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 bring an openness to read and interpret all viewpoints. I'm slow to dig in my heels and quick to think about the opposite viewpoint. I have a lot of experience with many different sides of Wikipedia, and I bring a fresh viewpoint on the Arbitration Committee, having never been involved in a case. I bring several years of varied experience, and an eagerness to improve Wikipedia.
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.
I have participated on AN and ANI from time to time. Most of my dispute resolution experience comes from SPI, where oftentimes editors are engaged in tendentious disputes, which leads to the socking. Sometimes talking the issue through with both parties and attempting to arbitrate a solution is the best solution, especially when dealing with newer users who have quickly leapt to using socks.
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?
I think in most cases, I would lean towards what would be regarded as leniency. One time issues and cases of poor decisions made in good faith oftentimes call for decisive leniency, so that the situation does not inflame. I think that all cases should be looked at in terms of a solution over a lenient or harsh solution. However, when it comes to users who have deliberately violated core policies, or have a chronic history of abuse, I would probably fall towards the harsher end of the spectrum.
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've participated in many SPI investigations, so I may have to recuse from cases involving users I have investigated at SPI. Off of Wikipedia I cannot think of anything that would impact my work, although if such a thing came up, I would disclose and recuse.
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
I find it unlikely I would have to step down before two years. I have had past health issues, and in the exceedingly unlikely case that they recur in a serious way, I may have to step down. That being said, I find that scenario highly unlikely.
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 don't mind how the Infoboxes case was resolved, considering how entrenched the parties were. I don't particularly like that it required that much intervention, but reading the case page it does appear it did. The Tea Party case seems to be a good example of when non decisive action leads to festering. It would have been essential for them to identify that the draft proposal would be too long in coming, and then resolve it. That being said the final decision was in my eyes quite reasonable.
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?
I think this is a generally good trend. The community both depends on and dislikes utilizing ArbCom to resolve disputes. Disputes of a smaller nature are not well suited to ArbCom, which puts these issues on a big stage and generally takes a reasonable amount of time to deal with them. The fact the community is dealing with smaller cases which can be handled through other dispute resolution methods is a good trend. For ArbCom, this also means that the cases they do accept tend to be only the largest, most difficult to deal with issues. I hope that this trend continues.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
Firstly, BASC simply does not make sense. It puts a tremendous amount of strain on a small number of ArbCom members, that should be distributed through the community. Though a final venue should exist, BASC's small membership and huge workload lead me to believe it should be restructured. It seems to be a common opinion this election, so there should be adequate consensus to move in this direction. There should be an enwiki checkuser mailing list, to improve communication between checkusers and ArbCom. As many serious allegations of sockpuppetry are brought before ArbCom, getting second opinions is necessary. Being able to communicate sensitive data between community volunteers and checkusers is essential.
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?
