Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Salvidrim!

Last year I threw my name in the ring with specific intentions to withdraw if there ever were a sufficient number of candidates I was comfortable supporting and pledged to withdraw if that threshold was reached. It was, and I did... and then people came to me expressing disappointment in my withdrawal. So this year, I'll take part again. However, I will not commit to withdrawing if there are enough adequate candidates to fill all seats; I still might, but I might decide to stick it out through to voting as well.

Oh, and because the rules say this is required: Yes, I'm already identified to the WMF. Yes, I have signed the confidentiality agreements. Whatever alternative/humour/doppelganger accounts I have are all redirected to my main one and listed at the bottom of my userpage, but here's a list anyways: Salvidumbass!, Salvidrim, Salv, Salvid, Salvadrim, Ben Landry, Benoit Landry. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Salvidrim! Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

2. This will largely be a retread of a question I asked that went unanswered during your prior self nomination. Answering a question from Gamaliel during the 2015 Arbitration Committee Elections, you wrote that your involvement in communities such as the subreddit WikiInAction did not construe an endorsement of their words and actions. A large figure and contributor of the harassment in WikiInAction is reddit user StukaLied, with such diamonds as calling editor DD2K a "little mincing sissy" and perpetually referring to former editor MarkBernstein only as 'Reichstag' because he believes MarkBernstein is Jewish. You gave editor Starke Hathaway a 'Defender of the Wiki' award because you believed they were StukaLied. Do you not believe that giving awards to a person is an endorsement of their words and actions, and if those words and actions are primarily notable for the harassment they contain it is thus an endorsement of harassment? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   No, I do not believe that placing a tongue-in-cheek banner on a user talk page constitutes endorsement of off-wiki harassment (are you even serious?), although of course the fact I had misread a comment and wrongly identified the Wikipedia account was a stupid goof on my part and ruined the entire sarcastic point I was trying to make. However, I do not believe that anything other than "explicit endorsement of everything someone had said or done" can be construed as "endorsement of everything they've said or done"; merely speaking or engaging with someone does not constitute endorsement of the bad things they've done; I'm on WPO, on /r/WikiInAction, I speak with Kumioko/Reguyla regularly, I'm Facebook friends with banned users, it's doesn't mean I endorse anything specific.
   I also do not believe StukaLied's words and actions are "primarily notable for harassment" although it's sure as hell part of their regular modus operandi. An important point of context that you've failed to mention is the Mark was repeatedly accused of spinning trivial matters into huge point-proving arguments and perpetraing huge gestures, which is covered under the WP:REICHSTAG shortcut, which is where the first association of his name and the word were made; it was picked up and perpetuated by other parties afterwards and may or may not be targeted at the belief that Mark is Jewish, but that's speculation of someone's intention. I'm not defending nor endorsing StukaLied's, Mark's, nor anyone else's harassment of behaviour towards people they disagree with. However it is clear to me from Mark's actions here and elsewhere that he is very inflammatory and seeks so-called "drama" actively, so before pronouncing him a victim of harassment I'd point out he dishes it out at least as much as he receives it while the essence of his arguments isn't necessarily always wrong, his aggressive and sometimes inflammatory attitude makes it hard for most people to perceive him as a victim. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. What do you think about my suggestion let's stop group names? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   As with all such labelling of groups, I think people are free to describe themselves as whatever they want. I also think people are allowed to have an opinion on the description of what they perceive as a group of like-minded individuals, and whether they use terms such as "people who generally are against the inclusion of infoboxes" or labels like "infobox haters" is really just a lexical matter when the intent and meaning is the same; but if someone asks not to be described in a certain way (i.e. if you were to ask not to be described as an "infobox warrior"), it's courteous to avoid continuing calling you that. Of course, WP:NPA and all ("infobox fucktards" is never appropriate), but I wouldn't fault someone specifically for using terms such as "infobox haters" to describe others. It's not a insult, it's an opinion (it's what editor A thinks of editor B) and I have a hard time seeing it as "offensive". However, it does reveal a mentality of WP:BATTLEGROUND which itself can be a problem.
   On the broader issue of "should such groups labels even exist or be perpetuaed", I think trying to categorize and label people into defined groups is an issue of human nature, one that reaches way further than infoboxes or Wikipedia itself -- just look at the whole gender binary arguments that happen everywhere.
   Lastly, "what do I think of your suggestion": I think it once again demonstrates that I am correct in thinking of you as a kind soul who tries their best to brighten people's days. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Let's start over with Wikipedia's real problems. For example, membership is shrinking, and a lot of the editors who say why they're leaving cite a toxic environment with lots of hostility. (Just last week an AE admin threatened an editor who'd mentioned suicide with a site ban if he accepted an offer to talk it out.)
   What do you see as your/ArbCom's role in dealing with this?
   A lot of the cases at ARCA in the past month have involved appeals to AE sanctions. How 'bout that? How do you feel about AE? /u/NVLibrarian 22:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

