Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Enterprisey/Questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from SQL

2. Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?

   I haven't participated in any recent unblock discussions, or at least any memorable ones. I understand that unblocking is a significant part of the job, so I expect I'll have to get involved in it. I will approach it the same way I approach any other high-impact responsibility - slowly, with frequent consultation of more experienced people and a good deal of sensitivity to feedback.

   Unblock discussions, in my opinion, require people to really know what they're doing with regards to community mood and judging how likely disruption is to the community. It's always tough to reflect on one's own biases and preconceived notions about other users, and an unblock discussion is an especially important time to do so. In other words, I'm likely to find them super hard, but I'll do my best. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:58, 15 November 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Question from Peacemaker67

2. 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?

   I suspect, but cannot confirm, that the

   petscan worked on user contribs lists), and found various discussions at Talk:Panzer ace, and others not listed in the case request. ANI wasn't used, I guess, but certainly there was some engagement. Of course it's a rather complicated issue, as NYB noted in his 24 April comment, so I won't even try to opine one way or the other on the merits of the case itself.

   Anyway, yes, maybe ANI was skipped, but it is well-known – or, at least I perceive – ANI isn't the best at handling the most complicated cases. If I found a pattern of incivility or battleground behavior spanning years and countless pages, I very well might feel more comfortable with the structure of an arbcom case rather than flooding ANI with pages of diffs. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

   ]

Questions from Newslinger

2. When, if ever, would
   paid editing
   ?

   Briefly, I can't think of any examples for now. There's a bit of a mismatch. DS are for contentious topic areas that, with one exception, are contentious because of outside conflicts that arose independently of Wikipedia. PAID issues are somewhat meta by comparison. I could imagine the argument for DS in areas where paid editing "poisoned" the area. Maybe if it was affecting normal or new editors working in the topic area (e.g. a new editor editing contra the status quo gets an SPI filed on them at the speed of light)? But I can't imagine DS being imposed to address paid editing directly, no. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of
   two-factor authentication
   on Wikipedia?

   Since 2FA is unlikely to be the locus of disputes between editors, this issue seems a bit out of scope for the Arbitration Committee. That said, after the recovery/reset process becomes sensible*, we should promote its use for "powerful" accounts (certainly admins, and maybe even template editors or people with very widely imported user scripts). Enterprisey (talk!) 02:50, 13 November 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

   *i.e. should be mostly automated and should not be bottlenecked by Trust & Safety

Question from Banedon

2. Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?

   It's taking a while to read through all the votes in the past few years. Answer pending. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [1], [2], [3]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)

2. There's a case request today. [4] Would you accept it? (Alternatively, if you've finished reading one of the previous cases, that should be just as good.)

Question from Carrite

2. What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?

   Serving on the committee, from what I can see, can be a really crappy job at times. There can be conflicting demands placed on members (to pick the example that's on everyone's minds right now: process transparency versus empowering editors to report behavior contrary to our conduct policies) and, almost by definition, few of the problems arbitrators face have obvious and correct solutions. I would say progress is being made: an arbitrator's job has certainly shrunk in scope over the years with the addition of WMF T&S. There's some unavoidable difficulty, of course, and honestly I'm not sure how much easier it can get from now. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda

2. 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?

   Although I'm having a very, very difficult time deciding, probably 2a, on the grounds of fairness and to remain consistent with my answer to the question from WereSpielChequers. I cannot rule out 2b (really, 2c), since I haven't seen the T&S document. (In my view requiring another RfA versus just desysopping Fram is a bit of an optics question - people were already saying on the talk page that Fram didn't have a very good chance at passing.) To be more specific, I could support 2b or 2c if I were to read the T&S document and be left totally confident that the further harm from Fram remaining an admin outweighed the (weighty) consequences of either of those two remedies. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. Do you think Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis and GorillaWarfare would have supported 2e if they had seen evidence to expect harm?

   I don't think I can really predict this. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6. Sorry about my English. I asked "would have" and you say "predict"?? What do you think about in dubio pro reo? (See my reply on my talk to the arbcom notification.)

Question from WereSpielChequers

2. 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).

   As has been said, fixed-term blocks are given to prevent imminent or continuing damage to the project. They are given with the expectation that the person being blocked will come back and stop being disruptive. Otherwise, the block would've been indefinite. The only way to ensure the person knows how to do that is by telling them what's expected of them.

   I really dislike the ban reason "you know why", given out so frequently on other websites, for this reason. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:39, 15 November 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, I'm happy with that answer ϢereSpielChequers 04:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nosebagbear

2. 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? Along with that, many candidates note a balance to be drawn, but where would you actually draw a line if given the choice?

   I would like to see where the community stands on the balance between giving people access to all the evidence against them and protecting good-faith editors who raise concerns. I would also like to see people's opinions on how harassment and stalking ought to be defined on this project for the purpose of assessing editor conduct. There has lately been significant discussion about the precise use of that word. Such discussion leads me to believe that

   HAR might benefit from some clarification.

   If given the choice, I would have to spend quite a bit of time thinking about it to provide a proper answer. The broader (American) workplace has been struggling with this question for some time now, and I'm not about to make a statement one way or another just for the sake of doing so. I hope, but am not sure, that some general set of rules can be created by the community. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. As chief tech wizard, would you be able to write a script to take over all this pesky decision-making from arbs and usher in our new technological overlords? If that's not possible, do you think there are any areas/processes of ARBCOM you could/would improve with a technical solution?