ArbCom still shoulders too large of a burden. The community should continue to increase their role in dispute resolution. Many of the ArbCom committees should be transitioned to the community, or to separate bodies. Remit of the committee should be defined more explicitly than it is now. I'd like for there to be a community process for the checkuser and oversight appointments but in the past such an attempt failed as nobody gained adequate consensus. I would investigate a means to frame the process that would allow for users to gain adequate consensus to gain the tools.
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?
I think this has never been true in practice. Although ArbCom does not create policy, and does not decide disputes, it is regarded as a high authority. When ArbCom intervenes in a dispute by interpreting policy a certain way, oftentimes the policy is changed to reflect that. Although ArbCom does not necessarily wish for this to happen, by structure this is bound to happen, and has a mixed bag of effects. On one hand, it does allow for the community to be given direction. It has lead to many important policy decisions which were probably needed. It does however somewhat give an activist role to ArbCom, should they wish to exercise it. In terms of disputes, policy and editing are so closely intertwined in many disputes that any decision will lead to others assuming ArbCom has taken a side. Although in theory discretionary sanctions only targets violations of policy or conduct decision, oftentimes the line between conduct and content are so fine that sanctions could be considered to impact content disputes. However these are nearly unavoidable consequences of the current system.
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
I think to ArbCom, BLP should just be another policy. It may be an important policy but it falls outside of remit to actively push it. In practice there are many other methods for dealing with BLP concerns. There is a BLP Noticeboard, OTRS agents who deal with many intricate BLP cases, and other normal dispute resolution means. ArbCom did deal with BLP in Manipulation of BLPs but it was a case meant to prevent generic BLP violations from clogging the pipeline. BLP occurs frequently, hence ArbCom deals with it frequently, but it is ultimately no more than an important policy.
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 already have the checkuser permission, so I will retain it. I will request the oversight permission, as oftentimes the two rights are intertwined. I will probably use oversight on occasion when required in my role as Arbitrator. I will use checkuser on behalf of the committee, as well as at SPI. As it stands few arbitrators have extensive checkuser experience, so my familiarity with the tools will be useful.
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'm aware it's a strong possibility. I am generally thick skinned and I should be able to deal with it without damaging my life or my capacity to serve.
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?
Yes, it is essential that checkuser data, is retained on a case by case basis. Sometimes the matter may never truly be resolved, and then this information is crucial. If this information is obtained but lacks relevance to the case it should not be maintained. I think that common sense should be used when clearing out this data. It should eventually be cleared but I'm not sure how often these issues recur. I would guess that one to two years after the information was last used would be a reasonable time for this to happen. It might be necessary for real life identities to be retained, but it seems to me like that would be an extremely rare occurrence requiring special circumstances. (ie WMF intervention)
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?
I see extremely few reasons to not share evidence against a user with the user. It may not be wise to provide the full evidence against a user who is socking, as it would be invaluable to them if they wish to avoid detection. Short of that, all users should be made aware of the evidence against them. If information would violate the privacy policy when given to the community, it should not be shared. If information would be illegal to share or would cause tangible harm to a person if shared with the community, it should not be shared with the community. In general information should be shared with the community.