   First, I think the biggest solutions to shrinking membership don't fall with ArbCom -- outreach, and new editor retention, is mostly handled by chapters (local like WMNY or thematic like GLAM) and WMF itself. However, I do think that whenever ArbCom has to adjuciate a case, it should count amongst its chief concerns reaching a resolution that minimizes losing contributors. ArbCom also has a duty to proactively work with banned editors trying to return to the project to try and reach a point where they can be allowed to work again in some capacity. Not every banned editor is salvageable and it requires a good dose of effort and motivation from all parties but IMHO any editor who is even asking to return shows some measure of interest in the project and everything within ArbCom's power should be done to attempt to channel said energy into productive editing. This is why I have absolutely no regrets about stuff like unblocking a past sockmaster with strict conditions per WP:SO and seeing him re-banned hours afterwards -- I'd rather be proven wrong for giving someone a chance than not attempt at all. This is why I'll almost always support the return of willing banned editors (with strong conditions to re-ban if issues arise again), as well as the gradual withdrawal of active sanctions against any editor whose doing good work.
   WP:AE is a flawed process but I can't honestly say I've enough experience and time to discuss it to really come up with any solution right now. I've said it before, I'm not 100% comfortable with ArbCom making decisions and letting other admins enforce them, nor am I comfortable with empowering any admin to enforce ArbCom decisions. As with many things on Wikipedia, AE is supposed to mostly work based on consensus of responders but this consensus is necessarily flawed by the limited pool of people who actually frequent the noticeboard. I don't think the workload of ArbCom necessarily prohibits the committee from also handling enforcement of the remedies it creates, but that is not a decision that we should take without first having it discussed by the community, so my personal thoughts on it don't matter that much.
   Lastly, I will not directly comment on "last week's situation" you've highlighted in your parenthical, because it seems like a very serious allegation but you haven't provided the first trace of a link or diff and I have a nagging feeling that the wording of your allegation is carefully crafted to present the situation exactly how you want it to be perceived. OTOH, any threat of suicide, serious or not, needs to be immediately reported to WMF's emergency team (whom I don't necessarily trust 100% to go far enough w/r/t responding, but with limited means sometimes there's only so much that be done). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

   Cases should be opened for conflicts the community has proved incapable of resolving by itself. Just because the community has hit a dead-end doesn't mean the Committee will have to start swinging its banhammer and any arbitrator who accepts a case after having already made up his mind to apply sanctions has failed in his duties of thoroughness and impartiality. Sometimes, just airing things out through the organized system that is an arbitration case is enough to push along resolution of some situations. And even when sanctions are deemed necessary, we should strive to impose the lesser sanction which still works, and not jump straight to throwing editors under the bus.

4. If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

   I think there are very few people here who are impartial -- we're a relatively familiar community and most admins have interacted with most other admins or active editors. Of course, "openly stating an aversion" is just one of the clearer forms of evidence of impartiality. But everybody's got an opinion on everybody else and I don't necessarily see anything wrong or anormal with that.

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?
   Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   a. Yes, editors remain volunteers who all lead real lives who should be more important than an online encyclopedia. Unless there is evidence of a pattern of avoidance of ArbCom cases, an editor going away (on a trip or just on wikiretirement) makes it useless to hold a case -- ArbCom cases held in secret or in absentia is something ArbCom is recurrently criticized on. Just put the case on hold, and when the user starts editing again (a week, month or year later) then start the case then and there.
   b. I've stated in the past my discomfort with hard word limits: "I understand that some people need structure, but I would much rather allow more words but require that longer details and diffs be collapsed under a clear summary, to allow both fast reading of the overall points and an in-depth analysis of all the details and diffs, without taking too much spatial real estate." That being said, assuming we continue with word limits for the time being, of course case subjects should be allowed to say more than evidence-presenters.
   c. This is a procedural point that merits discussion. I'm of two minds -- I'd like to allow a case party to respond to all accusations (even if the "clock" is expired), but I foresee the potential for such leeway to be gamed and argues upon endlessly so I'm not certain what exactly should be done.
   d. Arbitrators should be allowed, and even encouraged, to investigate things themselves and not rely solely on the evidence presented by participants!!! And if the Arbs think they find some evidence that is relevant to the case, of course they should present it. This isn't court and Arbs aren't judges -- this is arbitration and conflict-resolution. I'd much rather see an Arb present evidence on a case where they're active than see a case adjuciated based solely on the evidence presented which may present an inherent bias (negative evidence is naturally predominant). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Consider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:

