THC Science

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions[edit]

What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
I have been very heavily involved with Wikimedia for several years now, in many different roles: editor, proofreader, administrator, oversighter, and developer. I strongly believe that the Wikimedia projects are Good Things, and I think that my interest in keeping them this way will reflect in any decisions I make as an arbitrator. I am level-headed and eager to listen to multiple sides of a conflict, and I am willing to fess up to and apologize for my mistakes.
What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
My experience with Wikipedia's dispute resolution is, frankly, limited. I have never been involved in any arbitration case, and my input on AN and ANI is extremely infrequent. I was involved in the Manning naming dispute, but my involvement was limited to the talk pages and not to the dispute resolution case(s). Much of my dispute resolution experience actually comes from my role as a channel operator in several Wikipedia-related IRC channels, where I deal with anyone from outright trolls to upset subjects of BLPs.
Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
This is a tricky question to answer, as sanctions are so dependent upon the various factors involved in the case. If I had to pick a side, I would guess I would err towards more leniency, but even as I type this I'm thinking of a lot of conditions: I'm quick to lose my good faith in repeat offenders. I'd be more willing to support de-sysoppings than bans, as administrators are expected to be particularly trustworthy and rational.
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
I don't have much in terms of off-wiki COIs that would affect my work as an arbitrator. I suppose in the event that a case arose that involved my place of work, school, or some other entity with which I have strong involvement, I would have a conflicting interest, but I don't think that's likely. In terms of on-wiki disputes, I would acknowledge a conflict of interest when it came to articles to which I was a major contributor. I would also have a conflict when it came to cases regarding close friends, and cases regarding people with whom I had had major conflicts.
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
No. I am a college student, and my schoolwork comes first, but I would not be running if I didn't anticipate having enough time to handle both of these commitments.
Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
I think the Infoboxes case was handled relatively well. This was an example of a long-term issue where other forms of dispute resolution had failed. The case was handled quickly, and the remedies were reasonable. On the other hand, the Tea Party case was not handled terribly well. Although suspending the case to allow the community discussion to take place may have been an admirable decision at the time, it only served to further draw out an already excessively long case. Regardless of whether the break is counted, a 5–6-month-long case is much too long.
The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
It's difficult to assess this trend as good or bad without really knowing the root cause. If there are fewer issues that escalate to the point where intervention by the Arbitration Committee is necessary, then that's a good thing. If cases are escalating but being refused or if arbitration isn't being requested, then that's bad. In terms of criteria to accept a case, I would follow the standard Arbitration policy: disputes that haven't been resolved through other methods, cases involving private information, cases to do with removal of administrative/CU/OS tools, and ban/block appeals.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
As someone who has always tried to conduct her Wikipedia-related business on-wiki, I would love to see more of ArbCom's decisions and processes transparently explained on-wiki. Although I recognize that sensitive data cannot be shared publicly, the Committee should work to agree on a statement that informs the community as much as possible on the decision.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
I feel like ArbCom's role with in the project is appropriate, and that responsibilities are properly divided.
It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
The Arbitration Committee does not (and has not, at least to my knowledge) explicitly create new policies or dramatically change existing ones. However, ArbCom decisions influence policy discussions and enforcement, so the broader impact of policy interpretation should be carefully considered when making decisions. I am not of the opinion that ArbCom should begin creating or changing policy. Content disputes also should not be decided by the Committee, and again, I don't believe they have been in the past. I would want any changes to either of these things to be put to discussion by the larger community.
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
As with any other policy, ArbCom is responsible for following the BLP policy when it comes up. Although BLPs are particularly sensitive, it is not up to ArbCom to decide how to handle them—this is a policy decision better left to the community.
Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
I currently have access to the oversighter tool, which I use for edits that meet the suppression criteria. If elected, I will also request the checkuser tool. I believe I have (or can learn) the technical skills necessary to use the tool, and would use it for sockpuppetry cases.
Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
I have already been pretty thoroughly outed, as a consequence of some interest arising from the the 2011 fundraising banners. That said, I recognize that it's almost always possible to be outed more, and have considered that possibility when deciding whether to present myself as a candidate.
Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
I think private information retained by ArbCom should have an expiry date. If this non-public information is repeatedly used, it's clearly valuable to retain it. If the information is just collecting dust after a period of a year or two, it should be purged. The less information that's retained, the better, so as to minimize the potential for damage. On the other hand, removing this data immediately after addressing the issue would most likely create more work for the Committee whenever a repeat offender surfaced.
Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
The Arbitration Committee should not take action against a user without explaining why they are doing so. This doesn't have to involve sharing, say, the raw checkuser data, but it should be very clearly explained to the user. More leeway can be taken when it comes to sharing this evidence with the community, although again, as much should be explained as possible. In some cases (child protection, for example), not sharing some information may be necessary to minimize harm.