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=}}

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?
It took an absurdly long time. It indicates to me that communication between Arbitrators is crucial to complete cases in a timely manner, and therefore obtain a positive outcome.
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?
WikiProjects are intended to group editors with similar interests such that they can most productively work on that topic area, and organize their efforts. Stewardship and ownership largely differ in how they respond to criticism. One who stewards an article may maintain a status quo which they believe to be ideal, over another equal, non status-quo solution. That being said when consensus shifts against status quo, those in a position of stewardship should disagree, yield, and then treat the new status quo as the old. Ownership hinges around the general unwillingness of the 'owner' to yield to external pressures. In response to the third portion, there must be a discussion that resolves these differences. There may be a difference in technical understanding which the "expert" can convince others on, or it may be that the "expert" has a fringe view which goes against general scientific or societal consensus. In either case having an open discussion on the matter is the only way towards resolving the dispute.
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?
I wish I could say no, but my observations indicate otherwise. Oftentimes vested contributors take their right to edit for granted, and sometimes take actions that they assume they can get away with. I don't think the occasional bit of profanity or bluntness is a huge problem, although I certainly don't advocate it. Unfortunately when I see editors make edits which clearly violate policy but are ignored due to their experience, I think there is a problem. I think a willingness to discuss with these users that their behavior is problematic is the first step toward resolving the issues. I am sure that some users are not even aware that their behavior is problematic. Past that, I think it is fair to treat these editors as we would any other editor, regardless of their past contributions. Although it's reasonable to assume good faith, at some point it becomes very difficult, even foolish, to do so when evidence is to the contrary.
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 don't believe that it takes two to tango in a strong sense. Although in few contexts it makes sense, in most cases all it takes is one user to walk away or take other intelligent action. In some circumstances if one user grossly violates policy, and another user tells him uncivilly to reverse his action, this must be taken in context. However it should be based in context, not in the actions of another.
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?
I think that if there is clearly demonstrated abuse involving a complex scenario, a case should be accepted. If there is clear violation involving a simple scenario, a motion is reasonable. In cases where there is evidence of abuse but it is not clear, a case should be open. Scenarios involving conduct unbecoming of an administrator are more nuanced. In one sense it is grounds for removal of tools, but I would depend on community consensus for there to be a case regarding unbecoming conduct. If the community saw the conduct as unbecoming and requested a case, it is well within remit to accept it. I would be reluctant to make a motion for unbecoming conduct only.
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 very limited remit. In certain instances, such as outing, or severe chronic abuse, I do feel that the abuse overflows into enwp. Although there is no explicit connection between any of these venues and Wikipedia, and there should not be. Essentially when these other venues are used to pry into and disrupt enwp specific matters, ArbCom should gain whatever remit is required to prevent severe abuse. That being said there is often little they can do to combat it, so in actuality the remit is very limited.
What is your definition of "outing"?
Outing occurs when one user makes public previously non-public personal information.
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)?
In general I believe they are being used under a reasonable level of scrutiny from both the Audit Committee and Ombudsmen. The policies that govern use are quite clear, and the policy specific to the English Wikipedia further clarifies global policy. I have had generally good experiences when sharing CU data crosswiki, and find that communication is normally clear and effective.
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 involved in any content disputes in the past. I have mediated several content disputes to varying degrees. I served as a third opinion on two occasions when that process was still active. Through SPI I have tried to mediate a number of content disputes between newer users. Some content disputes, so long as both parties are left standing can simply not be amicably resolved. When two parties refuse to listen to each other, refuse to listen to the arbitrator, and refuse to drop their sticks, there is sometimes little that can be done. Sometimes in content disputes the users feel misunderstood, and quickly revert to ad hominem attacks. Once users have lost respect for each other, it is oftentimes difficult for it to be regained.
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
I hope that ArbCom shrinks, and is eventually disbanded as there is no purpose for it. However it's clear that at the current time it is needed. In the short term I'd like to start moving down that path, pruning parts of ArbCom away which can be handed to the community.
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)?
Yes. Although I'm not particularly pleased with them in their current state I will be able to meet them.

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

Question from Mark Arsten[edit]

What is your opinion of paid editing? What should be the community's response to this practice?
Paid editing is an area for which no clear cut policy currently exists. Although there are a multitude of recommended practices the community has yet to establish a clear policy on what must be done with paid editing. The German Wikipedia entered a RfC on what form, if any paid editing should take on the German language Wikipedia. I've been dealing fairly extensively behind the scenes with the WikiPR editors/sockpuppets. This case is probably the most varied and complex that I've ever seen at SPI, and definitely that I have seen as a CheckUser. I've encountered many paid editing groups in the search for WikiPR socks. With a huge variety of methods they have managed to largely evade detection. While many of the paid editors obviously have a COI problem, others have been much more successful at evading detection. I don't think any sort of a full scale ban of any sort of paid editing will have any effect. I'd tend to advocate for paid editors to not edit mainspace but to leave remarks on the talk page. I think the core action that must be taken to ensure this has any effect is further outreach to mainstream PR providers, and making it as clear as possible that this type of mainspace editing by PR firms is explicitly not allowed. This would allow a strict enforcement of paid editing, making it much more actionable. For any of this to work the key is clear communication to both companies that would request these services. Actions being taken to inform Public Relations professionals of these guidelines are essential, and should be backed by the community. Ideally such guidance would be clear both on wiki, and in resources available to those in the PR field. As it stands our policy is too indefinite to allow us to take definitive action against unknown paid editors unless they seriously breach policy. This creates further incentive to remain under the radar, as opposed to deal with the community. I don't mind the idea of the Bounty Board, but as we saw it never really gained substantial traction. I think overall clarity of policy and communication are extremely key in dealing with this area.

