Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Lord Roem/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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?
Taking the case made sense in the context of a longstanding dispute where private evidence was involved. The ideal is certainly that prior dispute resolution occurs first, largely so the community has a chance to try different solutions, but it's more than fair for the Committee to assess that such efforts would be fruitless. While it's looking retrospectively, the enormous evidence page for the case also demonstrates the depth of inquiry required, which the Committee was probably better suited for.

Questions from Newslinger

When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
Fascinating question. Currently, discretionary sanctions wouldn't be applicable to paid editing as a category, and would require either an Arbitration case or some direct community decision to implement. That said, I'm not sure DS would be the best mechanism to prevent, or otherwise reduce the impact of non-disclosed paid editing. DS can often be a blunt tool for extraordinarily difficult topic spaces within the project, but impermissible paid editing lacks the attributes that'd make it something that could be practically enforced. Not to get too into the weeds here, but I'd wonder how admins at AE would craft sanctions that would serve the narrow purpose DS is meant to support. Since undisclosed paid editing can be on any topic, applying DS would authorize enormous discretion over editor conduct that I wouldn't be comfortable with.
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
I don't think the Committee should itself endorse it, and it's really not the Committee's role. I'm glad they backtracked on the issue earlier this year. Personally, I recommend it as a best practice and have it active on my account, but that choice should be made on an individual basis. The biggest problem with the current set-up, naturally, is that it ties the account to a single device, without a workable Plan B for anyone who loses their hardware. I hope there's progress there, but it ultimately wouldn't be something I'd want the Committee to engage in from a 'policy-setting' standpoint.

Question from Gerda

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerda, thanks for the question. There's a lot I can say about the Fram case, and I'm sure the topic will come up frequently in the course of questions. Let me add the caveat that, were I to have been on the Committee, there may have been off-wiki/private materials that would've influenced my thoughts on the matter. However, to your question, I'd probably have responded in agreement, Gerda. The Committee made the right decision in vacating the ban during the course of the later part of the case, and practically, I don't know what harm would've been done in restoring admin rights while the final remedies were being discussed. Even in the event the Committee still voted to desysop, vacating the entirety of the out of process actions would've made a firmer stand as to the Committee's position. I see SilkTork responded to your comment (full disclosure: he was an arb during my tenure as a clerk), and he always speaks with a lot of clue and good sense. That said, I would've parted ways with him on this one. I fully appreciate that the case was dealing with evidence about alleged misconduct, and there was alot going on, but I feel he may have been blurring the issues at-hand-- namely (and please pardon the reductionist framing, this is just for the purposes of this answer) 'what do we do about what happened to Fram,' and second, 'are there misconduct issues that should result in sanctions, and if so, what.' Put simply, I would've voted for Remedy 2(e), and would've said something along this line of thinking in a reply to you.

Thank you, satisfied. Just noting that there was no Remedy 2(e) yet when I posted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
I've alluded to this in my statement, but the disconnect between arbs and the community, as a macro-issue, is what most concerns me about the Committee and its prospects for a positive impact going forward. There have been many times this year where the Committee either lacked proper and timely response to community concerns, or failed to incorporate the community's feedback in their discussions. This isn't to say the Committee should track popular support, but arbs do have a fundamental responsibility to listen, interact, and carefully consider genuine and well-thought suggestions and critiques, even if they ultimately vote a different way. The goal should be to ensure both parties and participants feel heard, regardless of the outcome of a particular case or decision. Arbitrators are vested with a great deal of responsibility, and that necessarily comes with this essential need for accountability.

There are various explanations for all of this, of course, with the central tension being the desire for transparency on the part of the community, and the entirely necessary need for private information kept private. But do Committee deliberations--to the extent they don't involve off-line evidence--need to be held only by email? Should the proposed decision page be filled with comments that arbs leave unread, or unconsidered? I don't think this is an impossible problem to correct, but it is structural, and will require a deliberate focus of the new Committee to work on.