Individual questions[edit]

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Tryptofish[edit]

What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?
I think that, at least so far, that draft is a reasonable compromise between the expectation of privacy and the need for transparency.

Questions by Sven Manguard[edit]

What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation?
Motions are used when a full ArbCom case is not necessary, or in cases where urgent action is necessary. Non-emergency motions should be used only when the outcome is particularly obvious—more contentious situations should not be resolved by motion. Urgent motions should be used only if a situation requires quick action, and should be reviewed soonafter.
When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
ArbCom should not overrule consensus that has been reached by the community. If the community is unable to reach consensus on an issue, this issue should be assessed like any other case for whether it should be brought to ArbCom. I can't broadly say that ArbCom should or should not step in, as the details of the case would affect this.
Please identify a few motions from 2013 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
Let's see... I feel the motion in which Mathsci was blocked was completely appropriate. The interaction ban had already been placed, and the eventual result of this motion was pretty clear. The motion on CU/OS inactivity seemed fine as well, although I can understand why some people opposed a motion that didn't really change anything. Still, I'm generally in favor of more clarity over less, so it seemed like a reasonable motion.
In my quick recap of this year's motions, I really wasn't able to identify any that I would consider "inappropriate". I disagreed with some aspects of the Sandifer case, as I outline below.
The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.
In terms of the outcome: I do think that desysopping Sandifer was reasonable in this situation. Administrators hold a higher position of trust than non-administrators, and violating this trust by outing another user is grounds for desysopping. I think the ban required more justification than was initially provided, particularly because of the lack of precedent.
In terms of the process: I feel like ArbCom was correct in its decision to take the case. The case was clearly going to be contentious from the start, as would any case involving potential offsite outing by an administrator, and not taking the case would have been troubling. I also feel that individual arbitrators' engagement with the community following the decision was admirable; many hours were clearly spent explaining the decision process. I feel like the decision to desysop Sandifer alone would have been made appropriately via motion, but the decision to ban preferably should have taken place as a full case. Because of this discrepancy, I would have preferred to see ArbCom open a full case.
In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?
I think that it was completely appropriate for ArbCom members to explain their decisions. The alternative would have been far worse, with the implication that arbitrators can secretively make decisions and then refuse to discuss them. Although there are limits to what ArbCom members can discuss without violating privacy, I think it's very reasonable to expect some sort of explanation. As far as fueling the fire, I think engaging the community on this is acceptable to a point. I'm convinced that some Wikipedia discussions would go on forever if one party didn't decide it was time to step back and recognize that the two parties may not agree. I don't there should be any expectation that ArbCom must defend its decision until all criticism stops; rather members should engage in discussion until it's clear that nothing productive can come from it.
Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
I do believe that some ArbCom business should take place via email. I can see the benefit to using email, particularly in the early stages of a case, to hash out decisions without the concern of accidentally misspeaking. That said, I'm also strongly in favor of transparency, and I do think that the discussions leading up to a decision should be explained as thoroughly as possible on-wiki.
The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.
- If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?

- If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?

- All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?

I suppose I should make this clear: I support increased transparency, but am not going to singlehandedly bring about that change. If the rest of the committee is unwilling to make public some information, I'm not going to violate their wishes for the sake of transparency; this would be an unacceptable breach of privacy. Instead I would try to come to an agreement on which information could and could not be made public, and carefully consider and discuss any parts with which I disagreed.

Question from Mark Arsten[edit]

What is your opinion of paid editing? What should be the community's response to this practice?
I feel like there's a significant difference between paid editing and paid advocacy editing. I think it's completely acceptable to edit Wikipedia as part of your work: see, for example, User:Dominic and other Wikipedians-in-Residence. In fact, this is something I do myself—I make edits as part of work for a research lab with my User:NEU-Molly account. Where paid editing becomes an issue is when users try to edit to promote a subject. Although I don't personally believe that paid editing of an article with which you have a conflict of interest is immediately condemnable, it's completely unacceptable to break policies and the Terms of Use to try to achieve this goal. When this happens, the community should step in to prevent these editors from harming the project.