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 generally agree. Assuming that we are using mailing lists as a primary means of communication the ability to explain what one has said on list to others is an ability I would love to have. This implementation would need some fine tuning: namely to what degree context can be given. Privacy is extremely important, and it will be difficult to balance it with accountability. The second bullet of Risker's argument is something which I feel is gravely needed and I would wholeheartedly support. It's what I feel has been most lacking from ArbCom at times. The ability to overrule and release information is where I become unsure of the proposal. I think that in practice it would work fine. It would potentially allow for the selective release of information which could be worse than no information at all. There are some cases where this would help unearth unsavory things going on internally and make the greater community more aware, but it does inherently create politics around when and how this information should be released. As Risker says this portion is open to debate, and figuring out how exactly this should be implemented would be crucial. I would generally feel more comfortable with a two thirds majority, but I have yet to see how the list functions in practice.

Question 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?
We (the community) must aim not to please one particular group but to uphold the values that this encyclopedia is based upon.

Question from User:SirFozzie[edit]

First off, thank you for volunteering. I have to admit a bit of concern with regards to the line of your statement that reads "Letting content contributors largely ignore administration so long as they follow core policies." Do you think that WP:CIVILITY, one of the five pillars, qualifies as core policy, and how would you handle those folks who provide good content but are unable or unwilling to collaborate and to work with others?
Firstly thank you for this question. It prompted me to think through a multitude of scenarios and how I would act in each one of them. To explain the remark, it was meant to convey that content contributors should not have to worry about unclear or unnecessary interfering actions from administration. It does not mean that content contributors have a mandate to ignore the actions taken by administration. I think at its core ArbCom exists to clear conduct disputes, although not to decide content. It is important to me that decisions are adequately clear, and the line of reasoning is adequately clear that most users can understand the actions taken. This is all highly important as it avoids ArbCom from creating a cloud of uncertainty around the content area which it is involved with. This action discourages content contributions. However, disruptive actions by anyone involved in these areas can also discourage the content creation. Incivility is no exception. Civility is a core policy, and applies to all editors, regardless of if they are core content contributors, administrators, or on the arbitration committee. No matter what decision ArbCom makes it should be focused on being as clear and as minimally disruptive as possible, while clearing the cloud around the subject area. We must endeavor to avoid the extreme outcomes. We do not want users to be unsure of what an ArbCom decision means and hence afraid to contribute for fear of being caught in an overly broad sanction. It is also essential to avoid the other extreme: we don't want content contributors to be given a mandate to Civil POV push or undertake their disruptive behaviors, which can be equally harmful. and it is an important factor that must be looked at in any decision. ArbCom must remove the negative cloud surrounding both potential ArbCom enforcement, and disruptive content by users. Civility is essential in any interaction between editors and must be treated as such. As for those folks who are unwilling to collaborate but produce good content, it heavily depends on their conduct. Although some editors are more abrasive than others, if a user disrupts others also working in good faith, via their refusal to collaborate or work with others, intervention is quite possibly called for, as this refusal to work together often violates conduct policies.

