THC Science

Richwales[edit]

I'm Rich Wales — no relation to Jimbo as far as I know — and I'm offering my services for the next two years as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

I've been a Wikipedian since early 2005, and an administrator since September 2011. I've been responsible for two Featured Articles (one of which made Today's Featured Article), seven Good Articles, five Did You Knows, and one In The News — admittedly not a huge amount of content compared with many others around here, but it will hopefully demonstrate that I do know something about content creation.

Over the years, I've participated to a greater or lesser extent in about a dozen arbitration requests, RFCs, WQAs, and other formal dispute resolution efforts, as well as several informal mediation efforts regarding conflicts in various subject areas. I have also served during 2013 as an SPI clerk and as a member of the Audit Subcommittee.

I am a strong believer in Wikipedia's core policies — especially the NPOV and civility policies. Regarding incivility in particular, I am strongly opposed to so-called "civil" POV pushing, and I am also concerned about the impact of incivility on our efforts to attract and retain new editors. Although ArbCom's job is not to make or change policy, it needs to fill a crucial role as an interpreter and enforcer of policy when hot-headed, tendentious editors refuse to work collaboratively, disrespect opposing views, and defy community consensus.

I have one alternate account (Rich Wales sans superpowers). Aside from a handful of IP edits before I registered for my account, all my editing has been as Richwales (talk · contribs) or Rich Wales sans superpowers (talk · contribs).

I am well over 18, and I have already confirmed my identity with the WMF. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — small addition at 06:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — another small addition at 20:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General questions[edit]

