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

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Mark Arsten

Hi Calidum, 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?
I'll answer your last question first, and say I'm very confident in the security of my email address. I use a dedicated, Wikipedia-only gmail address, and have used two-factor authorization on the account. Given the recent hack, I don't feel fully confident in my account here, though I never edit from public computers to help mitigate that risk. I believe it is time for Wikipedia to consider requiring two-factor authorization for certain trusted users (whether they are all administrators or some other group remains to be seen) going forward, though I do understand not all users would be comfortable with or able to do so. I'm also not familiar with how our two-factor system works.

Question from Rschen7754

This is your third candidacy for ArbCom; in the past two elections (WP:ACE2011, WP:ACE2014), your level of support has not passed 25%, combined. Some guide writers during those cycles had concerns about your temperament. What is different about your candidacy this time around? --Rs chen 7754 01:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think, or would hope, that I'm more mature now than I was then and have learned to avoid certain problem and simply walk away when things can get heated. I'd also hope temperament isn't the only factor voters consider.

Questions from Carrite

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 must admit I have not followed ArbCom closely this year. I do find it amazing that the committee had to include a reminder for itself in the remedies of the Michael Hardy case. I think that speaks volumes about how the committee has handled cases of late.

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?
To be honest, I've never posted on the site and visited it a couple times in the past, but not of late. So I can't really pass judgment on it. I do, think, however, there should be a place where users can speak freely about Wikipedia, including criticism.

Questions from Collect

Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
Absolutely not. It is unfair to the parties in a case to have such a mindset.
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?
Yes, it absolutely is an indication the admin is no longer impartial. In fact, not only is it a violation of WP:INVOLVED, it may also be a personal attack depending on the exact nature of the statement in question.
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. There should be some latitude given, but this is 2016 and it's hard for me to imagine someone truly being aware from the Internet for such an extended period of time that they would not be able to edit at all. As the saying goes, "justice delayed is justice denied."
b. Again, I think there is a place for reasonable accommodations in such instances.
c. This really would depend on the nature of the evidence itself. If it's the seventh instance of an editor edit warring over a particular topic, then I'm not sure how additional time would matter. If it's a new allegation altogether, sure, the party should have time to rebut it.
I would have assumed that the role of an impartial arbitrator would preclude him or her from presenting evidence, but it appears our relevant policies don't address the issue. That being said, I would say they should not present evidence, because this isn't some sort of kangaroo court.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Biblioworm

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.)
I've taken the liberty of breaking up the questions here for readability.
In general, I would say the Arbitration Committee should be responsible for just that -- arbitration. One way to reduce the burden would be to -- with the community's consent -- task another user group with assigning functionary tools. Stewards would seem to be the optimal group to handle that task, though the committee could maintain oversight of those who have functionary tools on this Wikipedia.
The other areas you mention - legal issues, privacy matters and off-site harrasment -- seem like things best handled by the WMF. I would, however, have some concern about having "outsiders" (for lack of a better term) policing the English Wikipedia community, and I'd imagine I'm not alone in that regard. These are certainly conversations worth having.
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).
For your first point, I am in general agreement with the idea that the committee should state which issues will be addressed when a case begins. I would be hesitant to goes as far as saying only those items will be considered, because issues not previously under consideration could come up in evidence. However, I would say if new issues do arise during the course of a case, the committee should make it clear that the scope of the case has been expanded to include those issues, and allow the parties additional time if necessary to address those concerns.M/br>To your second point, I would favor taking some steps to limit the "peanut galleries" as you put it. But I would be wary of limiting the evidence page to only parties, because it could put one or more parties at a disadvantage (not everyone before the committee may have the ability to find diffs and old edits, for example). This is something that would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis (no pun intended).
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.
Of course. This falls perfectly in line with the principle of escalating punishments. Sitebans should only be considered in the most extreme circumstances or where all other measures have failed.
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.
A 24-hour minimum seems reasonable, as parties should have the right to defend themselves. Of course, sanctions should be allowed within that 24-hour window if the disruption continues after the report is filed at AE to prevent users from gaming the systems.
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.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but I would have some apprehension about implementing it. As you mentioned above, "peanut galleries" can be an issue, and giving others the ability to make motions would seemingly not improve upon that.
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.
As I said in my previous answers, I would support most of these, with the exception of the final proposal listed. Making reforms and improvements to the committee is something I believe in. I also think several other ideas tossed around before are worth consider, such as assigning certain cases to panels of five to seven arbitrators instead of the whole committee to reduce workload, and merging the workshop and evidence pages to streamline cases. I appreciate your questions and would certainly answer any follow ups you may have.

Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 19:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and merging the workshop and evidence pages to streamline cases. A very good idea. That is something I never thought of. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question from ThePlatypusofDoom

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) 19:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who works in the media -- newspapers specifically -- I understand the need for a diverse community. This means diverse in terms of gender, race, socioeconomic background, political views and more. As to what can be done, there is no silver bullet to fix the problem. One thing I think should be considered is outreach efforts to attract more editors -- of all backgrounds. It's no secret the number of active editors has largely been static in recent years while the number of active admins has been in a constant state of decline for several years.

Questions from Opabinia

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?
The reason why the committee's caseload is down is because the community is handling more and more disputes on its own at places such as ANI. This is a good thing to me, because the committee should only handle disputes when the community is unable to do so or when other attempts have failed. There will still be other issues too complex for the community to act, and that's where the committee comes in.
What aspects of the committee's work do you expect to find most (or least) satisfying?
I would like to promote transparency on the committee, and ensure parties to all cases are on a level playing field. Working to do so -- representing in a way the average user -- is what I would find satisfying.
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?
I've been on Wikipedia for five years, and on the Internet many years before that, so I think I'm more than ready.

Question from User:Wisi_eu

Es-tu francophone ?
Non désolé. I took some classes in high school and college, but haven't used it since.

Question from *thing goes

You mentioned two-factor authentication for your e-mail-account. Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:
Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private?
Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?

--*thing goes (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encrypted is obviously preferred to un-encrypted. That being said, I'm not a technology expert so I'm not sure I'm fully qualified to answer your question. I would like to see less work done by the committee over email, however, but I do understand more sensitive information would still need to be discussed there.

Question from The Rambling Man

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?
Well I would have recused myself from the case you reference. That being said, I don't think a user should be rewarded for a such a blatant abuse of process.

Questions from Antony-22

In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?
I'm less worried about protecting free speech than I am building and improving an encyclopedia. An occasional bought of "incivility" shouldn't be cause for serious punishment. Harassment, however, has no place on Wikipedia. That would include things like wiki-stalking -- following a user from article to article, dispute to dispute or removing a user's contributions or photos -- constant insults, repeated trivial complaints at the drama boards, outing attempts and off-site badgering, among others.
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 would refer to my above answer for my feelings on incivility and how it should be handled.
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?
Without knowing the specifics of such an incident, I don't believe this would be a case that would fall under the committee's purview unless there were some other factors in play.
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?
To some extent, yes. I think in certain instances the committee as a whole -- or an individual member chosen by the committee -- should do so. As a member of the press (though not one who covers Wikipedia or technology in general), I would want to know if I were wrong.

Question from User:Doc James

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's roll in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
Undisclosed paid editing is unacceptable. The terms of use are central to Wikipedia, and the committee should enforce them as necessary. There are certain areas, however, best left to the foundation, like DMCA matters.

Questions from George Ho

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?
A user declining to participate in any or all phases should not be seen as an admission of guilt, or be used against the user. Obviously, I wouldn't recommend a user do so because it gives them less of a chance to defend themselves.
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?