In the past few months and years, your activity on Wikipedia has seemed to drop off. From the beginning of 2016 until now, you have only made 186 edits in 11 months, or roughly 17 edits per month. Arbitration is a demanding job, usually granted to users with more activity than this. Do you believe that, if elected Arbitrator, you will be active enough to effectively arbitrate cases and otherwise participate in Wikipedia?
Yes. I've been following along over the past year, but took a bit of a break from active partipation to reflect after I left the committee at the beginning of 2016. I believe that's provided some useful perspective. I am confident I will have sufficient time to fully fulfil my duties.
Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:
Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:
Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.
Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).
Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.
Do you support these measures, and would you work to implement them if elected? If you do not support all of them, please specify which ones you do support.
Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
If by "functionary issues", you mean selection, then we have two options: ArbCom does it, or the community elects them. There hasn't been much appetite for returning to the latter, as far as I'm aware — and choosing CU/OS members isn't a terribly time-consuming or frequent task.
With regards to handing over stressful tasks, during my previous term on the committee I worked with other arbitrators to impress on the WMF that they had to take on more of these matters. We were finally successful for child protection, and the WMF has staffed up a proper Trust and Security team over the past 18 months. I'd love for them to take on more, but it's a matter of the WMF finding adequete resources. In the interim, ArbCom needs to continue to handle important-but-lower-priority cases that the WMF lacks bandwidth for.
Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:
Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.
I think a formal requirement would be too limiting, but well-defined boundaries for cases are something I appreciate and will advocate for.
Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).
"Tight restriction" sounds a lot better than "elimination" -- non-parties do provide value, especially in drawing the committee's attention to facts that parties do not themselves highlight.
Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
I tried very hard to avoid blanket site-bans, but there's a certain point at which one has to ask, "if we're designing such a convoluted enforcement process just so an editor can constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, are they really providing net value?". Everything has limits.
Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
This could tie administrator hands and allow for gaming — I'd support it as long as there were exceptions for "obvious" requests, or ones that are highly time-sensitive.
Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.
They're welcome to suggest a motion be made -- editors are not gagged and prohibited from making such a proposal. The threshold that one arbitrator has to agree with your proposal enough for them to propose it themselves seems reasonable. I note that this seems to be in conflict with your "people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted…" comment above, though.
Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
As I stated in 2013: I do not believe that the opening of a case should commit the Committee to any action, including the issuing of sanctions. While sanctionless cases perhaps would indicate that the Committee that more care should have been taken in the acceptance of the case, it is better to close a case without sanctions than to assign them just because one must do so. Several cases I've heard while on the committee have been closed without sanctions.
If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?
If I had written on your talk page "I do not like Collect.", then sure, it is reasonable to question my impartiality in a matter involving you. "an aversion" is vague enough to drive an ArbCom case through, though, so I'd prefer to comment on a more concrete example.
a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised? b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal? c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence? d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?
a. It would depend on the circumstances — in general, yes, attempts should be made to be accommodating. b. With regards to evidence limits, we have generally allowed requests to expand on a case-by-case basis. c. See (b). d. While I don't think it's a good idea for committee members to proactively splunk for evidence, it seems poor to tie arbitrators' hands if something germane is found during the review of presented evidence. If an arbitrator intends to present a substantial amount of evidence, they should recuse and add themselves as a case participant.
Hi Luke, thanks for running for Arbcom. My questions are about account security. What are your thoughts on the handling of the recent incident in which several administrator accounts were compromised? Do you think that technical or policy changes need to be made as a result? Also, are you confident in the security of your e-mail and Wikipedia accounts?
My day job is as a software engineer in the information security field, so I have a lot of strong feelings here :)
I think that two-step verification should be mandatory for all administrators, stewards, and holders of other advanced permissions. I enabled it as soon as it was available, and encourage everyone else to do so in absence of a requirement. That said, I wouldn't support such a mandate unless a well-defined account recovery mechanism is established, to prevent editors from being locked out of their accounts because they accidentally took their phone for a swim. The policy should allow for exceptions, as not everyone has a mobile phone or other device to generate one-time passwords.