   • Remove and redistribute tasks that are irrelevant to dispute resolution (such as functionary issues) and tasks that are perhaps too sensitive and stressful for anonymous, untrained volunteers (such as legal issues, privacy matters, off-wiki harassment, etc.)
   • Streamline ArbCom case procedures by:

   1. Requiring that, at the beginning of every case, ArbCom clearly state (in a question format), what issues they will address, and additionally require that ArbCom address only those issues in the final decision. A great problem right now is the tendency of cases to be chaotic and have little structure.
   2. Eliminating or tightly restricting the peanut galleries and focusing mostly on the actual case parties. The peanut galleries which show up at ArbCom cases are often the cause of much confusion, flamewars, and disruption (after all, people in a courtroom gallery are not permitted to just get up and start speaking—only the parties may speak).

   • Give first preference to topic bans (or even temporary blocks) over sitebans, unless the party in question clearly has broad behavioral problems that are not restricted to a particular topic area. There is a rather widespread perception that ArbCom is currently much too hasty in using the banhammer.
   • Mandate that all AE requests be left open for a minimum amount of time (let's just say 24 hours), to give the accused an opportunity to have their case heard by multiple administrators. Currently, any admin can instantly impose a unilateral and basically irreversible AE blocks, without letting any other admins consider the case. Obviously, this leaves the system rather wide open to abuse.
   • Make ArbCom more open by allowing ordinary users to propose motions, with the caveat that the motion will be considered dead and cannot be reconsidered if no arbitrator responds within a certain amount of time.

   Do you support these measures, and would you work to implement them if elected? If you do not support all of them, please specify which ones you do support.

   Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course, ArbCom's primary mandate should be to assist in resolving conflicts within the community where the community itself has proven unable to find resolution by itself. Stuff like CU-OS appointments could be handled by either bureaucrats or stewards. Appointments are already currently performed by Stewards upon ArbCom's recommendations, and I don't think shifting this from ArbCom fro Bureaucrats would be controversial, really. Reviewing functionary issues (block appeals, allegations of misuses, etc.) is already performed on the Functionary mailing list, and because individual Arbitrators are functionaries by definition, they're more than welcome to get involved, but I don't see it specifically as an ArbCom direct responsbility. If block appeals prove unsuccessful after the normal process (on-wiki > UTRS > functionaies), then I still think ArbCom has a crucial role to play as the "last resort" for appeals of indef-blocked users de facto banned by their failed appeals to the community.
   OTOH, WMF should always be the eventual handler of legal issues, privacy policy-related issues, and off-wiki harassement, etc. Although I don't personally think WMF always does a very good job at it. ArbCom's scope should remain limited to English Wikipedia. Of course, if a Wikipedia editor is proven to be engaged in off-wiki harassment (for example), ArbCom and/or the community can impose a well-justified ban of the user on English Wikipedia, but that's the extent of it, and stuff that goes beyond our project should always be referred to WMF.
   
   On streamlining:
   I'd be careful not to limit the process by trying to make it work in a one-size-fits-all format like "must be worded like a question", etc. but I do think ensuring a better focus on what issues we are attempting to resolve will avoid losing ourselves and the community in sprawling chaotic cases. Structure is important but a balance must be struck between structure and flexibility.
   Limiting comments for non-parties and uninvolved editors -- yes, yes, yes. This wraps back around to my earlier point that case parties should have more space (visual or word-wise) as they are the core of the issues we are trying to solve. Outside input can be good but should never overwhelm the voice of the those involved in the issue. Perhaps collapses, perhaps a sub-page, perhaps some other solution, I don't know, but the idea is certainly one I support.
   
   I've said it in earlier answers as well, but ArbCom (and admins in general) should always strive to impose the minimal sanction that still works, i.e. if a TBAN or IBAN can work, don't jump to a full ban. This is well-supported in Wikipedia's core pillars -- which also means we don't respond to IP vandalism with full-article-protection. Plus, I'm known to always AGF some WP:ROPE, so any TBAN can include a provision that it becomes a full-ban upon violation (immediately, or after escalation blocks, or whatever depending on the case)
   
   I've also talked above about my uneasiness with AE and empowering any admin to perform basically unrevertable actions, and I don't think a one-week minimum solves any of the issues I've outlined in my response to NVLibrarian above.
   
   Sure, I'd love to see the community introduce motions! Perhaps for a motion to require ArbCom to vote on in may need some general community support first though... I'm thinking maybe that by having it discussed on WP:AN first it may be refined and agreed upon. That being said, I'm not sure if any special rule or system really needs to be put in place -- if there is consensus on AN that a specific motion needs to be voted on by ArbCom, I think it'd be unreasonable for ArbCom to decline altogether, because after all we are meant to help enforce the community's will (and the policies they make). But clarifying that we have to respond to such AN-backed motions can't hurt and I'd be disappointed if there is pushback against the idea from Arbitrators.

