despite being active elsewhere, (you) declined to answer questions and pings on the talk page. If you're too busy, then you shouldn't have been closing the case. If the issue is one you consider trivial, then at least have the courtesy to say that. does seem wrong, in your opinion or that, you do not personally agree with? I also, absolutely refuse to believe that you were so busy that dropping a minimal message along the lines of Hey, we are aware of your concerns but FRAMGATE means that we can't devote sufficient time to this. was impossible. ∯WBG^converse 13:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Winged Blades of Godric, Vanamonde suggested that we were "too busy", or felt it was "too trivial", or allowed for the fact that we had "discussed it elsewhere" (which you neglected to include in your quote). Indeed, I believe he felt there were problems with 3.2.4 (Icewhiz) at the proposed decision. I felt there had been sufficient discussion of that point - I had voted on that issue and had made a comment on that vote.

   As for the minimal message, well, yes. There was this one, this one, this one and my personal apologies at the end Worm^TT(talk) 13:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, you (plural) were apologizing for the multiple delays in completing various phases of the case but not for your failure to engage with others.

   At any event, I bid you bye, lest this gets into the territory of pestering. For the sake of fairness, I must note that your conduct during Fram-case was quite impressive. Feel free to have the last word and best of luck:-) ∯WBG^converse 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Nosebagbear

2. Once the new ARBCOM is in we'll be seeing an "RfC [with] focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.". Personally, what particular questions/aspects would you want to see discussed?

   Ah, the RfC. I'm glad someone asked about that. The RfC was first dreamed up before we actually decided to accept a case - I know I was talking about it when I suggested closing the Reversion of office actions case. The main questions I would like answered are around finding the balance between two areas - one) editors who feel harassed on wiki and their ability to report such harassment without being further subjected to more, and two) the ability to review the background of those complaining so that the community can ascertain the validity of such complaints. Both sides of the argument are valid but all the drama we had over the summer was because the Foundation enforced one side over the other. I'd like the community to try to reconcile that balance. If the community feels one side should be the standard, well, that needs to be made clear.
   
   Now, much of an RfC is drafted by some of the committee who worked hard on it, however since they have been inactive for a while, it has rather lingered to the point that nothing would get imposed before the new committee is in anyway. That leaves the question, should we push forward, or should we get the opinion of the new committee before doing so. I don't have an answer and since I've not been a driving force on the RfC, I feel I shouldn't be taking any unilateral drastic action. Worm^TT(talk) 14:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks for the above

4. Assuming that admonishments are accepted as having at least some level of value, do you think that voting on admonishments in batches (example) is a reasonable or unfair method to those involved (I picked this instance as AGK specifically noted one editor might not warrant the admonishment).

   My opinion on admonishments varies on the day of the week. They are very much an "Arbcom accepts that your behaviour fell below the standards expected, but no so far that a sanction is warranted" type of thing. If someone gets another one for the same thing, it can be useful to look back and draw parallels, but that's about it. In that case, there was an edit war with something like 13 reverts, each person involved should have known better than to get into that edit war as it was never going to be the solution and so pointing that out with an admonishment seemed like the best solution. I would have been happy with "editors involved in this edit war are admonished", but that only makes it harder to search for in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 14:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Newslinger

2. When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?

   Interesting question, Newslinger. I'll answer it as best I can off the top of my head, but please don't be surprised if I come back and add more if something comes to me. I can see this is the sort of thing I will be mulling over for a while. I'm also liable to ramble on the subject, so I'll put a TL;DR: Not as things currently stand

   To start with I'm going to give a brief overview of what DS is, just for my own peace of mind. DS is a system that allows uninvolved administrators to individually invoke sanctions that they would not be otherwise able to without community consensus and they cannot be easily overturned by an individual administrator. Now, because this a massive increase in power for administrators, it should only be used in rare circumstances - those which the community struggles to solve by other means. It should be limited to specific areas, and it should be made absolutely clear to editors in those areas that that they are entering a DS zone.

   On the other hand, we have paid editing. There are many forms of this and the issue is that when your editing is tied up with a financial gain, a conflict of interest arises. That conflict can be managed, declarations certainly help and it is possible to write good articles while being paid. Paid editing can happen anywhere on the encyclopedia, we've seen paid editing rings, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and all sorts of other methods used to subvert our content.