2SV isn't a panacea — but more in-depth account compromise detection mechanisms (such as instrumentation to identify "suspicious" activity and raise roadblocks) aren't really warranted, since the false-positive rate would be too high.
I use a password manager, use secure and distinct passwords for each service, enable two-step verification whenever available, and have evaluated the recovery flows for my important accounts to mitigate a password reset attack. That said:
The only system which is truly secure is one which is switched off and unplugged locked in a titanium lined safe, buried in a concrete bunker, and is surrounded by nerve gas and very highly paid armed guards. Even then, I wouldn't stake my life on it.
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?
Do you read or post at Wikipediocracy? What is your opinion about this off-wiki criticism site? Do you feel it is a malicious venue for harassment or a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems or something in between these extremes?
I read it occasionally, I've posted a few times, usually to answer topics relevant to my work or that discussed some committee actions. The existence of it or (something like it) is unavoidable; moreso, such an off-site venue can be healthy. I think there are many legitimate concerns voiced there, and have gained value from some of the discussions. It seems like the site is effective at policing some of the most unacceptable behaviour, although I would draw the line differently.
Some prominent guide writers from the last election were lukewarm about your candidacy, saying that there are "stronger candidates": [1]User:Boing! said Zebedee/ACE2015 How would you respond to this? --Rschen775404:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Case load is way down. Email volume is holding steady, but is still way down from its peak. ARCA requests are up slightly, but not too bad. Attention to this election is down compared to last year. We're slowly becoming irrelevant, and not in a bad way. Meanwhile, though, the most common community dispute resolution venue is ANI, with which there is long-standingandwidespreaddissatisfaction.
I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. What do you think about this trend toward fewer cases? Do you have any ideas on how to improve the committee's efficiency at ARCA? What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?
What aspects of the committee's work did you find most (or least) satisfying when you were a member? Do you expect this to change much in a new term?
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?
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 generally feel case requests should be judged on their merits. Although cases are often named after particular users, the actions by all case participants is examined. In the specific case you reference, the canvassing behaviour was noted, and sanctions were applied to the canvasser. (although not specific to that fact). I'd like to think committee members took such actions into account when reviewing evidence or statements presented by those canvassed. Am I willing to say, "no, no matter what" to a case in which people were canvassed? No, in the same way we do not automatically shut down an AfD discussion because a link was posted on some site. The behaviour can certainly be disruptive, but to allow canvassing to halt dispute resolution seems counterproductive, aside from being trivially gamble.
Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals through formal programs in GLAM institutions, universities, and government agencies. This is perhaps causing some angst that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?
I'd welcome a more professional standard of conduct on the project.
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?
That would not be a factor in my decision.
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?
From an answer to a similar question from last year: […] Wikipedia is not a vacuum; it exists in the real world, and affects real people. Its processes are complex and difficult to navigate. It can be beneficial to provide clarification.
Were a similar situation to [Gamergate] arise in the future, I think it may be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to issue a statement. I don't have concrete answers on how to improve the process; we worked hard to engage with advisors on the best way to communicate our message and yet the result was less than ideal. Part of this is due to how committees operate; it is incredibly difficult to get a dozen or so people to agree on the text of a motion at times. Creating consensus over multiple paragraphs of text in the heat of a case is hard.
I'd like to think that a strong candidate for Arbcom would recognise that The Rambling Man's first question is just about the most important content on this entire page when demonstrating your suitability for the role. I'd like to ask: why have you chosen not to answer it yet?
It's somewhat embarassing to answer a question about whether I have time with "I haven't had time", but we're at the close of Thanksgiving in the US, and I wanted to ensure I responded thoughtfully to a question posed the day before a long holiday.
You have been inactive for large portions of 2016, including the whole of August and much of September, October and November, even during the course of this election. Why do you think Wikipedians should vote for an inactive Arbitrator?
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?