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

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Your candidacy in WP:CUOS2016 was not successful. Do you believe that this has any effect on your candidacy or your ability to be an arbitrator? Rs chen 7754 19:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC) For what it's worth, I ran for steward in a similar circumstance and was successful, so I do not see this as an automatic disqualifier).[reply]
I knew going into CUOS2016 that they were specifically looking for oversighters "available to handle oversight requests between 03:00 and 12:00 UTC". I disclosed early on to the functionaries that my typical editing hours only partially coincide with that time range. Admittedly, I was concerned about the optics of being an unsuccessful candidate. In particular because no one had opposed my candidacy publicly and I was worried there may have been a private concern brought up. I wrote to Opabinia regalis and requested a feedback summary and asked her if I could post it publicly if it ever came up. Here is the feedback summary I received:

"As suggested by some of the public comments by functionaries when we announced this round, the need for new oversighters, especially in well-staffed time zones, was not acute this year, so some members of the committee felt it best to be conservative bringing new people on board as oversighters. However, everyone felt positive about your admin work - and specifically, there were no concerns raised related to the SPI clerk training you described in your questionnaire - and you'd be encouraged to apply again in a future round."

So with that in mind, especially with the note about being encouraged to apply again in the future, I felt I could put myself forward without restraint for other things. Opabinia regalis did bring up a good point that unlike RFA where new admins are almost always needed, functionary appointments are more driven by need. ArbCom elections came along and I felt I could proceed with no affect on my ability to be a candidate or an arbitrator.

Questions from Collect

Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
No. I see sanctions as being the absolute last attempt at a solution. While ArbCom is a last resort step in dispute resolution, sanctions are the last resort measure in the arbitration process. ArbCom cases can be long and complex. A lot can happen between the time the case is initiated to the time arbitrators are expected to vote on proposals. Everything should be decided on a case-by-case basis and sanctions imposed only if there are no other real options available. I'm in favour of the least amount of intervention as I believe the community will always be the most important and central aspect of Wikipedia, including its governance. It is with the community that all the most important decisions should be made and enacted upon. ArbCom should only be there to resolve parts of a dispute that are at an impasse to allow the community to move forward and resolve the issue as a whole.
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?
WP:INVOLVED is one of our most important policies when it comes to administrative conduct. Again, I believe context is important. Every interaction builds a history between two editors. If the comment was initially made during an editorial dispute or situation where no administrative action was taken (including warnings), then I would take that into consideration when evaluating the history between these two individuals. On the other hand, if the comment was initially made as part of an administrative action or warning such as a reprimand against an editor for socking or creating attack pages, then I would be less likely to question whether the administrator could make a fair and impartial decision. No matter what, there is the potential for an administrator to have too much history with another editor even when it has only been administrative in nature. I have yet to see a situation that must be resolved by a single administrator. This is why I often seek a second opinion or will not decline a third unblock request even if they're identical in nature. There is enough redundancy in the system where this issue should not be as common of a problem as it is now.
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) As someone who travels frequently, in fact I'm travelling right now, I would be willing to postpone the case if the individual was outside of their point of origin. The tolerance for delays would be finite especially in a situation whereby multiple editors are involved and the problems continue to persist and disrupt the project even with the absence of the individual who is away. I would also limit or end the postponement if it was seemingly being done to intentionally draw out or delay the process.
B) Yes, I believe everyone should have the opportunity to defend themselves. Additional space should be able to be afforded on a case-by-case basis to ensure its not being abused.
C) At some point in time the process does need to end otherwise cases could potentially last forever. I would be open to the notion with restrictions and based upon the implications and importance of the new evidence brought forth. In very least, I'd be willing to allow a short comment or statement before proceeding.
D) On this one I am conflicted. I absolutely believe that arbitrators should investigate and review a case beyond the evidence presented. Anything they do find they should be openly disclose to the case unless it would breach privacy. That being said, I would not want for this to distract them from their ultimate roles as arbitrators by suddenly becoming the driving force behind prosecuting someone. In that regard I would want to see some restraint. I don't believe this is anything like a courtroom but there is a practical reason in any form of dispute resolution to ensure there is a separation between the arbitrators and the other involved parties.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:34, 13 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.)
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.

Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 21:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A) I would feel very uncomfortable about ArbCom making any decisions that had legal implications or consequences. This is absolutely where the WMF legal department should come into the picture. I am not in favour of the WMF having too much involvement in community 'governance' on a day-to-day level but I do think they can better support the community by providing guidance, resources, access to advisors, and other means to help the community handle difficult situations. Invariable there will be times where the problem is beyond the scope and means of ArbCom and I would like to see those cases dealt with by the WMF but with more transparency when possible. In the not-for-profit sector and tech industry, harassment and privacy matters are often handled by inexperienced or unqualified professionals. In many cases they are handled by the communications (or more ideally an HR) department, but frequently their mandate is the protection of the organization and its interests against exposure and liability rather than the care and protection of the individual. I think this is not just an issue for ArbCom but the community as a whole to petition the WMF that this issue is a priority and more should be allocated towards it.

B1) I've never sat on ArbCom so it is difficult for me to say whether this change would be possible or not. I think it would be very challenging to even identify all the issues until well into a case. I would not want to see a solution be excluded because it was not identified and included in the restrictions placed at the beginning of a case. If we're going to emphasize allowing editors a chance to fairly defend themselves, then we need to keep an open mind about the case and allow for any number of outcomes. I certainly agree that structure is important and more can be done to keep cases on track and within better guidelines.

B2) ArbCom cases have become an increasingly popular venue to attack other editors and soapbox beyond the scope of the case. I absolutely agree things need to be done to reduce and discourage that type of engagement/behaviour. I'm not exactly sure how that can be done; whether it is done through clerking or allowing those discussions to occur on subpages. I don't know if I would liken this problem with ArbCom to the legal judicial system because even in courtroom hearings the process sometimes still allows testimonial from character witnesses, expert witnesses, eye-witnesses, victim impact statements, along with presentation of the evidence. Likewise there is cross-examination and presentation of evidence by the defense with all the same measures. Additionally, judges and grand juries have very clear instructions and work within highly restrictive legal codes to guide them through the process. Additionally, courtroom proceedings are scaled down to a prosecution/plaintiff and the defense. ArbCom cases often handle multiple individuals representing multiple points of view and all seeking different outcomes. ArbCom is a dispute resolution mechanism that has the power to enforce already existing measures but to also create new sanctions (the equivalent of creating new laws).

C) As discussed above, if ArbCom is the last resort measure to dispute resolution; sanctions are the last resort measure in an ArbCom case; then for me, sitebans are the absolute last called upon resolution in a case. I have very little interest in seeing well meaning editors who are clearly here to improve the encyclopedia be shown the door over a surmountable problem.

D) I have no issue in allowing AE requests to remain open for a period of time. In fact, I think AE reform could use some work. I would be concerned about the damage that could be done while waiting for the AE request to be handled. I would want to see supplementary provisions introduced that allow admins to issue temporary preventative measures, if the situation requires it, until the AE request is closed. At some point we also need to trust our admins. I would like to see a balance between time and efficiency.

E) I'm open to allowing motions to be submitted by the community. I could see the process becoming easily overwhelmed but something like a petition process being implemented where the ones that surpass a certain criteria are moved forward as motions could be very appealing. I've always viewed ArbCom as serving at the request of the community and there should always be a process in place to allow the community a voice.