   Could DS be used to counter paid editing? Well, no, not as things stand. DS can only be used in a limited number of circumstances, largely through an Arbitration case, but alternatively through community authorisation (as explained at WP:General Sanctions). Without that authorisation, we should not be using DS against paid editing (unless it happens to be paid editing in an area that has DS). That begs the question "should Arbcom / the community authorise DS for paid editing". I'd personally argue no for a number of reasons. Firstly, in my view, the community has not fully made up it's mind on it's stance on paid editing - we have hardliners who believe none should happen at all and that it should be killed with fire, while others who try to find a middle ground. I would not be happy with an individual administrator making such a decision for the community. Secondly, the broad area of "paid editing" (covering the entire encyclopedia) goes against the idea of limiting the scope of DS. Thirdly, I cannot see a situation where DS would be particularly helpful against paid editing. If an article is being particularly targetted, it can be easily protected, and in the rare cases that something unusual (say 1RR) would be helpful, that can be authorised by the community in a normal discussion - it doesn't need to be an individual administrator. If an individual is causing problems for paid editing reasons, it can be handled through normal community means.

   I hope that answers your question, sorry about the rambling! Worm^TT(talk) 10:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?

   Two-factor authentication is a Good Thing^TM. It doesn't fix all the problems with security, but it does help, and I'd personally endorse it to any individual who is wavering about using it. In my past two years on the committee, I've had to be involved in more WP:LEVEL1 desysoppings for compromised accounts than I'd have expected and that needs to be sorted. It's one of those rare situations that I believe should be enforced from the top down - I'd expect WMF to be putting in stringent password requirements for anyone with administrator or above user-rights.

   That said, however, 2FA should not be mandatory. As Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, there are many individuals who cannot adopt 2FA, and many more who are against it on principle. I respect that - it should not be mandatory, though it should be recommended. What's more, I don't believe the Foundation is set up to manage the inevitable user errors that a more complex system requires - if an individual loses his device, he should not lose his wikipedia account. Scratch codes are all well and good, but they are regularly lost, and that leads the WMF to identify the individual and remove 2FA so that they could log back in - given the small team that they have there, expanding 2FA outside administrators is not practical.

   Of course, there's the good old elephant in the room - which was the mess that followed this. Now, I've not commented much on this - but I will say that it happened while I was inactive and I had made a statement of general opposition before the motions were posted. Worm^TT(talk) 10:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Q from SchroCat

2. You were active during the recent Fram arbitration. From your personal perspective, what was your take on how ArbCom handled matters? If it all happened again tomorrow (please god, no!), what would you advise should be done the same or different by the committee or yourself? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   How Arbcom handled matters - well, we were acting reactively and in a time of massive community crisis, and taken as a whole, I think the committee handled the situation as best as we possibly could. What's more, I think that actions that the committee took (especially the open letter to the board) solved the deadlock and allowed normal life to return. As for the case itself, well, by that time most of the committee was so burned out that I pretty much ran it until voting started - by which time the rest of the committee members were able come back and vote (and in the case of one, do a bit of digging / re-writing). I didn't prefer the outcome that conflated Fram's desysop with what happened, though I understand why it happened that way - we were effectively given the choice of endorsing one side or the other, with more information than the rest of the community had.

   If it happened again tomorrow, I'd be walking away from the encyclopedia. Done. However, if instead you mean "what if I could go back and do over / give advice", i.e. what would I / we done differently in hindsight, I can give an answer to that.

   To start with, I'd have told myself to make sure I was on the call where it was mentioned, even if it was 5am. It wasn't fair for a single arbitrator to have to manage that. Prior to that call, I can think of quite a few different ways I could have stopped the situation from happening in the first place, however I cannot think of many that I would have, even with advice from future me. One piece of advice I would have given was to not get to worried about it all - at one point I did intend to quit, and instead took a break... I'm glad I did that as the deadlock broke soon after. I'd also suggest that the committee took a stronger stance with respect to the Foundation - firstly, I think we could have negotiated more - things like Fram being unbanned to participate or evidence being released to the community. Secondly, once the case was going, we did not communicate with the WMF - well, actually I think they would have been more forthcoming if we did.

   It's a thought exercise though. Things are always easier to look at with hindsight. When it comes down to it, I don't regret much about my role in how things played out, nor in the committee's. Worm^TT(talk) 11:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that full response, it's much appreciated. You're right, it always easier in hindsight, but unfortunately that's the only place where the lessons can be learned for the next time something similar happens. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Vanamonde

2. I raised some concerns at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision (see "Comments from Vanamonde"; I'm having trouble linking to the section), to which I received no response. I understand that you cannot respond to every comment on a talk page; but I would like to give you another opportunity to do so. Specifically, I am concerned that the language used in that decision, and the diffs the decision highlights, will be used to stifle robust discussion of borderline sources in contentious political areas. Do you nonetheless stand by your wording? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Firstly, for those reading, the link is here. I've said to WBG above that the case was a rather low point for the committee, and explained my thoughts on why above. However, on your points with regard to the case - you're referring to the diffs in the Icewhiz half of this finding, correct? I do accept that the diffs are light there, however having spent a lot of time reviewing evidence, I definitely saw a pattern of inflammatory rhetoric from Icewhiz, which is why I was willing to accept that finding. When combined with the other behaviours shown in the other findings, and especially behaviours subsequent to the case, I am absolutely willing to stand by it.