Questions from Sceptre[edit]

Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in Sexology, the massive embarrassment of the Manning dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?
Changes to how we treat LGBT-related articles will primarily come from community-driven policy changes, not ArbCom decisions. Although I will continue to support changes to policies to clarify how these subjects should be discussed, this is not something I would anticipate being part of my work with the Arbitration Committee.
In the third example given above regarding the undeletion of a libellous BLP, what role did you have in the arbcom-l/oversight-l discussion?
I was not a member of any discussion involving this.

Question from User:SirFozzie[edit]

First off, thank you for volunteering. I'm curious to get your thoughts on how Wikipedia has changed, community and dispute-wise, in the last seven years you've been editing here, and if it's for the better, or the worse in different ways.. SirFozzie (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could answer this question more adeptly, but although I have had an account on Wikipedia since 2006, I did not begin to get heavily involved until 2010. I would not say a whole lot has changed in those past three years, community- or dispute-wise. We as a community continue to struggle to attract and retain new users, but whether this has gotten worse or just feels worse because I'm more aware of it, I do not know.

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
Although 2 1/2 months is not an unacceptable amount of time for particularly involved cases, I don't see any reason that this particular case would have been so complex so as to require that amount of time. That said, I'm not privy to any of the email discussion, so I could be completely unaware of some issue that was discussed off-wiki.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
a) WikiProjects are spaces in which Wikipedians with shared interests can collaborate on articles and more generally improve the encyclopedia's coverage of that subject area. Some WikiProjects are relatively informal, while others have very detailed assessment criteria and notability or style guides.
b) Although WikiProjects can create their own guidelines for style, notability, and other things, they cannot declare one of these to be policy without community input. As such, they should not be attempting to enforce any of these as policy. Furthermore, WikiProjects need to be careful to accept "outsiders" who wish to edit articles that fall within the scope of the WikiProject—any attempt to limit editing of these articles to a select few would naturally be inappropriate.
c) If a WikiProject's views conflicted with the larger communities views on a subject, the community would be remiss to ignore the expertise of the members of this WikiProject. The best solution would be a discussion between the members of the conflict in which disagreements could be settled. However, community consensus does, in the end, trump more local WikiProject consensus.
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
There have been problems in the past that I think can be attributed to "vested contributors," yes. These, like anything else, should be handled on a case-by-case basis. I am of the firm belief that everyone should be held to the same standard, regardless of their past contributions to the project.
a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
I tend to be wary of placing blame on mitigating circumstances. Idealist though it may be, contributors to this project should be civil and reasonable to one another, despite how others may be acting towards them.
zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
ArbCom should accept a case related to abuse of administrator tools when there is evidence that such abuse occurred. This abuse could be acting as an involved admin, wheel-warring, or continually making administrator actions that contradict community norms. "Conduct unbecoming of an administrator" is a bit more loosely-defined, but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As administrators are trusted with a larger set of tools, they should also be expected to act in a way that proves they deserve this trust. Particularly egregious offenses that I would anticipate always accepting would be things such as suspicions of sockpuppetry or outing.
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
ArbCom has stated in the past that it has no "jurisdiction" over other Wikimedia sites, Wikimedia-related IRC channels, or external websites. That said, the Phil Sandifer and Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Ironholds arbitration cases were cases where actions taken on external sites and IRC were considered. I feel that there is a lot of confusion among the community as to what is and is not taken into consideration when cases involving these things arise, and this is something the Committee and the community should seek to clarify.
What is your definition of "outing"?
Posting personal information about another user when this user hadn't already made this information known on-wiki. This also applies to posting of links to a user's web presences elsewhere, or posting links to this type of information where it is published off-wiki.
What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
I feel the CU/OS tools are used relatively sparingly, and with respect to users' privacy. I also think that the AUSC and Ombudsman Commission are good steps towards maintaining checks on the use of these tools.
Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
I have not been particularly involved in any content disputes, nor have I mediated them. I think that many content disputes are not amicably resolved because of the unwillingness of participants to accept other points of view. Whether this is due to existing opinions on the subject, miscommunications, or pure stubbornness can depend on the dispute.
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
I would like to see ArbCom become less necessary. The more that the community can avoid and resolve the disputes that currently are ending up at ArbCom, the better. That said, I think there is a long way to go before this is achievable.
Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
I have read the proposal, and I am able and willing to meet the requirements.