As a side note, I've often wondered how the Committee's size impacts its decision-making efficiency, and if a different structure would allow it more nimbleness during a rapid flare-up. There's clearly a drag on productivity when they're down many members, but I also imagine the wide array of timezones represented slow Committee discussions.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TRM

Over the past five years, you've managed approximately one edit per day on average, including a couple of dozen months without a single contribution. Arbcom has been plagued this year with members who find themselves too busy to "arbitrate". Why should the community vote for you in light of the fact it's highly likely you won't be able to fulfil the role based on the last five years editing?
Totally fair question. It's never good to see the Committee understaffed, with arbitrators leaving or becoming wholly inactive in the middle of a term highly disruptive to the Committee's work. It certainly doesn't help that there's no real way to replace ghosting arbs, and simply poking them to resign if they're doing no work doesn't help either. Here's what I can say: my off-wiki commitments have changed to the point where I feel confident I can put the time and effort to be active at all stages of a case. Clerks don't see much, but we did have a small taste of the Committee's workload through our email list. I'm going in with the full expectation that Committee work can function like a full part-time job, even outside the casework on-site. My sense, maybe wrong, is that past arbs who promised activity didn't quite know what they were getting themselves into. With a high attrition rate among folks who are vigorously active prior to election, it's fair to say the Committee's work can be draining, and I'd probably be asking the same question if I were in your shoes. I feel like I have a genuine appreciation of these challenges and the enormous work the Committee does, and I wouldn't put myself up if I didn't feel I could commit.
Outside 2012 you have made on average one mainspace edit every three days. It's often noted that Arbcom members are too detached from the editing community who are here to serve the readers rather than police and govern the encyclopedia, so much so that they don't understand the myriad guidelines and policies that would be required to suitably deal with cases which revolve around mainspace disputes rather. How would you demonstrate that you have a through understanding of the editing community?
The Committee can't operate in a vacuum, and the feedback the community provides in the form of talk page discussions on case pages, or on the various AC noticeboards, aren't just some window dressing of transparency. Arbs should make a concerted effort to understand the full context of a dispute, and the policy interpretation disagreements behind them, before stepping in. Community feedback has many purposes, but one surely is to fortify arbs from losing sight of what's happening on the 'ground level.' You're precisely right, the Committee can (and has) often felt siloed off from the community, or disconnected from the day-and-day of mainspace disputes. To the extent possible without jeopardizing private information, I think the Committee should have more of its discussion in public, giving the community a chance to advise, recommend, criticize. I don't think this is a panacea to the Committee's problems, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

For my part, I've had a good deal of dispute resolution work that forms the lens through which I'd view cases brought to the Committee. On the conduct dispute side, I bring experience from the arbitration enforcement process, dealing with the actual implementation of committee sanctions. I'm coming in with an insight into how the Committee's cases can impact editing in a topic area, both for the good, and the bad. On the pure content side, I spent a great deal of time as a mediator, dealing with the nuts and bolts of reliable sourcing, weight, balance, often over controversial topics. And, I'd hope my past content contributions would shed light on my understanding of policy. Of course, it's not just enough that I did this in the past; a commitment to the Committee's work must also mean a stronger return to mainspace editing on my part too.

Question from Wehwalt

No offense, but why this year? Why not prove your return and connectedness to the community by good work, including on mainspace content, in your enhanced spare time through 2020, and then seek election? Why be regarded with suspicion because of the past failures of elected arbitrators to remain active despite campaign-time promises?
The Committee's work is extraordinarily tough, emotionally draining, but also enormously important. I think the events of the past year underscore the value of arbs who are committed to a more communicative, transparent approach, with a goal of helping erode the current disconnect between AC and the community. I'm running because I think I bring something to the table, both in terms of my experience and my approach to the Committee's casework. I fully respect anyone who has concerns about my activity levels; like I mentioned to TRM above, with no good way of replacing inactive arbs, it can quickly become a drain on the Committee's efficiency. Even with the emergency election provisions, losing an arb mid-term is always going to be a bit of a mess, no matter how it gets resolved.