   Now, I appreciate your concerns about chilling effects - it's something that I'm definitely concerned about too, and it was running through my head when supporting the "Article sourcing expectations" remedy. This was a "best we've got" solution in my head, and as I said at the time, it may "come back to bite us". I was willing to give it a try, but would also be absolutely willing to review it at ARCA if it isn't working. Indeed, circumstances may always change, and I'd be willing to review any of the remedies at ARCA... that's the point of ARCA. Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

   To be clear, I'm not exculpating Icewhiz, whose conduct on the whole was egregiously battleground-ish. It was the wording and diffs in that finding, rather than the remedy, that I took issue with. In any case, thanks for the response, and I hope I'm wrong about it being used to restrict discussion eslewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

4. I voted for you the last time without hesitation, but have since become more concerned about the need to maintain a separation of powers between bureaucrats and ARBCOM. Do you feel the concept of separation of powers is relevant here? If so, how? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Oh, that's a good question, and one I wasn't expecting. "Separation of powers" is governmental concept and it's really important that the law makers aren't the law enforcers etc. The question is how it should be applied to Wikipedia. In general, "law makers" is the community as a whole. We work as a community, so we don't have "leaders" per se, though I accept there are people who garner more respect than others. Enforcers are generally admins, and 'crats weigh up community consensus on creating those admins. Arbcom is a final dispute resolution area - it is specifically not allowed to create policy.

   It's also worth noting that Arbcom has a lot stricter procedures on areas such as recusal - The only mention of recusal for crats is at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion, where it says Bureaucrats who have commented on the RFA or RFB itself are expected to state this and may, but are not required to, recuse themselves from the discussion - To me, that's a massive no-no, and I've been meaning to bring it up before it becomes a problem. On the other hand, Arbcom's rules are more clear.

   The thing is, the 'crat role is minimal these days. When I signed up, I found that there were a lot of private rename requests that needed to be done, especially vanishing and I took that upon myself. Renaming has since become global, so my need for the hat has diminished. That said, I have been in a situation in the past 2 years where I have used the tool to resolve a difficult private issue.

   As I say, I wasn't expecting the question - we've had 'crat arbs a number of times in the past, but I'm aware that I'm a strong willed individual in certain cases. Is there something you'd specifically like to see on this? I'd rather not put down the tool in case a situation arises where a similar difficult private issue needs to be resolved. What sort of situations concern you? Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

   The example that comes most readily to mind is someone deciding to challenge a collective crat decision about resysopping (or declining to resysop) at ARBCOM. Or alternatively, if a crat finds themselves before ARBCOM (yes, ARBCOM members are always going to have to judge their peers; but there's only a handful of bureaucrats, who have worked together for a long long time). But my discomfort has been more general, because I suspect this would matter in situations I cannot think of. I asked DeltaQuad this question at her RFB, and she stated that she felt the same way and wasn't planning to run for ARBCOM in the future; so it's not just me. But I appreciate that we may feel differently about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

   Vanamonde93, you're not the only one to feel that way, certainly - and it's a not a new feeling. I ran my RfB whilst I was on Arbcom in 2014 and a significant portion of opposes were about separation of powers. I personally don't see that there needs to be a problem, due to the governance model that Wikipedia manages, but I'm also keenly aware that I need to not only maintain integrity between the roles, but be seen to maintain integrity.

   As for your examples - if I was part of a collective 'crat decision that was brought to Arbcom, I would recuse without hesitation - my own decision being reviewed is an obvious bright line there. I don't believe that a 'crat finding themselves before Arbcom is a reason to recuse, the 'crats are a much less close knit group than you might think. I could only name 6 off the top of my head, two of which have resigned recently, two begin with X, and two I have met in real life.

   Of course, as always, if you felt there was a reason to recuse on either side of the role, please do come to me and ask. I'd be happy to talk about it, and to my the best of my recollection I've always honored requests to recuse. Worm^TT(talk) 10:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from EllenCT

2. If you were an ordinary non-functionary editor and believed that you were being harassed by a WP:TAGTEAM of COI editors who you thought were involved in organized and likely paid advocacy, under the current composition of enwiki dispute resolution and the T&S organization, how would you raise the issue? By private email or in the open? With the Foundation, community, WP:ANI, ORTS, Arbcom, and/or some other means? What are the most significant advantages and disadvantages of the various choices? EllenCT (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   There is no good answer to this question, as it will depend entirely on the circumstances. I've worked with many newer editors who believe that they are being tag-teamed simply because they are not aware of how Wikipedia works. So let's assume that I'm au fait with Wikipedia. I've seen it that people believe there is a COI or paid advocacy simply because they hold strong beliefs to the contrary and therefore see conspiracy. So, let's assume I also have some level of evidence that this is actually happening. If either of those assumptions are incorrect, then simply getting outside eyes on the situation, using standard dispute resolution is the right solution.

