Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from WBG

Comment on the behavior of arbitrators (incl. yourself) over here (and here), wherein multiple arbitrators refused to engage a multitude of queries and concerns from multiple members of the community, despite the case being entirely situated on public evidence.
In light of the mind-boggling arrogance, ivory-tower mentality, and flippant dismissiveness, displayed by a plurality of folks (including you), why do you see yourself as a good fit for the committee? ~~Or do you find the traits to be desirable in an arb?~~
The Antisemitism in Poland case was a low point for the committee, because it happened over the summer while we were all tied up with other issues. Three arbitrators agreed to draft the case, one resigned mid case, one was largely inactive, and the third (me) moved over to manage the Fram case. This meant that deadlines were missed and the normal expected level of discussion throughout the evidence and workshop phases did not happen. In addition, by the time we did put the proposed decision forward, the number of active committee members reduced to a very small amount, and the final decision was made by less people than I would have liked.

I will say that I don't believe the outcome was incorrect, even if we as a committee failed in the aforementioned areas. Evidence was submitted, workshop proposals too - I certainly read and digested all of them before voting. It would have been better for committee members to participate in the earlier phases, of course, but that doesn't mean the voices of the participants were not heard. What's more, a lot has happened since the case and it may be that the decision should be revisited in light of these developments.

I will hold my hands up to not making myself sufficiently available for the case, for not joining in discussions with the case participants. It ran in parallel to one of the most draining periods I have ever had to deal with on wiki, one which I am still feeling the after-effects from. If you feel that translates to "mind-boggling arrogance, ivory-tower mentality and flippant dismissiveness", then that is your prerogative - I don't. Worm^TT(talk) 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of Vanamonde's comment:- Despite being active elsewhere, (you) declined to answer questions and pings on the talk page. If you're too busy, then you shouldn't have been closing the case. If the issue is one you consider trivial, then at least have the courtesy to say that. does seem wrong, in your opinion or that, you do not personally agree with? I also, absolutely refuse to believe that you were so busy that dropping a minimal message along the lines of Hey, we are aware of your concerns but FRAMGATE means that we can't devote sufficient time to this. was impossible. ∯WBG^converse 13:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, Vanamonde suggested that we were "too busy", or felt it was "too trivial", or allowed for the fact that we had "discussed it elsewhere" (which you neglected to include in your quote). Indeed, I believe he felt there were problems with 3.2.4 (Icewhiz) at the proposed decision. I felt there had been sufficient discussion of that point - I had voted on that issue and had made a comment on that vote.

As for the minimal message, well, yes. There was this one, this one, this one and my personal apologies at the end Worm^TT(talk) 13:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you (plural) were apologizing for the multiple delays in completing various phases of the case but not for your failure to engage with others.

At any event, I bid you bye, lest this gets into the territory of pestering. For the sake of fairness, I must note that your conduct during Fram-case was quite impressive. Feel free to have the last word and best of luck:-) ∯WBG^converse 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Nosebagbear

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?
Ah, the RfC. I'm glad someone asked about that. The RfC was first dreamed up before we actually decided to accept a case - I know I was talking about it when I suggested closing the Reversion of office actions case. The main questions I would like answered are around finding the balance between two areas - one) editors who feel harassed on wiki and their ability to report such harassment without being further subjected to more, and two) the ability to review the background of those complaining so that the community can ascertain the validity of such complaints. Both sides of the argument are valid but all the drama we had over the summer was because the Foundation enforced one side over the other. I'd like the community to try to reconcile that balance. If the community feels one side should be the standard, well, that needs to be made clear.

Now, much of an RfC is drafted by some of the committee who worked hard on it, however since they have been inactive for a while, it has rather lingered to the point that nothing would get imposed before the new committee is in anyway. That leaves the question, should we push forward, or should we get the opinion of the new committee before doing so. I don't have an answer and since I've not been a driving force on the RfC, I feel I shouldn't be taking any unilateral drastic action. Worm^TT(talk) 14:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above
Assuming that admonishments are accepted as having at least some level of value, do you think that voting on admonishments in batches (example) is a reasonable or unfair method to those involved (I picked this instance as AGK specifically noted one editor might not warrant the admonishment).
My opinion on admonishments varies on the day of the week. They are very much an "Arbcom accepts that your behaviour fell below the standards expected, but no so far that a sanction is warranted" type of thing. If someone gets another one for the same thing, it can be useful to look back and draw parallels, but that's about it. In that case, there was an edit war with something like 13 reverts, each person involved should have known better than to get into that edit war as it was never going to be the solution and so pointing that out with an admonishment seemed like the best solution. I would have been happy with "editors involved in this edit war are admonished", but that only makes it harder to search for in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 14:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newslinger