What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
Over eight years as a Wikipedian. Lots of experience with collaborative effort, especially during the several-months-long process of getting United States v. Wong Kim Ark to Featured Article status. Experience working with sockpuppet investigations as a clerk, and also as a member of the Audit Subcommittee. Ability to read and comprehend lengthy pieces of prose.
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.
Most of 2013: Ongoing efforts to resolve prolonged edit warring in the article on Jung Myung Seok (a South Korean religious leader).
October/November 2012: Uninvolved statement in an amendment request regarding tagging of suspected sockpuppet accounts in relation to the 2007 India-Pakistan arbitration case.
October 2012: Uninvolved statement in a clarification request regarding the 2012 Civility Enforcement arbitration case.
July 2012: Initiated a clarification request seeking (unsuccessfully) a broadening of the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions to cover Cyprus.
August 2011: Named as involved, and participated in discussion, on a DRN complaint about alleged POV editing at Ralph Nader.
July 2011: Uninvolved statement in the Cirt and Jayen466 arbitration case.
May 2011: Initiated an RfC/U on an editor who was editing tendentiously and disruptively at Natural-born-citizen clause.
August 2010: Requested assistance on an ongoing content dispute at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences.
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?
It would depend, in my view, on the attitude and cluefulness of the editor(s) involved. Sanctions against Wikipedia editors are intended to be preventative, not punitive — and if someone understands the problem with his misbehaviour and makes an honest effort to change for the better, we should not lower the boom just for the sake of it. Of course, if a problem has lasted long enough and/or gone deep enough that ArbCom has to get involved, it's likely to be too late for a simple change of mind/heart, and more drastic steps will probably be necessary. And in some particularly serious situations, it may be necessary to sanction an editor even if he does understand the problem and resolves to change, in order to make sure he (and the community) really do realize the seriousness of the problem, and so that people do not get the wrong idea and think a lenient ArbCom ruling means the issue really wasn't that bad and that others can expect to get away with an "admonition" for doing the same thing.
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).
My "My Work" user subpage lists several controversial articles and subject areas in which I am or have been heavily involved — as well as about a dozen articles about people with whom I have or have had a personal connection. In general, I would expect to recuse myself in any arbitration case dealing with these articles or subjects, in order to avoid any appearance of bias.
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
I don't currently anticipate any such circumstances. If elected, I would plan to serve for my full term.
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.
Handled well: The Doncram case — except that I think the "stub content remanded to community" remedy was less assertive than it should have been, and that ArbCom should not shy away from strong recommendations regarding guidelines (such as WP:STUB) which may need to be tweaked in order to better implement policies (such as WP:V).
Not handled well: The Tea Party movement case. I was (and continue to be) very concerned about the no-fault topic ban which ArbCom came very close to adopting; I believe this would have been a horrible precedent. And I'm not convinced that the ultimate findings of fact against some of the parties were substantial enough to have merited lengthy topic bans (as opposed, say, to admonishments).
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'm not sure if this question can be answered properly in terms of a "trend". What I did do (finished doing it just now) was to read through all the case requests filed so far during 2013 that ArbCom decided not to consider as full-fledged cases. Most of these were declined because the arbs felt the disputes in question dealt primarily with content (rather than user conduct) and should be handled via establish dispute resolution procedures. There were a couple of requests relating to revoking or restoring administrator privileges, which ArbCom handled as motions.
In general, I would say that the rationales given for declining most of these case requests made sense to me, and I think I would have agreed to decline them if I had been on the Committee. One declined case request, however, seemed troublesome to me: the Linking to Wikipediocracy case request (filed 2013-07-02, declined 2013-07-06). I'm worried in general about the issue of Wikipedia allowing external links to contentious material, and although I'm not sure if ArbCom is the appropriate venue to explore this further, I definitely do think the subject needs to be examined in more detail.
Regarding when ArbCom should, or should not, accept a case, I think the current policies and practices are not unreasonable. If it were up to me, I would probably be inclined to accept some more "borderline" cases where deep disputes over content are tightly linked to user conduct issues, rather than look for an opportunity to latch onto the content aspect as a reason for declining a case. However, the community has decided thus far that content disputes are not part of ArbCom's responsibility — and as I've pointed out (see below) regarding the controversial proposal to impose no-fault topic bans in the Tea Party case, I'm not at all sure that the community is ready for ArbCom to take on this sort of thing at the present time.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
I would like to see a less work-intensive method of screening case requests — given the large number of requests which are declined because they are mainly content disputes and not appropriate for arbitration. Perhaps ArbCom can organize itself into small "triage subcommittees", of three or four arbs each, and each new case request would be examined by one of these subcommittees to determine if it (1) is obviously appropriate for arbitration, (2) obviously not appropriate for arbitration, or (3) requiring more careful review by the entire committee. The "obvious" decisions would still need to be ratified by the whole committee, but this would hopefully be an expedited matter most of the time.
I would also like to see a more consistent definition of exactly what a site-banned user may or may not do on his talk page. Opinion appears to be divided right now over whether the existing banning policy already makes this clear and is simply not being enforced as it should be, or whether ArbCom needs to clarify the matter on each separate case. I would propose either that ArbCom try to come up with a standard (or set of standards) to be included automatically as appropriate in any decision, or else that ArbCom should try to light a fire underneath the community to make the existing banning policy more clear-cut.
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 believe some consideration should be given to the possibility of expanding ArbCom's remit slightly, to allow it to deal to a limited extent with serious, entrenched, seemingly intractable content disputes. Most of the arbitration requests that have been rejected this year (see my comments above) involved situations in which content and conduct issues appeared to be blended together. Some of these probably can be resolved eventually, by insisting that people follow our established dispute resolution procedures — but some content disputes simply aren't likely to go away, and the current setup may simply encourage a content dispute to simmer and ferment until it eventually boils over into an unambiguous conduct issue. I know there are good reasons why the community hasn't wanted to give ArbCom a role in determining content ... but perhaps an exception can be carved out for something like BLP disputes. I would not, however, want to expand ArbCom's role in content issues to include the ability to impose specific sanctions (such as the abortive no-fault topic-ban idea floated in the Tea Party case). I realize, in any case, that any change of this sort would require community support and is not something ArbCom could do by itself.
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?
This is a reasonable ideal, but IMO it can lead to inaction where neither ArbCom nor the community is willing to act. During the discussion on the recent ~~Phil Sandifer banning motion~~ banning of Kiefer.Wolfowitz, for example, the question arose as to whether the policy on banned users' access to their talk page should be further restricted; arbs seemed to prefer having the community decide this, but members of the community felt they needed to defer to ArbCom because the issue involved how ArbCom wanted its own sanction to be enforced.
People have proposed many times to have ArbCom mandate solutions to intractable content disputes, but when the Committee actually tried to do this (by proposing lengthy no-fault topic bans in the Tea Party case), there was a hue and cry over the idea of punishing editors without any factual findings of misconduct (and, in the interests of full disclosure, I'll point out that I was one of those who opposed this idea) — so maybe the community isn't ready for this idea after all.
I find myself leaning more toward the idea of letting ArbCom expand into areas where everyone has felt the community should act (but where they have not in fact been able or willing to do so). On the other hand, I would be uncomfortable with doing too much of this without some basic indication that the community was behind such a shift in responsibility. — (fixed accidental mistake regarding who was banned; 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC))
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
Certainly, when a dispute over a BLP-related issue leads to a user conduct problem that can't be resolved by other means, ArbCom may need to get involved. And BLP issues are, IMO, particularly likely to come to the attention of ArbCom because (a) the line between a simple content dispute involving BLP, and a user misconduct allegation arising out of editors' failure to agree and refusal to seek a compromise consensus, may be very fine; and (b) BLP issues are particularly likely to escalate out of control precisely because people are likely to become firmly entrenched in their positions and argue that they are entitled, or even obligated, to edit-war ad infinitum against others with opposing views because they are sure that a "policy" is on their side (and, as we all know, consensus cannot override policy).
As things currently stand, if ArbCom were to conclude that a BLP-related issue is primarily a content issue and not something where the outcome is rigidly dictated by policy, ArbCom would be required to keep hands off (since the Committee's remit doesn't include content disputes), but that isn't necessarily likely to cause the dispute to go away — indeed, it's likely to come back once it has finally escalated into an obvious user misconduct issue. The best answer to this might be to expand ArbCom's responsibilities slightly, so as to allow the Committee to issue binding decisions in content disputes relating specifically to the BLP policy, without needing to find any editor misconduct or hand out any editor sanctions. ArbCom can't, and shouldn't try to, do this on its own, but it might be something for the community to seriously consider.
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 checkuser and oversight access as a member of the Audit Subcommittee, though I have not used these permissions in any significant way. If elected to ArbCom, I would accept continued access to the checkuser and oversight permissions, but I wouldn't plan on using them except if this became necessary in connection with a case (e.g., if these permissions were required in order to be able to view relevant evidence).
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?
My real-world identity has been disclosed on-wiki since I first created my account (under my real name). While I can't (and don't want to try to) think of all possible ways in which someone might try to harass me off-wiki, I don't currently expect anything of this sort to have a negative impact on my ability to serve as an arbitrator.
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?
It probably is necessary to have some information of this kind kept around, just in case it might be needed in a later case involving the same person(s), but I don't think it should be easy to get at. I would prefer to see sensitive information of this kind kept in a safe central place (such as the secure, limited-access wiki which ArbCom already uses); be accessible only to arbs and those working with them who absolutely need to know; and to have such info expunged (suppressed, oversighted) after a case is over. I do note here that suppressed/oversighted info in a wiki can be viewed or reinstated by the very small set of editors with "oversight" access — an access right which arbs have on Wikipedia proper (I don't know if all arbs have oversight access on the ArbCom wiki).
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?
In the interests of transparency, I believe that involved users, and the community, should "always" be able to see evidence that would affect them. While there may be limited instances where this simply isn't possible — such as when CU data or real-world identities are involved — I would prefer to see such situations kept to an absolute minimum.