2. Hi Salvidrim, thanks for running for Arbcom. My questions are about account security.
   What are your thoughts on the handling of the recent incident in which several administrator accounts were compromised? Do you think that technical or policy changes need to be made as a result? Also, are you confident in the security of your e-mail and Wikipedia accounts?

   Remember last year when my account and another admin's were accessed by a third party, and nothing happened (some talk, at best)? And this year it happened again first to Jimbo and Legoktm, the 2FA becomes a thing overnight? Anyways circumstances differ -- mine and OhanaUnited were just cross-referencing of passwords in leaked lists while this year seems to be actual password cracking. 2FA is an absolutely essential part of security and I think it's about damn time it becomes available here. There's a reason the principles of 2FA (something you know + something you have) have been applied by banks for decades (NIP + card). I guess I'd prefer if Wikimedia offered 2FA "in-house" like FB or Steam does instead of relying on third party TOTP clients, but the current system is still far better than no 2FA at all. I think 2FA should be available to all users but should be mandatory for at least CUs, Stewards, WMF staff and everyone else who could access user's private data. Of course, the moment it became available, I activated it, so yes I'm fairly confident about the security of my Wikimedia account (while recognizing that no system is impenetrable). As for my e-mail: it's using the most secure password I could ever possibly come up with, it's got 2FA, it's got identity verification (Microsoft Authenticator app), it's got security alerts, it's got every security feature that was available to me. People often underestimate how critically important your e-mail account is -- if someone breaks into your e-mail, it's game over, they can get to practically everything else through password resets. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Thanks for running. This year's ArbCom took very few cases and seems to have kept to deadlines more expeditiously. I think most everyone can agree that this was for the good. What do you think was the biggest mistake made by ArbCom in 2016? What letter grade (A to F) would you give their performance? What could they do better?

   I'm not going to assign an arbitrary grade. It's not helpful. Grading in general isn't helpful, IMO, and is especially unhelpful in contexts where you're attempting to grade judgement as opposed to, say, an academic test with absolute right ad wrong answers. Arguing over the differences between an A- and a B+ is losing ourselves in trivialities -- which is specifically one thing ArbCom should avoid. Less process-wanking, more problem-solving.
   
   As for "mistake", without singling out one specific event or vote, I think a general failing of past commitees is the apparent lack of proactivity in responding and working with willing banned editors attempting to return to editing. Dissmissal is a lot easier than rehabilitation. Of course, I'm talking about "apparent" lack because it's difficult to speak for certain about what really happened internally behind ArbCom's closed doors. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you read or post at Wikipediocracy? What is your opinion about this off-wiki criticism site? Do you feel it is a malicious venue for harassment or a positive tool for off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia's periodic problems or something in between these extremes?

   You already know the answer to the first question: I may read more than I post, but I do hang around WPO. I've expounded my thoughts last year already, but I hang around WPO for the same reason I hang around Wiki-related subreddits and FB groups, read Strelnikov and Mark Bernstein's blogs, follow Mark and Lightbreather and others on Twitter, am FB friends with a few banned users like T13 and Niemti, converse over IRC/discord with many editors (including Reguyla) -- I think it's important to listen to a variety of voices and thoughts, even those you disagree with. Being involved in an off-wiki venue that sometimes does bad (harassment, doxxing, etc.) and sometimes does good (criticism, pointing out errors, etc.) shouldn't be construed as wholesale endorsement of every thing that goes on, but merely reflects my own openness to dissenting opinions.
   Just recently, in addition to responding to comments on the reddit thread about this election (I've even ported and responded to one question here that came from this thread), I've also had a somewhat heated Twitter exchange with Mark over my answer to PeterTheFourth's question above, which lead to him making a blogpost about me (with me publicly commenting on said blogpost). Do I agree with everything Mark or redditors have said or done just because I engage them in discussion? Do I endorse their words or actions because I don't reject interaction? Am I an inherently bad person for even deigning to acknowledge their right to a voice and an opinion? No, no, and no. And I believe that openness to dialogue is appreciated by many people (1, 2, and so on), and I intend to continue listening and engaging with people on all possible venues. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Last year you withdrew for reasons stated. This year you appear to be vacillating again: "So this year, I'll take part again. However, I will not commit to withdrawing if there are enough adequate candidates to fill all seats; I still might, but I might decide to stick it out through to voting as well." Now that you're here, convince us you will stick around and not "recuse" if you don't fancy a particular case.