When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
Interesting question, Newslinger. I'll answer it as best I can off the top of my head, but please don't be surprised if I come back and add more if something comes to me. I can see this is the sort of thing I will be mulling over for a while. I'm also liable to ramble on the subject, so I'll put a TL;DR: Not as things currently stand
To start with I'm going to give a brief overview of what DS is, just for my own peace of mind. DS is a system that allows uninvolved administrators to individually invoke sanctions that they would not be otherwise able to without community consensus and they cannot be easily overturned by an individual administrator. Now, because this a massive increase in power for administrators, it should only be used in rare circumstances - those which the community struggles to solve by other means. It should be limited to specific areas, and it should be made absolutely clear to editors in those areas that that they are entering a DS zone.
On the other hand, we have paid editing. There are many forms of this and the issue is that when your editing is tied up with a financial gain, a conflict of interest arises. That conflict can be managed, declarations certainly help and it is possible to write good articles while being paid. Paid editing can happen anywhere on the encyclopedia, we've seen paid editing rings, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and all sorts of other methods used to subvert our content.
Could DS be used to counter paid editing? Well, no, not as things stand. DS can only be used in a limited number of circumstances, largely through an Arbitration case, but alternatively through community authorisation (as explained at WP:General Sanctions). Without that authorisation, we should not be using DS against paid editing (unless it happens to be paid editing in an area that has DS). That begs the question "should Arbcom / the community authorise DS for paid editing". I'd personally argue no for a number of reasons. Firstly, in my view, the community has not fully made up it's mind on it's stance on paid editing - we have hardliners who believe none should happen at all and that it should be killed with fire, while others who try to find a middle ground. I would not be happy with an individual administrator making such a decision for the community. Secondly, the broad area of "paid editing" (covering the entire encyclopedia) goes against the idea of limiting the scope of DS. Thirdly, I cannot see a situation where DS would be particularly helpful against paid editing. If an article is being particularly targetted, it can be easily protected, and in the rare cases that something unusual (say 1RR) would be helpful, that can be authorised by the community in a normal discussion - it doesn't need to be an individual administrator. If an individual is causing problems for paid editing reasons, it can be handled through normal community means.
I hope that answers your question, sorry about the rambling! Worm^TT(talk) 10:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
Two-factor authentication is a Good Thing^TM. It doesn't fix all the problems with security, but it does help, and I'd personally endorse it to any individual who is wavering about using it. In my past two years on the committee, I've had to be involved in more WP:LEVEL1 desysoppings for compromised accounts than I'd have expected and that needs to be sorted. It's one of those rare situations that I believe should be enforced from the top down - I'd expect WMF to be putting in stringent password requirements for anyone with administrator or above user-rights.
That said, however, 2FA should not be mandatory. As Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, there are many individuals who cannot adopt 2FA, and many more who are against it on principle. I respect that - it should not be mandatory, though it should be recommended. What's more, I don't believe the Foundation is set up to manage the inevitable user errors that a more complex system requires - if an individual loses his device, he should not lose his wikipedia account. Scratch codes are all well and good, but they are regularly lost, and that leads the WMF to identify the individual and remove 2FA so that they could log back in - given the small team that they have there, expanding 2FA outside administrators is not practical.
Of course, there's the good old elephant in the room - which was the mess that followed this. Now, I've not commented much on this - but I will say that it happened while I was inactive and I had made a statement of general opposition before the motions were posted. Worm^TT(talk) 10:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having received responses from all candidates, I'd like to thank you for providing the best answers to my questions. I appreciate the time and effort you took to explain your reasoning, and your answers covered most of the related issues I was hoping everyone would consider. If you get re-elected, I look forward to seeing more of your insight in future cases. — Newslinger talk 09:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger, Glad to help Worm^TT(talk) 09:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q from SchroCat

You were active during the recent Fram arbitration. From your personal perspective, what was your take on how ArbCom handled matters? If it all happened again tomorrow (please god, no!), what would you advise should be done the same or different by the committee or yourself? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How Arbcom handled matters - well, we were acting reactively and in a time of massive community crisis, and taken as a whole, I think the committee handled the situation as best as we possibly could. What's more, I think that actions that the committee took (especially the open letter to the board) solved the deadlock and allowed normal life to return. As for the case itself, well, by that time most of the committee was so burned out that I pretty much ran it until voting started - by which time the rest of the committee members were able come back and vote (and in the case of one, do a bit of digging / re-writing). I didn't prefer the outcome that conflated Fram's desysop with what happened, though I understand why it happened that way - we were effectively given the choice of endorsing one side or the other, with more information than the rest of the community had.
If it happened again tomorrow, I'd be walking away from the encyclopedia. Done. However, if instead you mean "what if I could go back and do over / give advice", i.e. what would I / we done differently in hindsight, I can give an answer to that.
To start with, I'd have told myself to make sure I was on the call where it was mentioned, even if it was 5am. It wasn't fair for a single arbitrator to have to manage that. Prior to that call, I can think of quite a few different ways I could have stopped the situation from happening in the first place, however I cannot think of many that I would have, even with advice from future me. One piece of advice I would have given was to not get to worried about it all - at one point I did intend to quit, and instead took a break... I'm glad I did that as the deadlock broke soon after. I'd also suggest that the committee took a stronger stance with respect to the Foundation - firstly, I think we could have negotiated more - things like Fram being unbanned to participate or evidence being released to the community. Secondly, once the case was going, we did not communicate with the WMF - well, actually I think they would have been more forthcoming if we did.
It's a thought exercise though. Things are always easier to look at with hindsight. When it comes down to it, I don't regret much about my role in how things played out, nor in the committee's. Worm^TT(talk) 11:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that full response, it's much appreciated. You're right, it always easier in hindsight, but unfortunately that's the only place where the lessons can be learned for the next time something similar happens. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Vanamonde