Thank you. Rs chen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect[edit]

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.

An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
I don't agree that sanctions are inevitable once a case has been opened. Highly likely, yes, as cases not requiring sanctions tend not to make it to ArbCom. That said, if the arbitrators agree that sanctions will not improve the situation at hand, there is absolutely no reason to impose sanctions just for the sake of it.
Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?
Yes, there should be findings about the conduct that led to the sanctions. Sanctions should not be imposed without clear evidence of misconduct.
Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?
I will always read and weigh the information presented on evidence and workshop pages.
Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
Former cases and decisions should be considered to guide future cases, but they should not be treated as binding.
The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
The Five Pillars represent the core of the community and policies here, and are thus directly important to Wikipedia. I would not be immediately opposed to them being used in committee findings, although I think it would almost always be clearer to cite more specific policies.
Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
I feel like this question overlaps with general question #11. As I said there, ArbCom is responsible for upholding the BLP policy when it comes to BLPs, in addition to various other policies when they are relevant. These issues should be weighed as any other policy violations.
"Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
Factionalism is a problem on Wikipedia, yes. ArbCom should not make decisions purely based on the existence of factions, but should definitely be aware when factions exist and are affecting a case. Special care must be taken to be sure that all sides of the case are being carefully evaluated.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus[edit]

(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?
A site ban is more appropriate than a limited ban when the user is completely unable to follow the community policies and guidelines, regardless of which articles they are editing or users they are interacting with.
wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)
Most of the time, by the time a user has reached the point where a full ban is being discussed, these promises are wearing thin. It's definitely possible to for a user who has been banned to return to the site to edit constructively, but care should be taken to determine that these promises are sincere. When a user is banned, we are sending the "you are not welcome here" message. When a user's request to be unbanned is declined, even after the user has promised to help, we are sending the "we do not believe the community will benefit from your involvement at this time" message.
to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to...?)
Perhaps it's just because I'm not very familiar with legalese, but I can't think of a comparable term.
The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?
I don't think I have enough background knowledge on the U.S. legal system to answer this question, and I'm not really sure how it's relevant.
a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
I agree with your overall sentiment that it's important to consider whether bans/blocks will help or hurt the encyclopedia. I'm a little concerned, however, about the "if I don't ban the editor, will the encyclopedia lose valuable content?" point. I don't support the idea that productive content editors should be exempt from rules about civility, etc.
I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.
I already disclose these things. I am strongly opposed, however, to the idea that this should be a requirement.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Gerda Arendt[edit]

Thank you for volunteering.

Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox is moved from a navigation box at the bottom of the article to the top of the article. One of the images is moved into the infobox, although the image syntax is broken in the process.
You observed well. - Question 2 of 3: imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like I can answer the question, as it would depend so heavily on the rest of the case.
You might have said that would ask the one why, no? Last question: imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, and an equal number of arbs voted against it, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. Will you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend heavily on the rest of the case.
Sorry, I should have asked more generally: would you cast the decisive vote to ban in any case (assuming you lean toward it, otherwise of course not, or would you never lean toward it?)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would be willing to cast the decisive vote. That said, I would put a lot of thought into banning a user when the Committee was so heavily divided on the issue.

Like your answer, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:MONGO[edit]

Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.
I have had two articles to which I was a primary contributor promoted to GA: Epic Meal Time and The Satanic Bible. I haven't really kept up with Epic Meal Time, but while I was involved, I worked with User:Yankees76 on the article. You can see some of this in the discussions on Talk:Epic Meal Time. We disagreed sometimes, and he felt I was nitpicky sometimes, but I think the end result was quite good. I didn't really work with anyone on The Satanic Bible, except for a few contributions here and there, and the GA review.

Question from User:Worm That Turned[edit]

Firstly, please accept my apologies for adding to the list of questions! I'm one of the less controversial arbitrators but even I have had my writing twisted, my honesty questioned, my personality derided. I've been the target of unpleasant emails and real life actions. Other arbitrators have been subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?
I have indeed; the harassment and abuse that can come from being on the Committee is something I have thought about quite a lot. Although I am always willing to discuss my actions, decisions, and words with people who raise reasonable concerns, I am also prepared to ignore those who cannot be reasoned with. As far as real-life harassment goes, I am somewhat familiar with it from the fundraising banners. Although I do not look forward to more harassment, I am prepared to handle it.

Question from User:HectorMoffet[edit]

The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007.

