Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/The Rambling Man/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Leaky caldron

(this is a question I have asked of every serious candidate, I'm not tweaking to suit the candidate's circs.) There have been occasional, some might say frequent instances, of a perceived bias in the way that prolific content creators are treated compared to members of the community who support the en-WP in other ways. Is this something you recognise? When these contributors end up at AC - how should they be treated?
This is a great question, especially towards someone like me who prides themselves on maintaining and improving content and who has almost certainly seen favour in dispute because of my contributions. In fact I'd go as far as to say that content is my primary concern at Wikipedia and many disputes I've been involved in relate accordingly. I am acutely aware that there is a definite bias towards editors who are content-centric being given free passes or at least being given preferential treatment. So, to answer your questions, I certainly recognise that there's a bias towards keeping prolific content editors. When all other dispute resolution methods fail and they end up at Arbcom, their prolific editing history is irrelevant. As it has been for me personally, it's not an issue. If someone is acting so far outside of community norms that they are at Arbcom, their content contributions are still very much appreciated but their behaviour clearly needs objective analysis.

Kudos for answering the question without trying to answer a different question, making a meal of it or trying to please everyone while failing to please me. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the question. I'm here to be completely 100% honest and open. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from 28bytes

Your candidate statement includes this: "I'm subject to a couple of Arbitration Committee enforcements". What are they? Why are they in place?
It does, following my reasoning that we should all here be open and honest. For info, please go here. In summary, I have a couple of IBANs, one which is mutual and one which was imposed in camera by Arbcom. I also have some restrictions on commentary on DYK. In general, these are ameliorating, I think the IBANs are useless, and the DYK stuff has been getting better (a reduction in sanctions happened just earlier this year, although I think ironically that page hasn't been updated!). The mutual IBAN is in place because of disagreements several years ago with one specific editor. I did request we extinguish the IBAN a couple of years back but despite precisely zero interaction and zero interest in any interaction with the other party, they objected, so it remains. The non-mutual IBAN was imposed after a very serious off-wiki incident relating to another editor. I was given no chance to discuss the situation. While some of the situation is sensitive, the reasons for the IBAN are absolutely not in any sense sensitive. I'm sure Arbcom would be happy to give more information upon request, but interestingly this is now quite clearly a pre-cursor to Framgate. You asked "why are they in place?", I hope I've gone some way to answering it from my point of view, but of course, some of it is secret per Arbcom. I'll do my best to answer any corollary questions you might have.

Question from Gerda

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. If you had been an arb then, what might you have replied, and which of the remedies under 2 would you have supported?
Hi Gerda. I think I was one of the early and angry voices about the whole Fram situation. It was pretty clear that no-one, including Arbcom (bless) had any inkling as to what was happening there. It would be good think that Framgate is a once-in-a-generation kind of failing for WMF and the fallout squarely smashed Arbcom, an already weakened version, to pieces. To directly answer the first of part of your question, I believe any reconfirmation RFA for long-standing admins is a rocky road. Even when I was de-sysopped I think it would be hard for anyone to ever find a single instance where I'd abused the tools. The same is true of Fram. There's probably some common ground where we refused to tolerate bad behaviour or spoke openly rather than politically, yet we both have to understand that's not generally deemed acceptable to the community as whole. The behaviour that Fram was covertly banned for remains to be discussed. But he was treated badly, the community was ripped apart, and the rights and wrongs almost took second place to the controversy. WMF made huge errors and they remain unfixed. Ironically, our admins have to reach a level far higher than our Arbs, with a common threshold of 75% for admin. Arbs need to meet a much lower bar. Re-visiting RFA once you've made a few long-term enemies, for right or wrong, means that the whole recall process is slightly damaged. I'm certainly not averse to regular votes to continue re-sysopping people (some of the Arb candidates in this very election were passed almost with a whisper back in 2005!) but we need to be careful what we wish for. Some admins work hard in tough areas and get not a single thank you.
One thing I like in arbs is short comments ;) - How about the second part of the question. Could you imagine having supported remedy 2a?
I could imagine supporting remedy 2a Gerda, sure. The biggest problem was understanding what Arbcom knew at the time. I can't begin to delve into Framgate to establish this. The one thing I do know is that if I was in the position I am now (i.e. pure ignorance) then I would definitely have supported 2a. Even now we still seem to lack to framework needed to deal with Framgate II, and mark my words, it will happen. Until we can produce a community-sanctioned approach to this alleged harassment issue, we are back to basics and basics unfortunately meant T&S. I was far from an Arbcom fan, but in that moment, a couple of them did well.