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?
Three months was, I believe, way too long. Of course, the Tea Party movement case took six months — so either a valuable lesson was not learned, or else ArbCom cases are getting more and more complicated and intractable, or both.
a) 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) A WikiProject is a mechanism for editors who share an interest in a topic area (as opposed to a single individual article) to collaborate, setting goals and common standards for articles in the topic area. A successful WikiProject requires editors who are committed to keeping the project data up to date and encouraging people to work together productively. A WikiProject is, IMO, only as useful as the editors participating in it. One of my most frustrating experiences on Wikipedia has been when I would try to get help or advice from a WikiProject, only to find no one at all was willing to help (or possibly that no one was paying attention to the WikiProject's talk page).
(b) Ideally, a WikiProject should involve a small community of editors who work together and achieve a genuine consensus. If only one or two editors are active on a project and then proceed to impose their ideas across the entire topic as if they had the support of a true consensus, that is nothing more than WP:OWN under colour of authority, and it needs to be stopped ASAP.
(c) If a WikiProject gets out of control due to inappropriate WP:OWNership, people ignoring sitewide policies, etc., our normal dispute resolution procedures should be tried first, just as might happen with a single article. This could, of course, lead to coercive measures down the road (including possibly even arbitration), depending on how (un)willing the players are to play by the rules. A WikiProject which cannot be sufficiently energized through the participation of a reasonable critical mass of editors might best be abolished or put on a probationary status.
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?
Some of our established editors do, I think, get off too easy at times, because people are intimidated by them, or because we're afraid of driving them away and losing their valuable future input. I don't like this idea at all; past good behaviour and valued contributions should not be an excuse for becoming lax, insulting, or otherwise disruptive. If anything, my inclination is to want to hold established editors to a higher standard, because they are role models and need to lead by example; consider, for example, what we expect of administrators per WP:NOTPERFECT.
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?
Sometimes, but not always; it really depends on the situation. Ideally, we should all be on good behaviour and not allow others to provoke us into uncivil or otherwise disruptive actions — but at the same time, it is possible for one user to be goaded and worked up to frustrated outbursts by the actions of another. It's possible for two firebrands to shoot their figurative flame throwers at each other without much provocation. And it's possible for one disruptive, tendentious editor to make life miserable for others who are trying to work within the policies, remain calm, and accomplish constructive things. Each case is different. Where intentional provocation is present, I would hope to see the complete picture, lay the primary blame where it rightly belongs, and not come down too hard on a victim of bullying; consider, by analogy, the situation where a schoolyard bully sometimes escapes punishment, while his victim gets all the blame because his violent reaction to the bully was all that those in authority noticed.
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?
Whether or not a given situation involves abuse of admin privileges, and/or inappropriate conduct by an admin (even if literal abuse of admin tools is not involved), can be difficult and is likely to require careful study of each individual situation. If you're asking whether ArbCom should take up cases like this on its own initiative, rather than wait for someone else to lay an accusation, I'm not comfortable with that approach because it suggests that ArbCom should be actively monitoring the project looking for ne'er-do-wells — something which is not (and shouldn't be, and probably can't be) ArbCom's job.
I should also say that administrators can sometimes end up accused of inappropriate conduct, throwing their weight around, abusively slapping full protection on The Wrong Version of an edit-warred article, etc., simply because others working on an article happen to disagree with what they did. I've been accused at least once of abusing my position as an admin in a content dispute, and I've seen other admins treated similarly, when in fact no admin tools had been used at all, and I (or another admin) had not been trying to intimidate other editors in any way, and my (or another admin's) only "transgression" was having disagreed with the person making the complaint. Just because another editor who disagrees with you and changed something you wrote happens to be an admin does not, in and of itself, mean he has committed an abuse of his sysop bit.