This decline has been documented extensively:

In our own "Editor Trends Study"
In popular media ("Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore")
In scholarly literature ("How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline")

This raises several questions:

Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?
Yes, this is a problem. I would challenge the assertion that "the bulk of our work is done": the project is continuing to grow, but the size of its active editor community is not. This stretches the community very thin.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?
From my experiences with new users, it seems like many of them stop contributing because of two things: the complexity of contributing to Wikipedia, and poor experiences with the editing community. The community needs to work to help new users understand our policies and guidelines, and be understanding if they make a mistake.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?
The Foundation should continue to encourage new editors, through outreach and software improvements. They should also be careful, particularly when it comes to software improvements, to continue to support the existing editor communities.
Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?
ArbCom is not the group that should be focusing on editor retention and outreach.

Question from Carrite[edit]

Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?
I think the idea of Wikipediocracy is a good one: a website that offers criticism of Wikipedia. That said, I don't feel like that actually describes the site in practice. Wikipediocracy seems to have a large number of vocal contributors who are blocked or banned from Wikipedia, and they seem to enjoy using that site to discuss their grudges. Although some of the criticism is constructive, I think much of it is just hateful and baseless. I also strongly disagree with the idea that doxing users is acceptable, funny, or productive.
I don't think that Wikipedia should "do anything about" Wikipediocracy, as the site is not under WMF control. I think that ArbCom needs to clarify its stance on off-wiki outing, as there have been a number of times in the past where it has come up and the response has been inconsistent.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from iantresman[edit]

How important do you think is transparency and accountability for Admins and Arbitrators, bearing in mind that: (a) Checkuser and Oversight have no public logs, even though we could say who accesses these features (without necessarily giving compromising information)? (b) ArbCom has its own off-site discussion area.
Transparency and accountability is very important, although not at the expense of privacy. Arbitrators, functionaries, and admins should try to explain their decisions as clearly as possible.
I see lots of ArbCom cases where editors contribute unsubstantiated acusations without provided diffs, and often provide diffs that don't backup the allegations. Do you think ArbCom should do anything about it? (ie. strike though allegations without diffs).
ArbCom should be sure to evaluate the diffs when coming to a decision, and ask for clarification when necessary. If the allegations are unsupported even after diffs are requested, they should be struck.
Incivility on Wikipedia is rife. Sometimes it is ambiguous and subjective. But where it is clear, why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?
Could you clarify this question? I don't know what you mean by "why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?" Are you asking if I think enough is done? Or my opinion on how it's upheld?
Editors whose username lets them be identified easily in real life, are frequently subjected to "oppositional research" by anonymous editors who can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY. Do you think this double standard is fair, and should anything be done?
Posting of personal information on-wiki is outing, and should be dealt with appropriately. That said, I do think that editors who are well-known elsewhere should be careful about their choice of username if they're concerned.
I see lots of ArbCom cases where Arbitrators appear to ignore the comments of the editors involved. Do you think that basic courtesies should require Arbitrators to make more than just an indirect statement, and actually address the points being made?
Arbitrators should be expected to read and consider all comments and evidence to do with a case. That said, I do not think that all comments and evidence needs to be directly addressed in a statement.

Question from Bazonka[edit]

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?
I attended Wikimania 2012, and occasionally attend meetups in my area. I also meet up occasionally with Wikimedians who I also consider to be personal friends. I do not anticipate this changing, regardless of whether I am elected.

Question from user:Ykantor[edit]