Thank you, satis, as you would say ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newslinger

When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
Thanks for the question but as far as I recall, Arbcom would be the last decision-making body once all other dispute resolution functions had failed. If Arbcom needs to re-visit such sanctions in the future, so be it.
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
Arbcom aren't really part of how security should be administrated across Wikipedia. Of course Arbcom, if questioned, should "endorse" good practise when it comes to security, but Arbcom are really here to resolve intractable issues, and not to promote schoolboy/schoolgirl common sense policies. I suppose Arbcom should also endorse safe sex but it's probably not really in the bailiwick.

Question from Harrias

In your statement, and indeed generally, you pride yourself on your content creation and on making Wikipedia better for the readers. Do you consider standing for Arbcom to be consistent with that? To expand slightly on my query; it is well-known that being on Arbcom takes up a lot of time, which would certainly seem to detract from the time you have available for content creation and the excellent work you carry out on auditing articles before main page appearances.
Hi Harrias, thanks for the question, and the kind words. Having been here now since 2005, and realising that we're in a period of crisis, I'm reasonably happy to switch my effort from content-building to saving the way Wikipedia functions. I don't think it's an understatement to say that the last twelve months here have been utterly excruciating. To see people who have dedicated significant portions of their lives to this project, just to be publicly destroyed, has become too much to bear. But to your point, I will certainly never be removing myself from the self-imposed duty of main page patroller (indeed I might even be able to fix those problems myself!) and I will definitely continue to contribute to GA reviews and the FLCs which I've neglected lately. Most importantly, you'll be seeing The Boat Race 2020 on the main page a few hours after the race, don't worry about that! And I guess, to reduce the flippancy, I've probably demonstrated my commitment to Wikipedia over the last few years. I haven't checked, but I think I'm around most times, most days. Unlike most of the recent committee. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nosebagbear

Concerns about electing a currently sanctioned user are clearly going to be common. So. Why do you think an editor with 2 IBANs and an additional sanction should be elected by as an Arb? Would you have said you could stand more recently after the IBANs/DYK limitations were enacted?
That's another fine question. I have little defence for the mutual IBAN, although that was enacted several years ago and I have attempted to have it removed, the other party objected even though I think we have worked in parallel with one another so nothing has even come close to any infraction. The second IBAN was purely one-sided, implemented by Arbcom in light of a serious personal issue relating to something which we can't discuss, and I'm sorry, we really can't discuss that publicly, and I totally understand if that makes a difference here. One of the things I really want to strive for is Arbcom transparency, but like this, which pre-dates Framgate by several years, there are some aspects of dealing with the community that really have to be private.

n.b. This question genuinely is without prejudice: it isn't a case of I've decided no and am seeking to persuade others - I want the answer myself. Nosebagbear (talk)
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? Any major concerns/fears?
For me, this is essential to regain any trust back into Arbcom, but it is FUNDAMENTAL that we make it clearer to the community how we will deal with harassment issues. I have been harassed for 15 years on Wikipedia. Not because I'm a woman. Not because I'm black. Not because I'm queer. But I've still been harassed. And no-one should have to deal with that. For me, the main question would be "how do we deal with this in the most open and constructive way?" Openness and honesty. Someone about fifteen years ago said no-one knew if you were a dog when posting something to the Interwebs. It's a little simplistic, but let's start that way with Wikipedia. We are in a new era, and I'm glad to be young enough to understand it. Bring it on.