I raised some concerns at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision (see "Comments from Vanamonde"; I'm having trouble linking to the section), to which I received no response. I understand that you cannot respond to every comment on a talk page; but I would like to give you another opportunity to do so. Specifically, I am concerned that the language used in that decision, and the diffs the decision highlights, will be used to stifle robust discussion of borderline sources in contentious political areas. Do you nonetheless stand by your wording? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, for those reading, the link is here. I've said to WBG above that the case was a rather low point for the committee, and explained my thoughts on why above. However, on your points with regard to the case - you're referring to the diffs in the Icewhiz half of this finding, correct? I do accept that the diffs are light there, however having spent a lot of time reviewing evidence, I definitely saw a pattern of inflammatory rhetoric from Icewhiz, which is why I was willing to accept that finding. When combined with the other behaviours shown in the other findings, and especially behaviours subsequent to the case, I am absolutely willing to stand by it.
Now, I appreciate your concerns about chilling effects - it's something that I'm definitely concerned about too, and it was running through my head when supporting the "Article sourcing expectations" remedy. This was a "best we've got" solution in my head, and as I said at the time, it may "come back to bite us". I was willing to give it a try, but would also be absolutely willing to review it at ARCA if it isn't working. Indeed, circumstances may always change, and I'd be willing to review any of the remedies at ARCA... that's the point of ARCA. Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not exculpating Icewhiz, whose conduct on the whole was egregiously battleground-ish. It was the wording and diffs in that finding, rather than the remedy, that I took issue with. In any case, thanks for the response, and I hope I'm wrong about it being used to restrict discussion eslewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I voted for you the last time without hesitation, but have since become more concerned about the need to maintain a separation of powers between bureaucrats and ARBCOM. Do you feel the concept of separation of powers is relevant here? If so, how? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a good question, and one I wasn't expecting. "Separation of powers" is governmental concept and it's really important that the law makers aren't the law enforcers etc. The question is how it should be applied to Wikipedia. In general, "law makers" is the community as a whole. We work as a community, so we don't have "leaders" per se, though I accept there are people who garner more respect than others. Enforcers are generally admins, and 'crats weigh up community consensus on creating those admins. Arbcom is a final dispute resolution area - it is specifically not allowed to create policy.
It's also worth noting that Arbcom has a lot stricter procedures on areas such as recusal - The only mention of recusal for crats is at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion, where it says Bureaucrats who have commented on the RFA or RFB itself are expected to state this and may, but are not required to, recuse themselves from the discussion - To me, that's a massive no-no, and I've been meaning to bring it up before it becomes a problem. On the other hand, Arbcom's rules are more clear.
The thing is, the 'crat role is minimal these days. When I signed up, I found that there were a lot of private rename requests that needed to be done, especially vanishing and I took that upon myself. Renaming has since become global, so my need for the hat has diminished. That said, I have been in a situation in the past 2 years where I have used the tool to resolve a difficult private issue.
As I say, I wasn't expecting the question - we've had 'crat arbs a number of times in the past, but I'm aware that I'm a strong willed individual in certain cases. Is there something you'd specifically like to see on this? I'd rather not put down the tool in case a situation arises where a similar difficult private issue needs to be resolved. What sort of situations concern you? Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The example that comes most readily to mind is someone deciding to challenge a collective crat decision about resysopping (or declining to resysop) at ARBCOM. Or alternatively, if a crat finds themselves before ARBCOM (yes, ARBCOM members are always going to have to judge their peers; but there's only a handful of bureaucrats, who have worked together for a long long time). But my discomfort has been more general, because I suspect this would matter in situations I cannot think of. I asked DeltaQuad this question at her RFB, and she stated that she felt the same way and wasn't planning to run for ARBCOM in the future; so it's not just me. But I appreciate that we may feel differently about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, you're not the only one to feel that way, certainly - and it's a not a new feeling. I ran my RfB whilst I was on Arbcom in 2014 and a significant portion of opposes were about separation of powers. I personally don't see that there needs to be a problem, due to the governance model that Wikipedia manages, but I'm also keenly aware that I need to not only maintain integrity between the roles, but be seen to maintain integrity.
As for your examples - if I was part of a collective 'crat decision that was brought to Arbcom, I would recuse without hesitation - my own decision being reviewed is an obvious bright line there. I don't believe that a 'crat finding themselves before Arbcom is a reason to recuse, the 'crats are a much less close knit group than you might think. I could only name 6 off the top of my head, two of which have resigned recently, two begin with X, and two I have met in real life.
Of course, as always, if you felt there was a reason to recuse on either side of the role, please do come to me and ask. I'd be happy to talk about it, and to my the best of my recollection I've always honored requests to recuse. Worm^TT(talk) 10:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should go on to say that if there is a future need for separation of powers due to the change of the governance model (say, 'crats start doing something similar to Arbcom - per WP:BARC or something similar) I would recuse from all bureaucrat responsibilities on that new role whilst I sat on Arbcom. Worm^TT(talk) 10:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from EllenCT

If you were an ordinary non-functionary editor and believed that you were being harassed by a WP:TAGTEAM of COI editors who you thought were involved in organized and likely paid advocacy, under the current composition of enwiki dispute resolution and the T&S organization, how would you raise the issue? By private email or in the open? With the Foundation, community, WP:ANI, ORTS, Arbcom, and/or some other means? What are the most significant advantages and disadvantages of the various choices? EllenCT (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no good answer to this question, as it will depend entirely on the circumstances. I've worked with many newer editors who believe that they are being tag-teamed simply because they are not aware of how Wikipedia works. So let's assume that I'm au fait with Wikipedia. I've seen it that people believe there is a COI or paid advocacy simply because they hold strong beliefs to the contrary and therefore see conspiracy. So, let's assume I also have some level of evidence that this is actually happening. If either of those assumptions are incorrect, then simply getting outside eyes on the situation, using standard dispute resolution is the right solution.
Ok, we've got some sort of evidence that there is a group of editors that have some sort of CoI and are harassing me. I'd probably go to an admin who is uninvolved in the situation to get their opinion that it's actually happening. If it carries on escalating, and depending on the privacy level of the information, I'd probably head to AN / then maybe an Arbcom case for entirely public case, or send an email to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org if I had evidence of paid advocacy, or Arbcom if I had off-wiki harassment. I personally cannot see a situation where I would be going to WMF on an issue like this, unless the harassment became a real-world risk. Worm^TT(talk) 13:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the only candidate so far with experience participating in coordination with T&S, would you please give us an idea of how those conference calls are run? I.e., who sets the agenda? What are the typical topics of discussion? Is speaking time balanced between Arbcom and T&S or skewed to one side which does more of the talking? Are arbitrators' requests of T&S honored? Does T&S make requests of arbitrators? EllenCT (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The conference calls are a monthly discussion between members of the committee who can make it and a few members of T&S and legal from WMF side. A document is sent round when the call is set up which can be added to by anyone for agenda items and is also the repository of the meeting minutes. I have been on a few calls with no set agenda, and a few others with 4-5 items. Topics of discussion vary - we may discuss tools that could make Arbcom's life easier (such as moving the Google Groups), or bugs that have been spotted in the media-wiki interface. Generally, we are given a bit of a heads up if there is something happening with respect to a user who is active on en.wiki, such as a global ban. We might discuss sensitive issues - the sorts that should be passed to T&S.
Overall, I have found these sessions to be helpful and generally to be an open free flowing conversation on both sides. Arbitrators requests to T&S have been honoured, yes. T&S's requests are generally of the level "can you explain how this works", I know a question came up a little while ago about the difference between a "block appealable only to arbcom" and a "ban". I have never felt pressured by T&S to do anything for them. I hope that answers your question, EllenCT Worm^TT(talk) 13:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you personally trust the co-architect of superprotect leading T&S to act in the best interest of the community? Why or why not? EllenCT (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a few questions wrapped up in that seemingly innocuous question there. I'll start first by talking about Superprotect. Superprotect was implemented while I was on the committee the first time, and since it didn't ever get implemented on any page on en.wiki, I didn't actually pay that much attention to it. I have to say, in theory, it seems like a no-brainer - You should absolutely not have the ability to do so much damage to such an important website with out some decent quality change control. Can you imagine a button which would allow you to change Facebook for every user? What that theory doesn't take into account though, is our community, and actually the very ethos of Wikipedia, that anyone can edit. We like that we can manage our own site, however we like. So, I don't hold Superprotect against anyone at WMF - I understand why they did it, it was the wrong decision and they backed down.
Whether I would I then put the same person in charge of T&S, given the choice? No, I probably wouldn't. However - I think it's a big step to go from "not my choice" to "don't trust him to act in the best interests of the community". People I do trust have a high opinion of the person, and trust him. That helps. I am also aware of the risks of an echo chamber within T&S - if the only noise you're getting from outside is complaints of harassment, and inside you're all getting worked up about those same complaints, not doing something is very difficult and doing something is likely to turn out poorly. I would prefer the head of T&S to be more communicative, which in turn would engender trust. I had hoped that he would become a bit more communicative after the events of the summer, but I've been rather disappointed in that regard. Worm^TT(talk) 13:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No question from Gerda