Ever since I joined, I've always enjoyed the opportunity to assist other editors - that's why I jumped into content mediation, and later into Committee support as a clerk (also my most active period on the project). This is a long-winded way to say: I want to lend my hand to help. I have an acute awareness of the challenge and serious time commitment the role requires, and feel like I'd do a good job. The new Committee will need to move from a bruising 2019 and make real efforts at the latent problems with its work. I certainly could wait until 2020 or beyond, but I feel I can have a more positive impact as someone in the room, lending a voice for real, proactive community engagement.

Question from Banedon

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?
I want to give the hefty caveat that the evidence in Arbitration cases can be quite large and would require setting aside several days to carefully examine and review. There's also the aspect of private information conveyed to the Committee by email which makes some decisions difficult to fully assess from an outsider's perspective. Caveat out of the way, I've mentioned above I would've voted for Remedy 2(e) in the Fram case as a preliminary injunction to restore it during the course of proceedings. The Committee ultimately vacated the ban as a motion, but the full sanction by WMF was entirely out of process too. I don't have strong feelings as to the ultimate desysop in the case, but I hope this gives you something to chew on.

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.)
Ah! Looks like I answered two in one with the above, huh... Let me then take the opportunity to briefly expand on a central principle in my thinking regarding the new Committee. The community must retain the ultimate power to handle local dispute resolution issues that don't touch on legal matters, or the narrow categories the Committee has delegated to the Office. I think, after everything's that happened this year, it's less likely we'd see another overt intervention, but it's always a possibility. I do feel strongly about the need to retain this autonomy, which I see as critical to the project's ultimate vitality.

Question from Cassianto

Last year, I was the named party in the ham-fisted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, that was brought about as a result of a biased committee not being impartial. The case should've been entitled Infobox 3, but the committee considered it to be too difficult to deal with the infobox problem and instead, made the case exclusively about me - suffice to say, the problem with infobox discussions still exist. I wondered whether, in future cases, not exclusive to IB discussions, you would consider it more important to deal with the cause rather than just the symptom?
I don't think it'd be fair for me to assess the case itself since I haven't read through the evidence page or case discussions, but yes, as a general matter, it's more valuable for the Committee to examine the underlying issues of a dispute when possible. There are times when focusing on specific editors makes sense, though the issues that get to the Committee tend more of the former.

Thank you, you'll get my vote. Cassianto^Talk 17:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leaky caldron

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?
Certainly. While sanctions should take into consideration the overall impact of the disruption at issue, as well as the track record of the individual involved, that shouldn't mean such an editor is wholly immune from scrutiny, or subject to a slap on the wrist. The Committee's broad discretion makes it all the more important to apply decisions in a fair and even manner, whether the editor is prolific in article writing or in a supporting function. This is a fundamental principle which I take very seriously and have applied in my work on the arbitration enforcement boards and elsewhere.

Questions from Joe Roe

Criticism of arbitration decisions is inevitable. This criticism is often expressed in strong and personal terms. As an arbitrator, how will you respond to criticism, either of you personally or the committee as a whole? Do you think it will it affect your ability to remain objective?
I don't think it'd affect my ability to remain objective, no. I've spent a good chunk of time on the arbitration enforcement boards, which invariably means I'm dealing with some of the rougher areas of the site conduct-wise. So, I've already been criticized personally, but I've never let it affect me. I've always kept a cool head and worked professionally on the site, maybe even sounded very bland at times!

The community rightly checks in on the Committee constantly, as it should, so criticism, feedback, suggestions all come with the job. As an arb, I'd have an obligation to respond with an honest statement of my thinking on an issue, answering any concerns directly. One of the central themes among my answers here has been my desire for a more proactive, transparent Committee, with most of the non-sensitive discussions on cases held publicly. While this will draw more feedback during a case, reasoned, good-faith critique is healthy, and frankly, I encourage it.