Question from Dweller

What advantages do you think it could bring to have a user with your experience of the sharp end of Arbcom as a voice on the committee?
I have felt for probably a decade that there's a disconnect between Arbcom and the common user. In my voting guide, I make it very clear that communication between Arbitrators and the community are priority numbers 1, 2 and 3. Having been on the receiving end of various debates, enforcements etc from Arbcom, Arbcom's clerks, Arbcom's admins, it's evident to me that communication and empathy have been the major failings in the past year. I would imagine that 15 years of building content and being on the receipt of a variable quality response would enable me to bring a wealth of real-world experience, especially from the content perspective.

Question from Peacemaker67

What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? 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?
Well it was accepted with a surprisingly large consensus, although several Arbs really didn't provide sufficient reasoning as to why the lack of prior dispute resolution wasn't a real problem. Arbcom should be an absolute last resort. It's needed for things like Framgate which are like forces majeure. I think the Arbs should have been better able to determine the case you've noted as a content dispute, admittedly on a sensitive topic, and to recommend that all measures possible be taken by the editing community before Arbcom weighed in. Most of the Arb comments upon accepting the case were inadequate.

I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SQL

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
This one which I started. It's hard to say I was proud of it, just that it was the right thing to do.

Question from Cassianto

Really pleased to see you here. There has been occasions of drive-by editors not wanting to accept consensus for infoboxless articles (Stanley Kubrick) and starting up RfC after RfC, and IB discussion after IB discussion, until they get the consensus they want. People become frustrated at this and incivility, rightly or wrongly, ensues. Is it better to deal with those who cause the disruption or those who react to it? Cassianto^Talk 12:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are all (mostly) humans behind these screen names. To react to something is natural and I am a past master of that. It's really important that we try to encourage people to respond rather than react (my counsellor has certainly been helping me with that), and that way many disputes can be avoided at source. Having said that, of course I believe the best response is to encourage those causing disruption to seek an alternative path.

Thanks, that's good to hear. Cassianto^Talk 15:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Carrite

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
Losing touch with the community and placing itself on some kind of pedestal; tail wagging dog syndrome. It is fixable. Indeed one or two sitting Arbs (I'll name no names, but you can tell from my guide) have impressed me incredibly over the past year by managing to conduct discussions on a level with editors without it feeling like some kind of evidence gathering exercise. Arbs must remember (a) why we're all here and (b) that they are here to serve the community.
I get a real Hasten The Day vibe about your attitude towards Arbcom. Is that accurate? If so: if Arbcom were to be eliminated, how do you anticipate that long-term problematic conflict at En-WP would be resolved? Would not the elimination of this established community governance mechanism place additional power in the hands of WMF to unilaterally eliminate people they do not like for any reason whatsoever?
No, it's not the case, although I can see why you might think that based on my opinions on many of the members of several past committees. I can see very good arguments for Arbcom. The strongest for me is the linkage between entities such as T&S and WMF and the editing community. It's why I place such strong emphasis on members of Arbcom being (or having been) members of the editing community, not simply users who are here to accumulate hats and police the encyclopedia. Certainly in light of Framgate, we should be even more resolute in maintaining Arbcom but with convincing individuals who understand the editors and don't need reminding of the purpose of the project.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WereSpielChequers

Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).
No.

Great answer. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
It depends on the nature of their involvement. It should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, particularly when Arbcom has lately been reduced to fewer than half a dozen individuals. Arbs should be relied upon to be able to make a call on whether they are too involved to participate in cases.
Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?
It depends on the complexity of the case and the availability of those involved. Of course this could easily be gamed, but as I noted somewhere else on this page, we're (mostly) all humans behind these screen names and (mostly) all of us have lives outside Wikipedia. But in general, of course "sufficient time" should be given.
When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?
Yes, that seems obvious to me.

Question from Praxidicae

What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?
It shouldn't be done, of course. One imagines if it is being done, those functionaries and individuals with other advanced permissions should be publicly requested to stop. I do, however, realise that it is impossible to stop such discussions when they're taking place on websites outside of WMF's bailiwick. Indeed, I've been on the receiving end of such so I am fully personally aware of how this feels.

Question from SN54129

How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?

Question from Piotrus

Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [1]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?
No, that's a practical impossibility. How someone plans their time off-wiki is none of our business. If I was looking for some level of assurance that candidates might be able to step up and stay stepped up, then all I could go by would be recent editing history. That, I think, is the only real way one could pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task. This is Wikipedia, not real life.