   Don't worry: I don't particularly WANT the position, but if there isn't a withdrawal before voting starts it means a strong, unwavering and informed commitment of my time and effort for the coming term if elected, without reserve.
   But unlike last year, this year's slate of candidates is made up entirely of good and great candidates, so there is little worry that a "bad apple" might slip through. All current candidates right now would probably earn my support vote. I'm reading carefully and thoroughly their answers to questions to see whether I'm 100% comfortable with any seven of them taking ArbCom seats or if I would be more at ease taking on the duties of a seat myself. I've never ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Case load is way down. Email volume is holding steady, but is still way down from its peak. ARCA requests are up slightly, but not too bad. Attention to this election is down compared to last year. We're slowly becoming irrelevant, and not in a bad way. Meanwhile, though, the most common community dispute resolution venue is ANI, with which there is long-standing and widespread dissatisfaction.

   I'm interested in your thoughts on the general state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. What do you think about this trend toward fewer cases? Do you have any ideas on how to improve the committee's efficiency at ARCA? What if anything can the committee do to help at ANI?

   I think it's the committee's role to "help at ANI". I think the community's right and duty to self-manage and self-police means the community should decide how to handle ANI. I see the slow obsoletion of ArbCom not as a failing of the committee but as a success of the community to handle more and more of their own issues without needing referral to ArbCom for adjuciation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4. What aspects of the committee's work do you expect to find most (or least) satisfying?

   I don't do this for my satisfaction. I don't expect that there is any satisfaction to be derived from delving and crawling in the stinkiest shit Wikipedia sees. But someone's gotta clean the bathroom, and if people think it can be a helpful investment of my time, then I'll invest my time there. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6. A similar question was asked by Worm That Turned last year, and I think it's a good one for those new to the committee. There's a long history of arbitrators being targeted by trolls and harassers, sometimes escalating to the point of outing, off-site abuse, and even interfering with arbitrators' real lives. Are you prepared for these possibilities?

   Sure. I don't care. Bring it. :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Many recent controversies have involved the public connection, onwiki or offwiki, of a person's real-life identity to their onwiki identity. (For example, many conflict of interest discussions hinge upon this). When do you believe that it is appropriate to make this connection and/or to discuss an editor's real identity, in both types of venues? Rschen7754 04:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I decline to answer this question in detail because my own thoughts on this are almost polar opposites to what the community has decided should stand as rules, and I will strive to do my best if elected to ArbCom to respect and enforce the position of the community and not inject my own infamous opinions on transparency and privacy into the arbitration process. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
   
   I'll leave a note here because I ended up addressing this topic after all in my responses to Doc James and GW, so you can read these. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Though much of the Arbitration Committee's past responsibilities regarding WP:CHILDPROTECT have been transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation, there remain cases where the Arbitration Committee (and occasionally oversighters) must make decisions and judgment calls surrounding child protection concerns or editors who are quite young. On Reddit, you have been very open about some things you've done in the past:
   
   Animal cruelty. I drowned a bird in the pool by holding it down until it stopped moving after it landed on the side of the pool. I was 7.
   I also coerced a neighbour kid into touching each other's willies (we were both 9) under the threat of violence. It was a one-time thing and we remained buddies afterwards and never spoke of it nor did anything of the sort ever happen again.
   Also a ton of food theft from whatever (food) my parents tried to stash out of my reach although that's hardly "criminal" per se.
   (edit: sp)
   Source: your comment on "What's the worst crime you ever commited before you turned ten?"
   
   Do you feel you can be trusted with these responsibilities given your (in my opinion) unapologetic discussion of your past actions? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for digging through my Reddit comment history (sorry for how uninteresting most of it probably is :p)
   I don't feel any of the volunteers on current or past ArbComs are qualified to handled matters of child protection, and I certainly don't hold myself in any higher regard. I strongly wish that real qualified experts from the WMF would be responsive and responsible for the entirety of these issues. Misbehaviour as a child hardly makes me uniquer amongst Wikimedians and I don't hold the belief that anyone's behaviour as a child defines the rest of their lives. I've always advocated transparency and will continue do so, leading by example -- I don't shy away from my flaws or past experiences. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4. You also commented in that Reddit thread:
   
   I heard animal cruelty and sexual misbehaviour in youth are on the infamous "psychopathy checklist". In fact, I tick most boxes on most versions of said checklists. I also fit neatly in the common definitions of both the "narcissism" and "ISTJ" boxes. Trying to categorize human psyche is stupid.
   This reads like a biography to me: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Psychopathy_in_the_workplace :p
   Source: your comment on "What's the worst crime you ever commited before you turned ten?"
   