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?
This is not necessarily inevitable. That being said I would agree with the arbitrator that stated the vast majority of cases that reach arbcom are disruptive enough that they require sanctions. At this point in time ArbCom does not accept cases where sanctions are not exceedingly likely. Theoretically parties could disengage or resolve the issue, and in this case the best course of action may be to not impose sanctions.
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?
Each editor being sanctioned should have evidence against them. Certainly the Gordian knot approach is not viable when approaching cases.
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?
Arbitrators should consider all relevant information. By nature of being brought to the evidence or workshop page some number of editors believe it to be relevant, and it should be examined. Some bits may not be particularly relevant, but it is the duty of an arbitrator to pick out key evidence.
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?
We operate on an odd time scale. Precedent can shift quickly. I think that precedent is a good place to begin. However, keeping a legal analogy ArbCom is to some degree the high arbitrator of policy. Although it’s important to dictate policy from this position, it does have power to make case by case determination ignoring past consensus. Furthermore respecting stare decisis oftentimes requires broader judgments being made by the courts. In the case of ArbCom, the committee has historically tried to keep remedies focused, which limits the usage of past decisions. Continuing to search for the best solution, regardless of past action, allows for dynamic decisions which best reflect the case at hand.
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?
Four out of the five pillars are important policies, and the fifth regards the copyright status of content. They are all, in my opinion core policies on their own. The referencing of these policies as a block is of extremely high explanatory value. In some cases, when comparing the actions of a user or group to the overall mission of the project, the pillars can have direct relevance. It would still be essential to provide some explanation as to which of the policies represented by the pillars were followed or violate. Evidence that corresponds would also need to be provided.
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?
They should be weighed as extremely essential policy. BLPs have generally received substantial weighting in decisions from the committee and it needs to be clear that upholding BLP is required, not optional. Biographies of non-living people do not have the same BLP concerns but any biography can have substantial impact on those who are close to the subject, or the subject of the dispute.
"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?
Although the comparison is not one to one, this question brought to my mind the question of how these entities termed factions related to political factions. The comparison is far from perfect, but there are certainly groups on Wikipedia that aim to advance "a particular policy or policy agenda, preventing the adoption of alternate policies." Obviously such groups can mobilize to cause disruption or block policy changes in certain areas. When you say "specifically not tagteam" as a criteria I mean you assume uncoordinating factions. Groups of people who may not coordinate but simply always tend to side with each other when in disputes. Factionalism is inherently going to exist to some degree, people tend to form camps and stick with them when debating or taking action on controversial issues. In an ideal world factionalism would be severely limited but it will exist. When addressing factionalism in cases it is essential to attempt and focus on the key actors. I know in Scientology ArbCom dealt with such a large disruptive group that an entire "faction" has been sanctioned.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:43, 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.)?
The purpose of a limited ban is to let the user be productive in areas where they are productive whilst minimizing disruption. If a limited ban would take tremendous effort to enforce, it may be reasonable to enact a full site ban. If a user is problematic in an extremely large number of areas or seemingly creates problems in any area they edit, a full site ban may be necessary.
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)
My stance is generally that actions are stronger than words. A user who repeatedly promises to behave and violates his word may cause more disruption than can be tolerated. We should generally attempt to avoid bans but the message that while content is important, in the end actions made against the interest of the project are oftentimes more relevant than immediate appeals. I tend to agree that in singular problematic incidents it is rare for bans to be the best answer.
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 exile, although the comparison is far from one to one. I suppose in purely legal terms an injunction has some merit, but I'm not convinced that this question has a satisfactory answer.
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?
There have been huge studies conducted on this matter. I don’t have adequate scholarly knowledge to make a fair argument on the point. Consult JSTOR, not me.
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 think the general idea is correct. I would generally say that it should be narrowed to "which remedy will help the encyclopedia the most while being the least disruptive." In some cases it is possible for a full site ban to be productive, but an interaction ban or topic ban would have a higher benefit.
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.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Gerda Arendt[edit]

Thank you for volunteering.

Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without context, content which is represented in the form of an image, and a metadata box has been combined into an infobox.
To the point. 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) 07:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I check the context of the aforementioned edit. If it's following a systematic disruptive campaign against established consensus there might be grounds for action. Absent a context such as this one and it would look to most likely be a good faith edit, and such a suggestion would be both unlikely and absurd.
Good answer: check the context. - Do so if you have time, but probably you are busy answering questions ;) - Optional one: If you find that you can't follow the reasoning, would you address the colleague? - 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. Assuming you lean towards it (or will you never?): will you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean against not banning, again it's contextual to other articles. Just in this article there really isn't anything bannable at all so I would oppose.

