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]
It stinks real bad. But ya know I don't need no stinkin oversight permissions to find out private info online brah.

Questions from Collect

Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?
No, the existence of a case means that the committee should block somebody involved in the case each and every time. Sanctions are for weeenies.
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) Arbs have mental abilities you commoners don't so don't need to inform yall of new evidence until after our decision. It's always for the Pedia.

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) Hey Bibby, I see you are trying to climb the Pedia ladder and maybe run for arbcom soon. Your questions are designed to make you look good when you run. Whatever answer you want to hear i say. Now go away bruh.

Question from Mark Arsten

Hi Mkdw, 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?
It seemed very chaotic to me. As BWolff (WMF) stated, they're still investigating the matter and we're all shortly expecting a report from the WMF with more details. At the moment, we know very little other than the fact that it doesn't appear to be a brute force attack nor backdoor access to the WMF servers and, in at least one instance, the password was unique to Wikipedia. I was admittedly surprised that 2FA was implemented so quickly after the incident. I can only assume it was something already being worked on and simply rolled out a bit sooner than to be expected. In any case, I think the community responded quickly to minimize the damage and I'm sure this situation will lead to further steps that improve account security. I think the WMF did exactly what it needed to do by taking the matter seriously and giving us the tools to start improving our security situation. I absolutely believe policy changes need to be implemented to ensure these measures are actually used. Account security is only as effective as its end user. Ideally, I'd want the adoption of increased password complexity requirements, and for all users to use SHA-1 committed identities, 2FA, and scratch codes. I'm not sure if this pain-point would be worthwhile for all editors. I do not think it would be a stretch to make these measures compulsory for admins, bureaucrats, and other functionaries. As BWolff (WMF) said, there would need to be community consultation but I would hope that they/we would be willing to take on a bit more inconvenience to mitigate the potential damage that can be caused by our tools when in the wrong hands.

As for my own account security, I have a dedicated Wikipedia email account that uses a unique password and 2FA. My Wikipedia password was previously also unique among my passwords and I have my SHA-1 committed identity listed on my about page. Once the incident occurred, I immediately changed both my passwords, implemented 2FA on my Wikipedia account, and recorded my scratch codes in analog form. I don't think anyone can be entirely confident about their account security. I can only hope that's enough for the time being.

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 would give Arbcom in 2016 a letter grade of a X (X E F D C B A) Drmies being on the committe alone makes it an automatic E-

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?