Should "Petit crimes" be sanctioned? and how ?
The present situation is described as User:Wikid77#Wiki opinions continued says: "some acting as "inter-wikicity gangs" with limited civility (speaking euphemistically)...Mob rule: Large areas of wikis are run by mobocracy voting. Numerous edit wars and conflicts exist in some highly popular groups of articles, especially in recent events or news articles. In those conflicts, typically 99% of debates are decided by mob rule, not mediated reason...Future open: From what I've seen, the Wiki concept could be extended to greatly improve reliability, but allow anonymous editing of articles outside a screening phase, warning users to refer to the fact-checked revision as screened for accuracy (this eventually happened in German Wikipedia"
At the moment there is no treatment of those little crimes. i.e. deleting while cheating, lying, arguing for a view with no support at all against a well supported opposite view, war of attrition tactics, deleting a supported sentence, etc. The result is distorted articles and some fed up editors who discontinue to edit. I can provide examples, if asked for.
In my view, each of these small scale problems does not worth a sanction , but the there should be a counting mechanism, such as a user who has accumulated a certain amount of them, should be sanctioned. What is your view?
A minor misconduct counter, may relieve the arbitrators to deal with the "heavy duty" problems. Currently they justifiably sanction a Complainant who disturbs with minor claims. As a result, some Complainant may stop editing (I may produce examples). Moreover, no one know what is the history of the user, except official warning and sanctions. Ykantor (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the question is how the arbitrator would know the small misconduct history? In my opinion, there should be a counter, otherwise they would not know. Ykantor (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there should be a counting mechanism. I do think that the history of a user should be considered when placing sanctions, and this kind of minor but widespread disruption should be considered.
I see you edited this question after I answered—are you asking for clarification? I'm a little unclear.
No, as I already said there should not be a 'counter'. That's just paving the way for an extremely complex set of rules (what kind of conduct would increment the counter? who makes this decision? who keeps track?) and more unnecessary bureaucracy. As with any other case, the user's editing history should be examined, and people should be invited to present diffs of poor conduct.
As for your notes, I would suggest that that every experienced and clean editor can attach "black point" to any other editor, according to a "catalog" which states how many points for each small misdeed. Once an editor is reported to any of the dispute / arb noticeboard, his history will be verified. If some of his "black points" are unjustified, the responsible complainant will be sanctioned by, say 5 times the amount of black point. Once an editor have more than a threshold amounts of points, he will be sanctioned. He may appeal, but than he risk double sanctions.
Such a system is reducing the dispute / Arb noticeboard burden and has build in internal balancing. The bureaucracy is fully automated, and as a benefit, a misconducting editor will have to stop it, unlike nowadays .
Does Our NPOV policy mean that an editor is violating the policy if he only contributes to one side?
The issue is discussed her: [1].
In my opinion, the view that every post should be neutral leads to a built in absurd. Suppose that the best Wikipedia editor is editing a group of biased articles. He is doing a great job and the articles become neutral. The editor should be sanctioned because every single edit (as well as the pattern of edits) is biased toward the other side. !
No, editing an article to try to balance any existing bias is not in violation of the NPOV policy.
Sorry to bother you again with one continuation question
There are ignored rules. Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
e.g.
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone
lying

I can show that those 2 rules were ignored in the wp:arbcom but those are just an example. There are more ignored rules. So, Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
Not every sentence on a policy page is policy in and of itself. The sentence you provided about removal of non-neutral content is an example of this; removing non-neutral content is not breaking policy, the page is just trying to suggest that content be balanced out instead of removed completely.

Questions from Thryduulf[edit]

Apologies for giving you yet more questions to answer, but you are the only candidate about whom I have not made up my mind yet. You do not have very much dispute resolution experience, and particularly you've not had much interaction with arbitration, so what made you decide to run for the committee? Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My decision to run was a somewhat last-minute one. Although I'd been considering it for several days, I'd talked myself out of it. However, it got to be quite close to the deadline, and I wasn't seeing as many qualified candidates coming in at the last minute as I'd hoped, so I changed my mind. My reservations were primarily to do with the potential for harassment and the time commitment; I am not concerned about my ability to deal with the dispute resolution. As I say in my candidate statement, I'm level-headed and think things through thoroughly (alliteration unintentional, heh). I also know the project quite well by now.
If you are elected, what do you most hope to achieve during your term and how will you determine if you have been successful? This is deliberately phrased openly, so please answer with whatever focus you wish. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps unlike some of the other editors, I'm not really looking for any dramatic reforms of the arbitration processes. By the end of my term, I'd like to look back and feel that I'd made fair decisions that were in the best interests of the project. This, however, is a difficult and very subjective thing to measure.

Questions from user:Martinevans123[edit]

Should articles ever use The Daily Mail as a reference source? Should articles ever use YouTube videos as external links? Is there still any place for a "WP:civility" policy, or does it depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes? Is humour now an outdated concept at Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Articles can use The Daily Mail as a source, though they should exercise great caution when doing so due to the bias and inaccuracy that can come from that source. I generally feel that if another source is available, it's much better to use that.
2. YouTube can be used as an external link, as long as care is taken to ensure that the video meets WP:EL and is not in violation of copyright.
3. Er, there is a WP:Civility policy. It does not depend on an editor's edit count.
4. Humor is not outdated.

Thanks, "PongoCombat". How very succinct. (Personally, I also find the Daily Mail's pictures very good). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]