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. I read your vote as if you agreed, so I'm ready to support you. I'd like to ask how you think arbcom can help to make users avoid use of the term "idiotbox", but you once told me to not ask arb candidites infobox-related questions, and I can live with it ;)
I don't recall telling you to not ask arb candidates infobox-related questions, however I'm quite happy not to receive them. The amount of effort that have gone into worrying about infoboxes on this encyclopedia is insane. Worm^TT(talk) 13:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, I support your candidacy, no questions asked. - I don't see much worrying over infoboxes in 2019, and am happy about that. Two RfCs and a farce, - nothing to worry about, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Peacemaker67

In retrospect, do you think your decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort was the right one? 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 was definitely borderline on accepting the case, my initial comment was along the lines of "Why should it be Arbcom". I was then persuaded by subsequent comments that the dispute had been going on a long time and that it was unlikely to be fixed by any other dispute resolution. The outcome was a ban and some other restrictions and reminders, the sort of thing you'd expect from this sort of case. I don't believe that ANI was the right venue for the level of investigation needed, so yes on balance, I believe accepting that case was the correct decision. Worm^TT(talk) 13:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Peacemaker67, certainly thanks for the feedback, which I will keep in mind for future cases. Worm^TT(talk) 07:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Carrite

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
I'm afraid that's an impossible question to answer without a bit more context - but I'll give it a go.
For people requesting arbitration, the biggest problem is probably the complexity in filing a case. That's certainly fixable, especially with the clever javascripting available these days. Whether it's worth the effort for the one case a month we get... I don't know.
For people facing individual arbitration, the biggest problem is probably the horrible process that needs to be followed, increasing stress and often focussing on individuals. This is unfortunately inherent - I believe you and I have both referred to Arbcom as a "disciplinary" committee in the past, well, there is no good way to have a public disciplinary.
For complex disputes which centre around content, the biggest problem is not being able to find a solution. This is inherent, as we cannot rule on content and rightly so - there is no way that 15 random people are going to be able to make a decision on every area in "the sum of human knowledge". We simply don't have the expertise. Unsurprisingly we keep having re-runs of these sorts of cases.
The biggest problem with being part of the committee is the difficulty in getting things done. Between people going inactive, discussions happening over many different timezones, strong differing opinions and personal biases - getting anything done can be quite exhuasting. This is inherent in working in a committee of this size and this remote though.
The biggest problem with Arbcom for an arbitrator would be resolving decisions on private information with the public nature of Wikipedia. This is inherent, Arbcom needs to be a place where decisions on private information can happen, but equally the community thirsts for information and transparency. Being in the middle of that is a difficult place to be.
There are quite a few other problems with being an arbitrator, but the other one that should be mentioned is one I've really felt over the past year - that I've somehow become some sort of "community leader". I'm not a leader - I'd rather not be thought of as one. If anything, I'd regard myself as a diplomat, someone who represents the views of the community and has to deal with people in a tactful way.
That's just a few ideas of problems with Arbcom. If you're looking for something different, let me know and I'd be happy to answer. Worm^TT(talk) 16:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you were editing an encyclopedia article about Wikipedia Arbcom, for which member of the committee, past or present, would you include a photo as an illustration for the piece? Assume there is room for only one or maybe two photos.
You mean Arbitration Committee on English Wikipedia? I'm sure your title wouldn't be precise enough . Ideally, I would want a photo of multiple arbitrators as a group to illustrate the whole article - though I don't know that such a photo exists. A logo would be appropriate, perhaps the Wikiglobe with those awful scales in front? The problem is that a single member of the committee could not represent the whole committee - we are too diverse. What's more, many members maintain their pseudonymity and would not be available for photography.
I suppose that a picture of our longest serving member (NYB I think is the only member who's served 4 terms) would be sensible to illustrate the "members" section. And I expect Essjay would have to be there to illustrate the controversy section. It's a moot point, of course, because it would be an exercise in extreme naval gazing to have such an article. Worm^TT(talk) 16:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dave. —t /// Carrite (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Banedon