I only meant the context of the article, - what happened to the infobox, history and talk, that's short. (We - all participants in the discussion - have learned since, it was in March.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. Thanks for the clarification. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:59, 24 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.
My most significant GA contribution was likely Mo Tae-bum. I created a stub article for the Korean speed skater before he was competing at such a high level upon noting he was an athlete without an article in the Olympics. As it turned out he earned multiple medals and I expanded the article to GA. I was also quite satisfied with all of my DYK contributions, many of which I rescued from deletion or found when new page patrolling. I am also very proud of my image restorations (My favorite of which is McKinley_Prosperity.jpg), and am currently in the process of restoring a 19th century English lithograph. Also my work as Military History Coordinator gave me valuable experience in the format of Featured Article Nominations as well as A Class Review.

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?
The major advantage of a motion over a full case is the time it takes to action a motion. The major disadvantage is that a motion foregoes the level of discussion which the community expects of ArbCom in controversial cases. As a result I think that motions should be used only for non-controversial actions. Specifically I would use motions for actions such as the desysoping of an obviously rogue or compromised admin or an internal policy clarification. Something like banning a user or a non emergency desysop is almost always controversial, and I would lean towards a full case.
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 proactively draft a motion when there is an existing consensus, or ongoing discussion on a topic. If a discussion ends and there is still no progress it may be reasonable to accept a case, but not to act decisively via motion. ArbCom should not make it its business to intervene in community consensus, but rather to arbitrate disputes brought to them by the community at large.
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 judgments that you did. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
I ran into the non controversial followup to a 2006 interaction ban here, which seemed to be extremely non controversial. A motion regarding CUOS inactivity is well within bounds although could be argued to be redundant. It certainly was not problematic. I also do not see a problem with the Mathsci case ban. All of the facts were uncontested and as a followup to a prior case it was logical to pass it as motion.
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.
I think the end result was congruent with what would have happened had it been brought to case. I agree that this was a valid application of OUTING. That being said ArbCom was caught in a catch 22. In a seeming attempt to minimize the publication of the offending material ArbCom managed to still stir up a lot of controversy. That being said I think the alternative may have festered and the end result may have been worse. The decision to ban should probably have been brought to case, but at bare minimum been a separate motion with a bit more initial public reasoning. ArbCom had no perfect decisions at the table, but they made a reasonable attempt to balance privacy and transparency.
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?
The explanation was undoubtedly constructive, although near the end it did add fuel to the fire. ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning whenever the decision is controversial. I think it's essential that ArbCom post their reasoning with the decision. In many cases ArbCom should be able to predict their decision will be controversial. It is important that ArbCom lay out reasoning for these cases at the time of the decision. Such action should minimize drama similar to that in the Sandifer case. I'm pleased that ArbCom defended the decision and gave their reasoning. At some point the justifications started to be repetitive and it might have been good for the committee to back off, but I definitely prefer redundancy to a lack of explanation. It is key reasoning be provided to help diffuse any potential follow up disputes. In controversial cases it should be a core duty of ArbCom to provide an explanation, barring privacy concerns.
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 think that these discussions should take publicly on a Wikipedia page designated for that purpose. (per Courcelles suggestion) Other proposals have included partial publication of the mailing list or the establishment of a framework that only Arbs and clerks can edit. I think keeping discussion on a Wikipedia page best keeps the community updated with the progress and thought process of the committee. It is clear the community values additional transparency, and I feel that a change to a public area for discussion is an ideal way to do that.
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 think a lot of it simply lies in reliance on the mailing list. I hope that there would be at least some consensus to create a public space that can be used to discuss cases, and I would try and post my stances on ArbCom matters there as much as would be practical. Many other users who are standing for election seem to agree with this stance, so that seems to be one viable method for starting to push ArbCom discussion back on wiki. However, if as in your question nobody was supportive of it, privacy prevents me from taking action outside of what the other committee members agree is reasonable. I would be willing to make public my thoughts on the public aspects of a case, and field questions directed to me at the resolution of cases.