   Given the Psychopathy in the workplace#Behavioural patterns section of that article in particular, how do you expect to work successfully with your arbitrator colleagues given that you identify these behaviors in yourself? How will your presence improve the Arbitration Committee as a whole, particularly given "Examples of detrimental effects are increased bullying, conflict, stress, staff turnover and absenteeism; reduction in productivity and social responsibility."? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't pretend to be an expert in either psychology nor the human mind's inner workings (mine or otherwise). Saying that this article "read like a biography" was quite an exaggeration made in a Reddit thread and probably shouldn't be taken as a literal confession -- like many online commenters, I'm prone to making high-impact statements on Reddit that surpass reality a bit (come on, it's reddit); sometimes my longing to appear as a rebellious devil-may-care badass leads me to embellish my boring reality a bit (which is, I'll admit, somewhat narcissistic). In my workplace I work extremely well with my colleagues, going above and beyond expectations despite being little more than a paperwork and aftersale guy. Looking specifically at Psychopathy in the workplace#Behavioural patterns, none of the bullet points are traits I really associate with myself, perhaps except the absence of regret -- I do my best never to regret past actions; mistakes can be acknowledged, learnt from and corrected, but regret itself seems counter-productive to me, as opposed to correction and moving on. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6. This is a follow-up question to part 1 of your answer to Doc James' question, though his concerns are more to do with paid editing, and mine are to do with privacy (and not meant to be considered in the context of paid editing, though of course feel free to comment on that if you wish). There are some very black-and-white situations where I understand your stance: for example, someone (I think in good faith) once made an on-wiki link to my Twitter account where I was discussing Wikipedia matters and had identified myself as GorillaWarfare, but they could have been accused of outing under our harassment policy as I had not made the link on Wikipedia to my Twitter account. This would have been silly (though I suppose there was the possibility the Twitter account was impersonation), and I wound up posting somewhere onwiki to make the link myself so that the person would not be unfairly, though technically correctly, accused of outing.
   
   However, there are more nuanced situations involving publicly available information that I'd like to hear your opinions on. I hear your point below, where you say you will follow the community's policies even if they are at odds with your own opinions. I'm asking for your own opinions on these situations, not how you would enforce them according to current policy.
   
   a. Some people accidentally make links that could uncover quite a bit of information about them. This can come in many forms. A few, though hardly all, possibilities: reusing unique usernames across multiple platforms, publicly linking to another account that that they did not realize could be connected with accounts they did not intend to link, forgetting about old accounts that reuse usernames/email addresses/etc. and contain more identifying information than they wish to reveal onwiki, uploading images with revealing Exif data, or having their email addresses connected to other usernames in account information dumps that were published publicly. Is this fair game? If not, where do you draw the line?
   
   b. When using publicly available information as you have described, how would you account for the risk that someone is creating fake accounts using an editor's information to try to incriminate said editor?
   
   c. What are your opinions on publicly-available information that is revealed by someone other than the editor in question? I can give two personal examples: When I was doxxed a number of years ago, a fair amount of information (including photos of myself and family members) was pulled from a relative's Facebook account. Despite my attempts to secure my own accounts on any and all websites I could think of, my relative did not have strict privacy settings and therefore a lot of personal information about myself and my family was revealed. Second, a friend of mine with a public Instagram account once posted a photograph of a sunset from my apartment window, geotagging me and mentioning my Instagram username, which I reuse elsewhere. Although my Instagram is private, someone could feasibly have found my username mentioned in my friend's public account, seen the geotag, and discovered fairly exactly where I live.GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   What I call "sleuthing" involves mostly, as you've said, comparing usernames and e-mails, checking WHOIS information and some geolocalisation. However, anything that isn't confirmed by the user themselves can only be used to make guesses and assumptions; it could always be joe jobs. However, SPI is almost entirely made up of such assumptions based on similar usernames, recurrent use of certain speech patterns and other behavioural cues, and yet nobody bats an eye on that sleuthing.
   
   And in the era we live in, I don't think anybody can be accused of misdeed simply for collating publicly available information, whether it's Instagram geotags, business registries, court records or Facebook relationships. If relatives published public photos of you without your consent, I don't see how someone pointing it out suddenly makes it ArbCom's business; you might have grounds for asking FB to take it down or even sue the user who uploaded the photo, but ArbCom doesn't have control over Facebook photo uploads and shouldn't be called to action because someone pointed out some public picture, or someone uploaded a publicly geotagged picture inside your home. What is done with the collected information can very easily veer into the territory of harassment and that should be dealt with as such, of course, as was the intent in your doxxing case. While I don't really see many ways that the publishing of collected public data like in your case could be for any purpose other than harassement, it is the harassment I take exception to, not the data collection itself, and that nuance is an important one to make especially in the context of deciding whether investigating paid editing cases is a violation of WP:OUTING.
   