Is there any vote you cast during your current term at Arbcom that you think you should've voted differently, with the benefit of hindsight?
As I'm elected to represent the community, I've reflected seriously where the community has disagreed with the decision made by the committee as a whole. There have more of these than I'd like over the past 12 months, but two stand out as things I'd have done differently in hindsight. The first is not being active during the two factor authorisation upset earlier this year - but inactivity is inactivity, I can't promise I'll be around throughout the year, off-wiki matters must come first.
The other area I've reflected on seriously is the Ritchie333 / Praxidicae interaction ban. Pragmatically, I stand by the fact that interaction ban between the two editors is the right solution. I don't see interaction bans as much of a sanction, rather an acknowledgement that two editors are not likely to get along. In this case, interactions between these two do tend to escalate quickly and both have expressed an interest in not being involved with the other.
However, I felt that there were a number of problems. The wording of the interaction ban was ambiguous in its uneven application, I (and at least one other arbitrator) had objected to that wording but hadn't come up with anything better and since the discussion had been dragging on and another issue was escalating, I dropped my objection from a pragmatic point of view. There is where I should have voted differently - a solution presented itself soon after the motion was posted, splitting it into an iban and an admonishment.
On the same issue, there was a question of whether the whole thing should have been referred to a public forum as it was primarily on-wiki evidence. However, the issues were raised during the Fram case, where I was in the headspace that "Arbcom needs to be handling the gap where on wiki disputes can be reported off-wiki". I'm no longer of that opinion personally, but it is really important that it's covered in the RfC which has not yet started.
Finally, there was the issue of communication. If there's one area I need to improve on Arbcom, it's my communication with those outside the committee by private means. Not quite a vote, but certainly a personal failing. Worm^TT(talk) 10:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wehwalt

Pending the outcome of the forthcoming RFC, what standards are you yourself applying to decide your vote on whether ArbCom should accept a case that is presented privately or which you believe may involve evidence not made public? (if you feel that this impinges on ArbCom secrecy, please free to preface with "If elected" and cast as the practice you will follow until the RfC is concluded)
I've spent the last 6 months thinking about this issue, so I'm glad you've asked me about it. In my opinion, this goes to the heart of the crisis that happened during the summer, yes there were problems over jursidiction on the encyclopedia and definitions of harasment and other issues, but when it came down to it - the question that created the issues was "Should person A be able to report person B off-wiki, for completely on-wiki behaviour". The answer, is, of course, yes - they should. It should be an option available, and there should be a mechanism to take care of that - and we do - depending on the type of issue we have admins, we have functionaries and we have Arbcom.
It's also an option that shouldn't be the norm. Whereever possible, issues that can be public should be public. This allows the community to voice their opinion on the issue, raise factors that arbitrators may not be aware of and give suggestions towards a solution. What's more, a public case means that the the community as a whole can learn from the outcome. If someone has behaved poorly in a certain manner, then behaviour by another person in the same manner can be explained as problematic. We, as a community need to be able to learn from each others mistakes.
That said, your question is a bit more general - what sort of factors would I require to accept a case privately. Well, the main would would be about the amount of harm that would come to the individual if we were to hold the case publicly. That is a very hard thing to quantify - because Arbcom cases are harmful by their very nature, they're horrifically unpleasant to go through (I've been party at one myself, I do understand). Criticism, however, is not the same thing as harm - and I do not hold with protection from criticism. In other words, I do have a bar - I've been thinking about it a lot recently and it's a high bar to pass. Of course, it's quite possible that the community disagrees with me - and that's why we need the RfC. I may have to re-align my thoughts Worm^TT(talk) 11:36, 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?
Well, there's no doubt that there is a perceived bias towards prolific content creators - there are essays about the phenomenon, arbcom cases related to it and more. There is a similar perceived bias on the other side about admins. The fact is that, yes, the more effort that you put into the encyclopedia, the more that people want you to keep putting in that effort and so the more they are willing to overlook shortcomings. This is true of prolific content creators, administrators, copyright investigators, bot runners or any number of other people who support the encyclopedia. Content creation comes to the forefront because 1) it's hard to do well and 2) it's easy to see that it has been done well.
When anyone ends up in front of Arbcom, they should be treated with respect and not prejudged. I've already said that it's a horrible process once today, I'll say it again. It's also unsurprising that these vested groups are more likely to cause difficult cases - people who are not so invested in the community are far more likely to have been dealt with elsewhere. However, when you reach Arbcom, you're at a "buck stops here" place. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. Final decisions have to be made and no one gets a free pass. Worm^TT(talk) 11:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you appreciate / accept it, your opinion undoubtedly counts for a lot here. Certainly far more than your average here today, gone tomorrow, elected functionary. You have followers :) What is the downside? What aspects of your contributions this year do you reflect on and think, "I could / should have handled that better"? It's an open goal question, you have free reign.
I was told a few years back that I get Wikipedia, effectively that I was attuned to the community. I'm aware that my opinion counts for a lot, because quite often my voice matches the opinion of large portions of the community. Clearly, given such a diverse community, that's not going to be true all the time, especially when I see an area that I feel Wikipedia is slipping and take a stab in that direction. I can absolutely get it wrong. I don't agree I have followers as such, I don't think I'm at top of anyone's list as a "model" wikipedian - I'm more one of those people that fades into the background and gets forgotten about. That said, this summer, I didn't do that. I stepped a bit more into the limelight, because I needed to.
The downsides? Well, you are correct that people give a lot more weight to my words than perhaps they should. I find it a lot harder to go up to someone and have a quiet word as I used to.
As for what I could have handled better, negotiations with Foundation (see question from SchroCat above). I would have liked to discuss more with Fram earlier while he was in exile, but couldn't find the time, certainly failed there. I've left messages for people that have been taken the wrong way, regularly, even in the past couple of days. But if there's one area I would have liked to have handled better this year, it was the case of a former arbitrator who has since become disillusioned with Wikipedia. I'm not sure how I could have handled it better as the situation didn't allow for many options, but Wikipedia has lost an editor that so many people believed in that hundreds supported him onto the committee. That's a huge loss. Worm^TT(talk) 12:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WereSpielChequers