Question from Iffy

While a lot of people are focussing (rightly) on the Fram case, I want to ask you about the Rama case from earlier this year. Would you have voted to desysop Rama? Feel free to explain your answer (especially if your answer is not a simple Yes or No).
I am leaning towards no. Some of the arguments put by the Arbs around low activity as an admin being a cause for concerns are nonsensical.

Question from Gadfium

In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?
All the things I already do. Write FAs, write GAs, review GANs, review FLCs, monitor the main page for errors. I have no difficulty whatsoever in resuming whatever a "normal editing life" is considered to be. I think some people may be confusing Wikipedia with real life....

Questions from User:Purplebackpack89

I've witnessed your abrasive behavior towards many other editors. Do you believe you have the temperament to be effective in this post? (I believe you do not)
I do otherwise I would not be running.
You've been blocked nine times, with the most recent being only this year. Shouldn't being blocked so many times disqualify you from being on ArbCom
I don't otherwise I would not be running.

Question from Volunteer Marek

Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see this proposal and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom?
Hello Marek, I'm completely in agreement with the majority of those complaints and one of the primary issues I personally have with the way Arbcom has gone about its business in the past is the lack of communications from some members. I'm not convinced we need to appoint an Arbcom spokesperson, I think we should just expect all our Arbs to be communicative both inside and outwith Arb cases. One or two Arbs have notably achieved this in the past year, a difficult one indeed, but the majority still perform as though they are superusers and the editing community is somehow of little relevance to them.

Question from User:K.e.coffman

In this 2017 discussion, you referred to all clandestine machinations and extreme one-sided punitive measures [that] will be exposed and hopefully addressed... in re: a case that was decided in camera. Are you opposed to ArbCom hearing private cases? If elected, how would you address this practice?
No, I think some extreme cases need to be handled privately. But there are also aspects to most, if not all cases which don't need to be handled privately. I work professionally in an environment were sensitivity to handling data is everything and as such I am also aware of the problems of being over cautious as well as under cautious. So if elected, I would bring that approach, a constant reminder that the committee are here to serve the community and that means communicating whenever and wherever possible, not using secrecy as a default position.

Questions from Robert McClenon

Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?
Arbcom should be the very last place for dispute resolution. If all other avenues have been exhausted, and I am satisfied that no other community-based option is available, then I would accept a case.
Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the English Wikipedia's sanctions regime?
The action and its execution was completely unjustified overreach. If an existing weakness in the existing regime had been identified, it should have been communicated by T&S to the community before they took unilateral and subversive action which has actually caused irreversible damage in the community's trust (!) in them.
In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or providing a longer target date?
I think we're all human, most of us anyway, and things will affect timings, such as real life. We certainly should be looking to provide a functional Arbcom, i.e. not one that's reduced to something like six active Arbs, there should be measures in place that once it becomes inquorate (e.g. fewer than half Arbs are available) to resolve the lack of personnel doing the job.
Some of the candidates, and some Wikipedia editors, do not have multiple editing restrictions on them, and may not have editing restrictions at all. Do you have an explanation of why you are subject to multiple editing restrictions, and are one of the most qualified candidates for the Arbitration Committee?
I'd say by looking purely at the restriction statistics, I'd be the least likely candidate to gain any support at all. I've had a few run-ins but the over-riding theme has been the quality of Wikipedia. I've learnt an enormous amount from those sanctions, the way in which the cases were "handled", the way in which Arbcom "communicated" throughout, the unusual methods that have been employed. To be on the receiving end of this behaviour puts me in an ideal position to help ring changes throughout Arbcom to ensure the new committee are far more connected to the community. To be clear, Arbcom are here solely to serve the community in arbitration of difficult events. They are in no way special individuals. They are in no way privileged nor should be treated with any particular level of respect above and beyond the way we should all respect one another. I've got more than 14 years experience on this project, too many decent articles to mention, and seek for excellence at all turns for our readers. Honestly, if we're not all doing that, I don't know why we're here.

Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?

Question from Grillofrances

What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?