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?
No problem, this is a generally needed question. Yes, I am well aware of some of the actions that have been taken against Arbitrators. I'm generally used to being derided, I referee competitive Association football, and it's incredibly important to keep a level head above all of the degradation (when it occurs). Equally important is knowing when to disengage. I have thought about how it would effect me, and have asked several former and standing Arbitrators what has happened to them. I've made other preparations per discussions with past Arbitrators. If you would like more information feel free to drop me an email.

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?
I think it is a problem, although part of it is undoubtedly caused by the completion of many key articles. I've talked to several friends about editing, but they want to write new content on subjects which they are highly interested in, and most key popular subjects have lengthy articles dedicated to them. That being said there is a tremendous amount of work that should be done outside of central or popular areas, which should be highlighted.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?
The community should strive to make new editors feel welcome. Projects such as the teahouse have tried to work along these lines, and I think that they have been somewhat successful. It is essential that we introduce editors to the community in a way that they do not become intimidated or jaded by poor editing experiences.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?
The Foundation has undertaken several initiatives to attract new editors. These editing drives have at face value had minimal success but I think that the attempts are worthwhile and should be continued in some form. I think the foundation needs to realize that retention can be just as important as attracting new users, especially when it relates to the visual editor. While a good visual editor will be essential to the growth of new users, I would like to thank User:Kww for his stand against the Foundation on that issue.
Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?
There are few non symbolic actions that ArbCom can take.

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've seen some reasonable criticism of Wikipedia come from Wikipediocracy. I don't frequent the site, but in theory it makes sense. It certainly has value, and it is not an unmitigated blight. That being said I feel like oftentimes users on the site use it to air their frustrations non productively via doxing, outing, etc. These actions certainly hurt the perception of the site. ArbCom has little it can do to address the site, although I would tend to agree that it would be fair to provide consequences for users who out on Wikipediocracy, as that action can have significant effect on wiki as well. Outside of that, there is almost nothing that can be done by ArbCom.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 1 December 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.
It's important to be transparent in respect to non public information. I've heavily featured my discussions on transparency in my previous questions. I'm sure that access to the CheckUser log could not be given without compromising information being disclosed due to how it runs.
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).
Striking through is a bit extreme. ArbCom is obligated to sift through and heavily discount those statements without evidence but striking them is unnecessary. That being said unsubstantiated attacks may be severe enough that we may want to encourage users to withdraw unsubstantiated attacks.
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?
It's almost never clear. In the cases when it is clear there can be problems with vested contributors, but I would say the policy is applied.
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?
It definitely encourages editing pseudonomously, although there isn't anything that can be done to even the playing field without violating privacy. I suppose a continued fight against outing is very helpful here.
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?
IT is certainly important for ArbCom to engage with the concerns the community has.

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've worked with faculty as part of outreach, and will continue to do so. I've been to two meetups but it was several years ago. If anything my participation on ArbCom would lead me to attend more events: I plan on attending the upcoming WikiMania, whether or not 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?
Generally as an aggregate such disruptive behavior that finds its way to arbcom is sanctioned. The community also tries to be aware of a pattern of issues such as those you listed above.
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. !
There would be no reason to sanction in this case. I don't believe this is what policy says.
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?
We should try to reconcile practice and policy. In practice policy is an embodiment of perceived consensus. Hence these separations show that policy should be reworked.

Questions from user:Martinevans123[edit]

Yo Native. 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? Would you expect to see more or less ArbCom activity in the next 12 months? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not well versed in the usage of the Daily Mail as a source, I would have to do a lot of research. It looks like there is an ongoing dispute, and I can't provide an educated opinion so I'll hold off on that question. In terms of the YouTube videos as external links, my gut intuition would lead me to believe that it is occasionally appropriate, but again that is just a preliminary thought and not an opinion I would necessarily hold. Of course there is still a place for civility policy, it's key that the two be weighed appropriately as per my earlier answers. I would expect slightly less arbcom activity although I'm not sitting above a crack in the ground.

Thanks, NativeForeigner. Yes, those pesky ground cracks can be a bit tricky sometimes, can't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]