   Honestly, this topic (various expansions of the role of AI in this project) keeps coming up in my discussions with friends who are in the field of machine learning. People will seriously suggest things like automated oversight of admins, for instance. While there's definitely some stuff that could be made easier, the community really must have the final say on any such changes. It only takes one developer to write, say, a "problematic user radar" that admins might start depending on. So, obviously, yes, I look forward to replacing my job with Big Data, The Blockchain, and Machine Learning.

   Yes, there are probably many opportunities for some automation. Clerking is one possible area. (Good judgment will always be essential there, however.) I usually think of script opportunities as I'm doing the activities that ought to be scripted, so I don't have any solid answers yet.

   I absolutely appreciate it, but I dunno about the "chief" in "chief tech wizard" - there are a lot of people on here doing really good tech work, and I just happen to be the one with his name in everyone's common.js file.

   Enterprisey (talk!) 03:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

2. Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?

   I would say (somewhat parroting INVOLVED) that people who have a conflict of interest should recuse themselves, and people who appear to have a conflict of interest should as well. I think the more important thing is to make sure everyone, especially good-faith editors who might be affected by a case's outcome, is satisfied that the case process was conducted fairly and without any arbitrators acting in a biased way. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. 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?

   Who defines "sufficient time"? (Mostly rhetorical.) Every person in a case should be given extensions within reasonable boundaries (namely, respecting the time of everyone else involved with the case). Editors who feel that someone else getting an extension is unfair can always request one themselves. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6. 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?

   Evidence really ought to be presented during the evidence phase. It's always possible that new evidence comes to light late in a case. People whom it impacts should clearly have the opportunity to respond to it. Aside: an arb presenting evidence is going to look like a conflict of interest to a lot of people (as is an arb saying they have some and withholding it), so I imagine presenting evidence and participating as an arbitrator are mutually exclusive. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

2. Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [5]. 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?

   Great paper! I remember responding enthusiastically to an earlier paper of yours. We could totally ask candidates that question, but we wouldn't have any way to verify the answers besides actually seeing what happens. Candidates are of course responsible for ensuring that their regular commitments won't make serving as an arb impossible, but unpredictable changes are, well, unpredictable.

   And to address the fact that I've been rather slow at answering these questions: I've had a very, very busy week as usual (for this half of the year), but my schedule will change starting late December, so I expect to be able to comfortably make the time commitment. Apologies to everyone for the delays. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Praxidicae

2. 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?

   Discussing Wikipedia in general is probably okay, as it's always possible legitimate issues that were overlooked onwiki could be raised. Discussing specific Wikimedians, whether in good standing or not, is unlikely to be a good idea, and I wouldn't personally engage in it. Obviously, care must be taken to not reveal nonpublic information or even information that's public but rather obscure, if revealing it might cause further doxing or harassment. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gadfium

2. 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?

   Same thing I did after my first failed RfA: having fun contributing to the community. There are so many user scripts to write, and so little time. Content creation would also be fun; I've always wanted to learn more about Internet history from 1990 to about 2010. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Robert McClenon

2. 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?

   ARBPOL says that the committee acts as a final binding decision-marker primarily for serious conduct disputes that the community has been unable to resolve (emphasis mine). There are two points I would like to highlight. First, I'm not quite sure about that "primarily" part (unless, of course, it means nothing more than "there are four more listed responsibilities"). Second, it's left unsaid whether the committee or the community decides whether the community is able to resolve something. Ideally, of course, they agree. But the standard I think I'd follow would be whether a case would be likely to improve the situation, and of course whether all other options have been exhausted or unsuitable. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. 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?

   Whatever the concerns T&S had were, they picked one of the most inflammatory options they had. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but bypassing both the community and Arbcom was poor judgment, regardless of whatever legitimate concerns they may have had with our enforcement of the ToS. I find it a bit difficult to judge the initial ban without mentioning the follow-up letters and tweets by the WMF and its employees; the tone of those were, for the most part, completely unjustified. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6. 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'm not sure changing the nuts and bolts of the process would work, because the delays mostly stem from people being busy in real life. I would echo Beeblebrox's suggestion of having someone remind everyone else when stuff needs to get done. Sometimes people just need a ping. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

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

   Undisclosed paid editing is one of the largest challenges to the long-term survival of the project, and the incentives to engage in it are as strong as ever. The committee doesn't have a particular role here. I would expect it to handle complex situations that the community was unable to resolve. However, its usual responsibility of handling cases related to personal information might be relevant - UPE cases sometimes involve corporate affiliation or other personal information that the editor(s) being investigated don't want disclosed. (See also NYB's excellent statement on this, with which I fully agree, and which I will admit I found through his answer to this question.) Enterprisey (talk!) 09:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Grillofrances

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

   The relationship between the community and the committee took a big hit with the Fram case. I would like to see it improve. This is definitely not a solo project, so I would rather say I'd like to help with improving this. I'm not sure how I would go about it - if I was confident I had a good solution, I would've already posted it! - but I think it's critical for the governance of the project in the next few years, and I look forward to giving it lots of thought. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]