   Ok, we've got some sort of evidence that there is a group of editors that have some sort of CoI and are harassing me. I'd probably go to an admin who is uninvolved in the situation to get their opinion that it's actually happening. If it carries on escalating, and depending on the privacy level of the information, I'd probably head to AN / then maybe an Arbcom case for entirely public case, or send an email to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org if I had evidence of paid advocacy, or Arbcom if I had off-wiki harassment. I personally cannot see a situation where I would be going to WMF on an issue like this, unless the harassment became a real-world risk. Worm^TT(talk) 13:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

4. As the only candidate so far with experience participating in coordination with T&S, would you please give us an idea of how those conference calls are run? I.e., who sets the agenda? What are the typical topics of discussion? Is speaking time balanced between Arbcom and T&S or skewed to one side which does more of the talking? Are arbitrators' requests of T&S honored? Does T&S make requests of arbitrators? EllenCT (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Sure. The conference calls are a monthly discussion between members of the committee who can make it and a few members of T&S and legal from WMF side. A document is sent round when the call is set up which can be added to by anyone for agenda items and is also the repository of the meeting minutes. I have been on a few calls with no set agenda, and a few others with 4-5 items. Topics of discussion vary - we may discuss tools that could make Arbcom's life easier (such as moving the Google Groups), or bugs that have been spotted in the media-wiki interface. Generally, we are given a bit of a heads up if there is something happening with respect to a user who is active on en.wiki, such as a global ban. We might discuss sensitive issues - the sorts that should be passed to T&S.

   Overall, I have found these sessions to be helpful and generally to be an open free flowing conversation on both sides. Arbitrators requests to T&S have been honoured, yes. T&S's requests are generally of the level "can you explain how this works", I know a question came up a little while ago about the difference between a "block appealable only to arbcom" and a "ban". I have never felt pressured by T&S to do anything for them. I hope that answers your question, EllenCT Worm^TT(talk) 13:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

6. Do you personally trust the co-architect of superprotect leading T&S to act in the best interest of the community? Why or why not? EllenCT (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

   Well, there's a few questions wrapped up in that seemingly innocuous question there. I'll start first by talking about Superprotect. Superprotect was implemented while I was on the committee the first time, and since it didn't ever get implemented on any page on en.wiki, I didn't actually pay that much attention to it. I have to say, in theory, it seems like a no-brainer - You should absolutely not have the ability to do so much damage to such an important website with out some decent quality change control. Can you imagine a button which would allow you to change Facebook for every user? What that theory doesn't take into account though, is our community, and actually the very ethos of Wikipedia, that anyone can edit. We like that we can manage our own site, however we like. So, I don't hold Superprotect against anyone at WMF - I understand why they did it, it was the wrong decision and they backed down.

   Whether I would I then put the same person in charge of T&S, given the choice? No, I probably wouldn't. However - I think it's a big step to go from "not my choice" to "don't trust him to act in the best interests of the community". People I do trust have a high opinion of the person, and trust him. That helps. I am also aware of the risks of an echo chamber within T&S - if the only noise you're getting from outside is complaints of harassment, and inside you're all getting worked up about those same complaints, not doing something is very difficult and doing something is likely to turn out poorly. I would prefer the head of T&S to be more communicative, which in turn would engender trust. I had hoped that he would become a bit more communicative after the events of the summer, but I've been rather disappointed in that regard. Worm^TT(talk) 13:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No question from Gerda

2. I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. I read your vote as if you agreed, so I'm ready to support you. I'd like to ask how you think arbcom can help to make users avoid use of the term "idiotbox", but you once told me to not ask arb candidites infobox-related questions, and I can live with it ;)

   I don't recall telling you to not ask arb candidates infobox-related questions, however I'm quite happy not to receive them. The amount of effort that have gone into worrying about infoboxes on this encyclopedia is insane. Worm^TT(talk) 13:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As said before, I support your candidacy, no questions asked. - I don't see much worrying over infoboxes in 2019, and am happy about that. Two RfCs and a farce, - nothing to worry about, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, please watch Chopin, new today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from Peacemaker67

2. In retrospect, do you think your decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort was the right one? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?

   I was definitely borderline on accepting the case, my initial comment was along the lines of "Why should it be Arbcom". I was then persuaded by subsequent comments that the dispute had been going on a long time and that it was unlikely to be fixed by any other dispute resolution. The outcome was a ban and some other restrictions and reminders, the sort of thing you'd expect from this sort of case. I don't believe that ANI was the right venue for the level of investigation needed, so yes on balance, I believe accepting that case was the correct decision. Worm^TT(talk) 13:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)