Hi Dave, 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 - I can think of circumstances where you can give an indefinite block without telling them why, but not a fixed term block.
I don't want to come across as defending the foundation on this matter, but that's not exactly what happened with Fram. He was given two warnings, which - if read in the right way - would have given him guidance to improve. It might have involved a bit of self reflection and may even have worked in a hierarchical workplace, where everyone is working in the same culture.
I made my feelings clear in the case - the first warning should not have been sent, in light of the self reflection that Fram put on wiki. The second warning would then have been a first warning and may therefore have been differently received. The finding failed because "it was not our place to tell the WMF what to do", but in my opinion that's exactly what a "review" entails. Ah well. Worm^TT(talk) 14:00, 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?
The standards for recusal are set out at ARBPOL and are pretty clear about what is set out regarding "significant" personal involvement. A good rule of thumb would be that if an arbitrator has a conflict of interests with respect to a case or a perceived involvement (by WP:INVOLVED standards) it is certainly reasonable to expect them to recuse. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Absolutely people should be given sufficient time to respond to accusations laid against them. The theory is that the accusations come to light during the case request, the evidence phase allows for evidence of those accusations, and the workshop phase allows the evidence to be rebutted (as well as community proposals for the decision). If any of those periods are insufficient for a named individual, they should be able to contact the committee for an extension. So, yes, the people named should be given sufficient time to rebut what is said against them - but in general that should be the same time limits by default. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Arbitrators should not be proffering evidence on their own. Evidence should be taken from the evidence phase, which can be rebutted through the workshop. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from 28bytes

Last year around this time I emailed the committee with concerns that a former administrator (and currently banned sockmaster) was continuing to edit with a particular account. Since then, the account has voted in an ArbCom election, participated in RfAs, and even offered !votes in community ban discussions about other editors. I've since been told the committee has somewhat of a "let sleeping dogs lie" philosophy regarding such things if the account in question appears to be editing productively and not causing disruption. With that in mind:

Is that a fair assessment of the (current/outgoing) committee's thinking?
I didn't participate in that thread, so I had to go back and re-read what happened. There was definitely a "let sleeping dogs lie" argument from at least one arb. There was a discussion about the possible outcomes of action, but none prevailed, so we sort of ended in that ground. Worm^TT(talk) 10:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your thinking on that issue?
On this issue of banned users who sneak back in and make productive edits, well I've long been an advocate of a quiet return. Pragmatically if an individual returns to editing and does not exhibit the traits that got them banned in the first place, how can they be spotted? It's not exactly hard to fool the CU tool (and no, I'm not going to give an idiots guide) - which means behaviour is far more important.
That leaves the flipside to the question - what should happen? Well, again, let's look pragmatically. User A has been banned, but wants to edit. They return and get spotted. We then lose time and energy over search for them, playing whack-a-mole, discussing what to do, etc. It all distracts from what we should be doing - building an encyclopedia. But what if User A comes back quietly, editing well. The community can go ahead and keep building the encyclopedia and User A can do the same. If they're not causing disruption, then they're effectively rehabilitated.
My opinion on this case in particular is that if a user can spend nearly a decade editing productively then I don't believe there is any reason to upset that balance. If the user were applying for positions of additional trust (admin etc), then my opinion would be very different, but assuming they're just plodding along and adding to the encyclopedia, then I have no problem with that. Worm^TT(talk) 10:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly speaking, about how many cases is the committee aware of that fall into that category? A few? A few dozen? Over a hundred?
Almost none. I can't think of any other ones that do. I'm sure there are, somewhere in the archives, but as much as I like the idea that someone can quietly come back and not cause the same havoc, human nature doesn't agree with me. Worm^TT(talk) 10:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Caker18

Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
Mediating? It's probably a long while since I did that, especially on wiki. I used to have to mediate quite regularly with my adoptees to stop them getting blocked. I'm not sure that's particularly helpful for you though. I don't believe that Arbcom is really the place for mediation though - that should have happened at an early step in the dispute resolution process. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 12 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?
I don't really take pride in joining in unblock discussions. We get a lot on the Arb list, I contribute to a portion of them. But, I'm too full of the milk of human kindness to do a good job of unblocking. Indeed, I've rather soured on doing it since this fiasco 4 years ago. I trusted an editor to return on a condition, and they breached it on their first edit back. I know we all make mistakes, but that was a doozy. Worm^TT(talk) 10:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 have a number of thoughts on the matter. Firstly, I do not believe we have the ability to police the internet - we should not be trying to. Nor do I believe we should be stopping people from talking to who they want to about what they want to. The world is not so black and white that we can split people into good and bad.
There are significant benefits in engaging with those people who have been banned - in that they may respond to reason from someone they have some sort of relationship with. At the same time, there are significant drawbacks to engagement, it means they are far less likely to break from Wikipedia if they think they still have an influence, especially on someone with advanced permissions.
Overall, I would discourage people from interacting with WMF banned users, they are banned for a reason and is not appealable - given my general rule that "It's just a website", anything to help such users move on with their lives is a good thing and interacting with them does not do that. I would not, however, agree that any user who does interact with such editors should face any sanction for doing so. I hope that answers your question, but please do feel free to follow up with hypotheticals if it helps. Worm^TT(talk) 15:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Well, I clearly agree with the second one! Peacemaker's question is an absolutely valid one - there was not much dispute resolution prior to the case, but we explained that in the case request. The concern I had was that so many of the candidates (almost all) of MILHIST electees held the same opinion, which didn't seem to match that outside MILHIST. That's pretty much the definition of a walled garden. It's not necessarily problematic, just something to watch. Worm^TT(talk) 18:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Hi Piotrus, I'd be interested in reading the full paper at some point, this is the first I've seen of it. As to the question, inactivity is a killer on the committee, however, I don't see a way around it - people who have not previously experienced being an arbitrator cannot know what the daily grind of being one is like. A volunteer role, with obligations and responsibilities, and a constant stream of requests (in the form of emails). I do not like the idea of prescribing how people manage their time, I manage well enough despite having roles in other charity groups, a family and working 40 hours a week. Ironically, I find less time to do Wikipedia stuff when I'm less busy.
It would be helpful if people could state when they are not managing the workload and either take a break or step down - but doing so admits defeat and is difficult to do. One practical way to deal with this with this might be a much larger committee with sub committees who take on specific areas, so people can sub in or out. I expect there are quite a few other models which would work well. As it is though, with the committee in the form that it is, and Wikipedia being a volunteer network with an ethos of "work when you can" - I believe the problem is inherent to the system. Worm^TT(talk) 09:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from wbm1058