Thank you for the answer. A follow-up question, if you don't mind. I agree that any increase in transparency will draw more feedback. But the criticism I had in mind is that that is neither reasoned or good-faith (which we get plenty of). How do you think the committee should deal with that? Is there a case for the committee or clerks doing more proactive enforcement of civility in arbitration space, going along with increased transparency?
It's largely context-specific. I think more aggressive clerking on the case pages can be a mixed bag, but for certain cases is absolutely necessary to avoid things spiraling out. It can and should be assessed when a case is opened and then throughout each phase as it progresses along. We had a special protocol for a very contentious case back when I was a clerk, and I felt it mostly kept the lid on things during proceedings. I grant the Committee is going to get criticism across the range of disappointed folks with strong, reasoned objections all the way to ridiculous commentary - but we have an obligation to address both, as best we can.

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, absolutely not. Any block must come with some explanation and feedback for the editor for how they can edit productively. The WMF's Fram sanction was entirely out of process and should never have happened. Local conduct issues that don't impinge on child protection, or other sensitive legal matters, should be handled by the community. If we had, say, a standard admin account named "WMF," they would been penalized by the Committee for a bad block and lack of accountability during the follow-up period. I sincerely hope the WMF has learned its lesson from the chaos of the past six months, but for my part, I would do whatever I could to ensure local conduct matters remain with the project.

Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:51, 11 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?
Yes, unequivocally. The Arbitration Policy has a broad instruction for arbs to recuse where they have "significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties." The Committee ultimately operates in a position of trust, which is undermined if there's the appearance an arb is self-dealing or using his or her position to settle grudges.
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?
Yes, of course. Arbitration cases can go for great lengths of time, so it'd be unfair to reject a named party's request for more time to respond to late-breaking evidence. Arbitration can be a stressful process for parties involved, especially those on the receiving end of criticism; irrespective of what the Committee decides in a given case, it is fundamental that we hear their answers and take the time to assess them.
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?
An arbitrator who is submitting evidence on their own has now involved themselves in the dispute in a way I'd be very uncomfortable with. I understand if an arb finds something that might be helpful to the case, independent of the parties, but that will naturally create an air of partiality that is best avoided. Ideally, if an arb were in that situation, they would recuse. In any event, as with my answer to your second question, a party should absolutely be given a chance to reply to such new evidence. Allowing a proper response is essential, whether it happens in the evidence phase, or something new pops up near the close of a case.

Questions from Caker18

Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
Unfortunately, yes. Most of the mediation work dealt with real, source-driven disputes about an article, but there were a handful where conduct issues were at play. A good example might be this one about Kendrick mass, which ultimately went to Arbcom due to one of the editors involved. While the tone during mediation wasn't toxic, per se, this is a good example of how reasoned content disagreements can be poisoned by underlying behavioral/POV-pushing issues.

Question from SQL

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
Looking at my admin actions, the candid answer is it appears I haven't participated in many such unblock discussions, with only a few uses of the unblock function. Out of the few I've done/participated in, I think a good example might be this arbitration enforcement related situation here where I arguably gave a really generous (and potentially unearned) second chance to an individual who said they hadn't seen their TBAN. Good case of WP:ROPE.

Question from SN54129

How do you think your lack of activity generally on Wikpedia will be benefial to the committee specifically? [4]
Aha, I don't think inactivity is beneficial, per se, and I certainly don't fault anyone with those concerns. As I've addressed with similar questions above, my time serving the Committee as a clerk was my most active as I found it tough, but engaging and interesting work. Otherwise, my hope is that my other answers would help assuage you of any concerns that I've become disconnected from recent community trends or values.

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 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?
I think this is extremely context-specific. Off-site harassment is one thing, but I wouldn't support sanctioning functionaries, or others, simply for interacting with banned users. I'd personally shy away from it, and it might impact my perception of that editor's judgement, but it's not a thing I'd necessarily want the Committee to take action over-- with the caveat that there could well be a use case that changes my default thinking.