Perhaps I should clarify this - this isn't the same as last year. I'm asking about when you would vote to accept any case related to admin abuse, or dispose of it by motion. --Rs chen7754 23:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend. To give a couple of examples touching both extremes, if a specific scenario seemed to be a pretty obvious matter of flagrant misconduct by an admin, I would be inclined to deal with it expeditiously via a motion. On the other hand, if there seemed to be a reasonable likelihood that the real fault lay not with the admin being accused of abuse, but rather with the user who was doing the accusing, a full-fledged case might be needed in order to sort out the mess. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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?
While there certainly might be a temptation to get worked up over inappropriate off-enwp activities, ArbCom's remit is strictly limited to the English Wikipedia — not other language wikis, IRC, Wikipediocracy, or anything else. In some limited cases, it might possibly be appropriate for ArbCom to consider an editor's activities on other sites, but this needs to be very limited — e.g., if someone posts (on an enwp talk page) a link to an external site that outs another editor, where the only rational explanation for posting that link was to commit "outing" without literally doing it on English Wikipedia pages alone.
What is your definition of "outing"?
Per WP:OUTING, "outing" is "posting another editor's personal information ... unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on [the English] Wikipedia." Even if you think you have a good reason — such as to prove a violation of the Conflict of Interest policy — you must not reveal or extrapolate someone's identity, workplace, etc. beyond the details (if any) which the person has themselves posted (and not subsequently deleted) on Wikipedia itself.
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)?
All in all, based on what I have seen — including as an SPI clerk, and also as a member of the Audit Subcommittee — I believe the people who use the "checkuser" and "oversight" privileges are generally conscientious and conservative in their use of these tools. I can think of only one possible reservation (and this is on a policy issue rather than regarding the conduct of CU/OS users): I am not currently 100% convinced about our rule against using CU data to clear someone of an allegation of sockpuppetry. I do, however, acknowledge that this is the current policy, and that it must be followed unless and until it is ever modified.
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 [are] not amicably resolved?
Yes, I've been involved in many content disputes — sometimes as one of the original participants, and sometimes as an outsider trying to mediate the dispute. The most common reason I've seen for failure to resolve a content dispute is that people on both sides are convinced that they are right, and everyone else is wrong, and that the article in question must showcase their view as the only acceptable, non-fringe view. Sometimes this is due to firmly entrenched political, ethnic, or religious positions regarding which people on both sides simply will not compromise. The NPOV policy is supposed to accommodate multiple, conflicting views on a subject, but we still frequently run into snags because people may disagree as to which sources are reliable and/or mainstream. Additionally, if the subject of an article involves living people (either directly or indirectly), people on one or both sides may start invoking the BLP policy and insistently rewriting or removing anything that they believe casts their side or its key people in a bad light — countering any talk of "maintain NPOV" or "don't edit-war" by saying that WP:BLP is sacrosanct and "consensus cannot override policy".
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
I believe ArbCom, or something like it, is necessary for the enforced resolution of disputes that get so heated that people start forgetting our policies. Many of the sorts of things that I understand ArbCom did originally are now handled via other mechanisms (such as AN/I) — which is probably a big part of why ArbCom today doesn't handle as many cases as it did earlier — but we're not in a position to get rid of it entirely.
One of the major issues which faces us now is whether ArbCom can or should be given responsibility over intractable content disputes. I don't think the community is quite ready for this just yet — consider the hue and cry which resulted earlier this year when ArbCom came very close to imposing an extended no-fault topic ban on editors working on the Tea Party movement article — but I do believe some workable solution needs to be devised for situations like this.
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 do anticipate being able to meet the proposed new identification requirement. As an aside, I will say that I'm worried that the proposed new policy may be overreaching, and I'm not sure how the WMF is going to be able to handle the objections from various non-US-based editors who are saying the proposal would violate the much stricter privacy laws of their own countries — but those concerns do not currently trouble me to such an extent that I would do such things as refuse to comply with the new policy, relinquish access to advanced privileges, retire from Wikipedia, etc., etc.