What is the relevance of the 1980 BBC television comedy sketch series The Worm That Turned to your user name, if any? (YouTube link)
Absolutely none. I hadn't even seen it until using the name for years. My username was based on an old teacher I had, who liked to call us "miserable worms". I was setting up an email account, and came up with Worm that turned. It was only at uni that I started watching The Two Ronnie's. Can't say that particular sketch ever tickled me either. Worm^TT(talk) 19:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I watched some of that YouTube clip last night and my word has that aged badly. I recalled it being about "women taking over" and I remember the stupid uniforms, but that's about it. In case it wasn't obvious, wbm1058 I absolutely do not subscribe to the views expressed in the show. I won't even defend them, the entire serial is not up to Two Ronnie's usual standards (see Four Candles). In case there was some thought that I did, I'll do something I don't do often and express an stance on Wikipedia - I see myself as a feminist. I believe in equality in general, and in case anyone is interested, I'm saddened that there is only 2 women standing in the elections. If you would like to see some evidence of my tendencies, have a look at my article work. Not only is it dominated by Good Article biographies of women, but it includes quite a few biographies of outspoken feminists. Worm^TT(talk) 12:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
I have a lot of other projects that I would be happy to focus my time on. I do think I'd turn in my hats again, and would do a bit of article writing as and when I had time, but the vast majority of my non-arbcom plans for the future do not include Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I'd certainly be a lurker, keeping up with what's going on and would likely drop in with my thoughts, but that's about it. Worm^TT(talk) 12:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Don't apologise for late questions Volunteer Marek, as far as I'm concerned this page is open until voting closes and my talk page is always available afterwards! Now, I've said myself that communication is a big part of the problem with Arbcom. The rest of the community aren't able to see what we do and it would certainly be helpful for them to get a handle on it. Your proposal comes in a few parts, I like some parts more than others.
The idea of a single committee spokesperson is something that has been floated before in a couple of guises - "chair", "liaison" or "secretary" are all terms that I can remember. The general feeling for appointing a single individual is that it would lead to a "more important" arb, something the committee doesn't need. I've been told by a few people that I've become unofficial "spokesperson" this year and I've disagreed with that statement to each - different arbs have differents amounts of knowledge about different issues, and so I would expect different arbs to comment on many issues. There is some benefit to having a co-ordinator / secretary role internally, who keeps notes of what needs doing and chivvys arbs along, I'm just wary of making it an "official" outwardly facing role. Overall - arbcom should be considered as a committee, the individuals have no additional power, and I don't want to upset that balance
The main reason for your spokesperson is the "committee reports". Well, I do like the idea of some reporting to the community. I think the community should be able to see how much work the arbs are doing for them behind the scenes, so perhaps a "number of emails" by each arb, each month, would be a good metric for that. I'd also be happy with some sort of breakdown of the areas of discussion - say X threads on block appeals, Y threads on cases, and Z threads on other matters, however I'm not sure I'd be happy to go much beyond that in amount of data revealed. It's too easy to tie together what's happening on wiki with what's happening on email otherwise.
Overall, I think there is definitely merit to your proposal, and I could certainly see myself supporting something similar, though I think there should be some discussion about the details. Worm^TT(talk) 11:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jehochman

How do you feel about the right of reply and do you think this principle should be applied to Wikipedia biographies and/or Wikipedia dispute resolution, and if so, how?
In general, I believe in a right of reply (or at least a right of correction, which slightly different but arguably more important). It's not necessarily a helpful thing to do, for example, publishing a response to ramblings of an un-noticed individual is going to have the opposite effect, by highlighting those ramblings. But that's the thing about "rights", that you have the option to exercise them, even if it's the wrong thing to do. As for how they are applied to those two situations - quite differently
Wikipedia biographies are articles. They should be based on reliable, quality sources - and since nothing written on Wikipedia should be new - the first place a challenge should be sent is the source. Then the source adds their corrections, and Wikipedia can be updated based on that. That's how it works isn't it? I can't see any problems with that at all...
Ok, so the world doesn't work like that, though actually changing Wikipedia to include a right of reply would be difficult, simply because of that theoretical model. Personally, I'd like to have a system where article subjects can email OTRS under similar levels of scrutiny to donating copyright images/text, to confirm identity. Then, the otrs agent could add the subjects comment at the bottom of the page, similar to that silly star rating thing that was implemented on articles a few years ago.
In dispute resolution, I believe we do have the right of reply - once the dispute reaches the point that it becomes about the individual, rather than the content - the individual is permitted to be part of the dispute resolution process and rebut anything stated about them. It does fall down a bit when the user is blocked, or under an interaction ban - but those remedies should be at the end of the dispute resolution process and therefore there should not be ongoing dispute resolution when a sanction has been placed. Worm^TT(talk) 16:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pudeo

The Palestine-Israel articles 4/Proposed decision was due to be posted by November 13. You are one of the three drafting arbitrators. Do you have enough time to participate in Arb work?
Indeed I do. And the majority of the work put in so far in drafting has been done by me. However, since it is such a complex case, and combined with the current ARCAs and the election, there is a bit of a delay on posting. I had hoped to get it done a bit quicker than this but will look at updating the deadlines. Worm^TT(talk) 18:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Grillofrances

Thanks for asking my 13 questions which were later deleted. I have now some questions how ArbCom works. Both Arbitration Committee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee don't contain too much info.