   This is my opinion, and I don't shy away from my history of anti-privacy advocacy (don't have secrets and they can't be weaponized against you). Internet users must be responsible for the privacy settings they choose for their own accounts and must be conscious about the impact of what they post on them and their friends, this is one of the biggest challenges of the spread of social media, conscientizing and responsibilizing. But that's what I think and what I'd argue on a personal basis -- as an Arbitrator my own views matter little, and what is truly important is the community's decision on what WP:OUTING allows and disallows, and ArbCom must adjuciate based on the community's wishes, not based on individual arbitrator's own beliefs and ideologies. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8. Follow-up to question 3, I guess, since you say "I don't really see many ways that the publishing of collected public data like in your case could be for any purpose other than harassement": What if I were the same exact editor I am now, but add on the hypothetical situation where some people believe that I am operating an account on a freelancing website with the username "GorillaWarfare" which writes articles on companies for some fee. This freelance account uses a photo of me that looks like the person in the photo on my userpage, claims to operate some named Wikipedia account that is fairly competent at creating articles about businesses and maybe even writes kind of like me, and claims that they operate a private Instagram account with the same username as I use on Twitter. Since I (User:GorillaWarfare, not this hypothetical freelancer) publicly state that I live in Boston and have linked to my Twitter account that shares the same name as this Instagram account, in your anti-privacy opinion would it be okay for someone to post this friend's public geotagged photo mentioning the private Instagram account onwiki as an attempt to identify my paid editing in violation of the ToU? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:

   1. Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private?
   2. Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?

   --18:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

   "Sufficiently" secure is a matter of opinion -- what is "sufficiently" secure for someone might not be for someone else, and nothing is perfectly secure. Any ArbCom e-mail is only ever as secure as Gmail/Hotmail/whatever arbitrators use and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the mailing list archives are even easier to breach. If someone really wants to get into your e-mail, or ArbCom's, they'll probably be able to; I don't pretend to be an expert in encryption matters but I have enough common sense not to be lulled into a false sense of security, everything's hackable. The best we do can is make sure is to make it as hard as possible for non-expert hackers by enabling 2FA and having a strong password, which every Arb (at least) should have on their e-mail... but you "verify" that? The only real way for it to be really controllable would be to host e-mails for functionaries (including Arbs) on WMF servers but I don't think this'll ever happen. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. In relation to the recent 'Arbcom case' which saw my eventual de-sysopping and active sanctions against me, would you accept a case in which dozens of individuals had been canvassed and encouraged to contribute, all of whom had been notified because they had been in conflict with the subject for one reason or another over the past decade?

   About your specific case: obviously something was going wrong but I don't think accepting the case "as is" was the best decision. Specifically, I think I'd side mostly with DQ's point -- decline a TRM case (perhaps while alternatively proposing a motion for a TRM<>George Ho IBAN) while specifically allow a new filing for "Interactions at DYK/ITN". OTOH, while several Arbitrators mentioned avoiding "double jeopardy" for stuff you were already evaluated on in the Jan. 2016 case, there had been some continued "incivility" (FoF#5) after a warning that further invincibility would lead to sanctions. Because of this prior warning, it is understable that ArbCom would feel it was bound to examine the post-Jan.2016 evidence and take action on it (or risk rendering the prior warning void of meaning).
   
   About the broader issue of canvassing, it's difficult to strike a balance between "inviting comments from the broader community" and "disallowing canvassed comments". Perhaps a solution might be not to allow parties to canvass other users but instead they should request to the clerks that so-and-so be poked towards the case and the clerks can decide whether to post something or not, as well as how to word it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it? What is the line between incivility and harassment?

   The line between incivility and harassment is one of the thickest, greyest areas of our age. In general, I tend to think of "being rude" without specifically targetting someone (ex. "ANI is a fucking cesspool of shit-slinging") isn't very cordial but well-within anybody's right to criticize and the choice to use vulgarity instead of flowery language isn't an issue in my eyes. As for commenitng specifically about someone, again in general, I'd draw the line between comments on someone's words or actions and comments about who someone is (ex. I can say you're acting like an asshole but not that you're a retard). Of course, it's hard to make generalizations: even the smallest of comments can inscribe itself into a larger pattern of harassment, and even the vilest of insults doesn't necessarily lead to sanctions. Every word is said in a larger context. As for myself, as many have noted in their voter guides, I can be blunt and sometimes rude/vulgar (which can be considered incivil), but that's a far step from even coming close to harassment. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4. Wikipedia relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to Wikipedia in part due to its countercultural nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals through formal programs in GLAM institutions, universities, and government agencies. This is perhaps causing some angst that if workplace standards of decorum are enforced on Wikipedia, existing editors will be driven out. How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on Wikipedia with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?

   There shouldn't be "different standards of conduct" on Wikipedia. Professionals should be encourages to contribute and I highly value expert contributions but there is no reason that any single editor should be held to different rules. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6. More specifically, let's say a professional at one of these institutions complains to ArbCom that another editor is using uncivil language that violates their organizations' internal rules, and thus their engagement with Wikipedia is jeopardizing their job. What considerations would go into ArbCom resolving such a case?