Hi Grillofrances. Most of the information you are looking for is in WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, but I'm happy to answer a few questions. Worm^TT(talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the decisions made by majority of votes among the active ArbCom members or sometimes it requires a larger majority like 2/3 or even consensus?
Cases are decided by majority votes of active Arbcom members, as are Arbcom motions. Certain other situations allow for a "net four" vote, such as opening or closing a case, or declining a block appeal on the Arbcom list. I cannot think of any situation that requires a super majority (but in responding to your later question I did... see Q3), but email replies generally come from a consensus discussion. Worm^TT(talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other actions done by ArbCom than banning a given user, reverting a given article and restricting a given page to be able to be modified only by admins like e.g. some users want a given article to be in shape A while some others want it to be in shape B so you decide how this article could be neutral?
The actions you describe aren't quite what Arbcom do. The obvious answer is that each case decision is split into three parts, Principles, which refer back to Wikipedia policy and it's interpretation, Findings, which explain what has actually happened in the case and Remedies which are enforceable outcomes that are designed to help the situation going forward. Banning users (either from topics, interactions with other users or even from the encyclopedia) is one possible outcome - however content decisions such as reverting a given article is not. The committee sometimes issues "discretionary sanctions", which gives additional authority to uninvolved administrators to put in place sanctions that might help a content area, such as higher levels of protection, or single revert restrictions.
It's very important that Arbcom isn't making content decisions such as the ones you describe - you have to remember that WP has nearly six million articles, there is no way that a committee of 15 will know everything about each one. On top of that, some of the subjects covered by Wikipedia are so divisive that people have gone to war on the topic - people have dedicated their lives to finding compromise in those areas, who am I to suggest that I could do a better job? Worm^TT(talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone beside Jimmy Wales who has an authority to ban an ArbCom member?
Jimmy's authority is slightly different these days, he's delegated it to the community, so it's unlikely he'd ever need to step in to make a decision to ban an Arb. At present, Arbitrators can be removed from the committee by a super majority of other Arbitrators. I'd like to say that doesn't happen, but unfortunately it has - quite a few times over the life time of the committee. However, the community as a whole still holds the ability to ban any user, so they could ban an arbitrator, siting or not. Worm^TT(talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides about creating ArbCom in another language version of wikipedia?
I don't actually know the answer to this. I believe that it's community driven with WMF involvement, but most smaller wikipedias shouldn't need one - it's only when disputes reach a critical mass that it becomes essential. Worm^TT(talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no steward in ArbCom? Are they ineligible to candidate in order to provide a separation of power? Or would it mean too much work for a single person? Or yet another reason?
Stewards keep the global projects running. They act as advanced rights holders on all wikis where there are insufficient advanced rights holders. English Wikipedia doesn't have much need for them, because we are such an active project. So, stewards are not "ineligible", but they have more than enough to do as it is and most don't have the English Wikipedia as their home project. Worm^TT(talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
The main principle I base my decision to accept on is whether the community is capable of handling the issue. If it's been through many dispute resolution processes, but is still hanging around, it's probably ready for Arbcom to look at. If it's something that only arbcom can handle (such as removal of Admin tools), then that's an accept. That's about it.
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?
That's a good question. I understand the line of reasoning that T&S took - complaints had come in from multiple directions, including from their own staff and respected members of the community. They believed that Arbcom couldn't handle it, as we were being targeted. They also felt there was a "gap" in the Arbcom processes that did not allow people to privately complain about on-wiki issues. With all these factors in mind, I simply cannot say that it was a "completely unjustified over-reach".
However, the amount of fallout due to the way it was communicated, and lack of follow up communication meant that our community was significantly damaged. There were alternatives, opening a public Arbcom case would have been a good one (even if T&S don't accept that as an option). So there's no way I can say it was a valid exercise in responsibility either
I also can't be sure about the speculated other motives. From board members relationships to senior members of the team either not understanding the likely fallout or trying to make a name for themselves. In addition, there's the wish to protect Arbcom and staff members, who are on the front line and were struggling with the behaviours. I think quite a few factors came together into a perfect storm, allowing for an over-reaction - an attempt to use an untested method on a high profile case.
With hindsight, there's a lot that I would have changed - but I don't think we can put all the blame at T&S's feet. Worm^TT(talk) 11:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Can you comment on reasons for lateness? 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?
The ARBPIA cases are some of the most complex that Arbcom has ever seen - unpicking the past three cases and consolidating them while ensuring the issues are handles has been difficult. Combine that with a bit of inactivity and clashing schedules - and we've slipped past the deadline again. Once I've finished answering the questions here, I'm going to be going there and doing a bit of a push, my other drafting colleagues have done well over the past week to catch up.
I can't guarantee that in my next term I'd come up with a solution to hit these dates. Some people are better at meeting the dates than others - I'm bad at it, I'm simply not a particularly good drafter if I'm honest. I'm hoping some of the new Arbs will pick up a bit in that area. What we need is a bit more communication - letting people know if we're running behind and when to expect things. Worm^TT(talk) 11:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Paid editing is something that has changed as an issue while I've been on encyclopedia. I personally don't have an issue with people being reimbursed for their editing, as long as the editing meets Wikipedia's requirements, such as WP:NPOV. However, this is an issue that my opinion is a little behind the rest of the community, and declaring your paid editing is certainly a reasonable request. So, if there is an individual who is editing for pay without disclosure - that is a breach of our policies and therefore should be handled accordingly.
As for Arbcom's role? Well, I'd certainly not like Arbcom to take a massive role in such issues - as we'd quickly become inundated. Our editors, combined with our functionary team do a good job of managing the issues at the moment, and expansion into the paid-en-wpwikipedia.org queue takes care of the area that I would have though Arbcom would have to manage - private reports coming in. Worm^TT(talk) 11:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kelly222

I don't understand many wikipedia processes, so can you tell me why you have different usernames in a sock drawer?
Hi Kelly222. It's extremely easy to create an account on Wikipedia, so sometimes I've done just that. User:WormTT was created as a "public" account, when I'm using public machines - it's also looks like my signature, so I use it to redirect to me in case anyone types that in from memory. User:Wormbot I've used for a little bot connectivity - I am a programmer by trade and was curious to play around with the API - I've barely used it though, except for statistic gathering. User:Worm That Trains was a new account I set up to show some new editors how to edit on a big screen - I wanted my account to look like theirs - that account is now defunct. User:Wyrm That Turned was a User:Bishzilla-style joke. They're not really "Sockpuppets" because they're all declared and are clearly linked back to this main account. I don't use them for editing outside their designated uses. Worm^TT(talk) 11:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]