   None, the internal rules of the professional's organization is not something English Wikipedia should have to "take care of" in any way; every volunteer should be held to the same standard on-wiki. If your real life prevents you in some way from contributing to Wikipedia (family, health, work, school, whatever), then step away -- your real life should always be a higher priority than contributing to an online project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8. Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press in the past. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles?

   Nobody has a "responsibility" in correcting journalists when they publish inaccuracies about Wikipedia, except for their editor-in-chief. Shit coverage of Wikipedia in media happens daily and will continue happening. ArbCom publishing what they did to "clarify" the situation surrounding the GG-proposed-decision was not a good move, especially so because the whole GG thing claimed to be related to issues in journalism and in Wikipedia bias. On the other hand, any editor is welcome to e-mail the editors of any media venue that publishes inaccuracies about Wikipedia, but ArbCom as a body shouldn't. At best, if there is ever a compelling reason to, a clerk or arbitrator in their own name could post some clarifications. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

   My personal thoughts are two-fold:
   
   1) I've long been an anti-privacy advocate (preaching by example at http://salvidrim.net) and as such, I've never been particularly opposed to "sleuthing" and collecting publicly available data in other to identify who's-who. Doxxing by hacking, social engineering and other such underhanded means is a big step farther than what I'm willing to endorse, however. For these reasons, I find that connecting the real-life identity of a Wikipedia editor with their account is a much less abhorrent and repulsive thing to do than many other people in the community. I'm not proposing anything specific w/r/t Wikipedia but I wish the general pulse of Internet users tended more towards transparency than privacy.
   
   2) OTOH, I've never had any opposition to "paid editing" in and of itself (disclosed or not), as long as it respects other content rules such as NPOV, promotion, copyright et al. An experienced editor offering to contract their services against payment should IMO be encouraged and not vilified, as long as they are mindful of the rules. Most of these "contractual" editors actually produce higher quality content than most people trying to edit about themselves or their own business.
   
   I fully recognize that these are somewhat at odds with the policies and rules the community has set in place for itself, though, and if called to adjudicate on the topic as an Arbitrator I would hold the community's will far above my own. But if I were to get involved as a community member in discussion and consultation about the topic of paid editing, the above points would sum up the essential of my thoughts and what argents I'd present.
   
   
   As for the ToU, it's a policy like any other page in Category:Wikipedia legal policies. ArbCom's role, amongst other things, is to make sure the community-defined (and WMF-defined) policies are respected over the course and as a result of dispute adjuciation. Daily enforcement of policy is within the hands of admins (whether they are also functionaries or not) but when said enforcement of policy becomes a dispute that the community is incapable of resolving, ArbCom may be called to adjuciate on the proper enforcement and application of said policies. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. You have stated that you believe it isn't inappropriate to use 'flowery language' in discussions on Wikipedia. I see two issues with this that I would very much like feedback on. The first is that this language has been shown to deter new editors from engaging with the encyclopedia. It has also previously been given as one of the main reasons women don't edit. If you are deciding whether or not another user was behaving inappropriately towards another, would you take this into account? Secondly, my personal feelings on the appropriateness of COI/paid editing aside, you stated above Professionals should be encourages to contribute and I highly value expert contributions but there is no reason that any single editor should be held to different rules. and An experienced editor offering to contract their services against payment should IMO be encouraged and not vilified, as long as they are mindful of the rules - I hope we can all agree that we shouldn't change any rules to accommodate these users, but if 'fuck' and 'asshole' are perfectly acceptable terms when used by volunteers, but completely out of the question for any editor who is attached to a professional body (including GLAM) - how would you suggest heated exchanges be dealt with when one party is being subjected to this, but has no recourse to do so much as reply in kind? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   If you were deciding whether or not another user was behaving inappropriately towards another editor, would you take (language) into account? – Absolutely. While I make the argument that using "flowery language" as you say does not by itself constitute a problem, it can certainly inscribe itself into a larger pattern of harassment. In fact, literally everything can be used as a form of harassment with enough malice and ill intent. What matters is the broader context, not the individual words and actions. How would you suggest heated exchanges (between unaffiliated volunteers and those held to higher professional standards such as GLAM) be dealth with? (Paraphrasing mine) – If it's just the level of a language, then I suppose it can be dealt with the same way as any other interaction where one party can swear and the other not (such as customer service, etc.); as long as the free-mouthed party's swearing doesn't turn into directed insults (and doesn't inscribe itself into a larger pattern of harassment), I don't think there are any intrisic issues with it and the other party can simply keep responding at their chosen (or imposed) higher level of language.  Ben – Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]