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

I think I'm done with the above answers, assuming I don't see something egregious when I re-read it all after getting a good night's sleep. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slight addition to answer #9. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect[edit]

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter three 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?
No. An attitude of "someone needs to be punished here, let's figure out who is guilty" is not productive and is very likely to poison the atmosphere. This approach is also likely to discourage people from bringing cases to ArbCom, and it may also discourage people from trying to work constructively on controversial articles, for fear that ArbCom's self-imposed commitment to finding someone to punish in any case it hears might inflict collateral damage on innocent parties.
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?
I strongly opposed (see here and here) the suggestion that the Tea Party case should, or even could, be resolved via the imposition of "no-fault" topic bans not tied to any credible finding of editor misconduct. And I feel the same now about this sort of thing as I did last summer. If I become an arbitrator, I absolutely will not support any sort of punitive sanction against any editor in the absence of genuine, credible findings of misconduct (or stubborn incompetence / cluelessness) on his/her part.
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?
Failing or refusing to consider evidence is an insult to the people involved in a case. If a case is tremendously complex, it may be difficult to absorb every aspect, but arbitrators have a responsibility to put forth their best effort — and if I am chosen as an arb, I will definitely work as conscientiously as possible to understand all the issues in every case I am called upon to consider.
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?
There is "binding", and there is "binding". I believe consistency and predictability are desirable, and we owe it to the community to act in a way that they can see is consistent with policy and consensus. I favour giving considerable weight to past ArbCom decisions where past and present issues are similar; however, I don't think we should consider ourselves forced to go along with an old precedent if the community's understanding has evolved. Stated another way, I think paying reasonable heed to past decisions is good in principle, but I don't want to see a situation where we might say that an old case is obsolete (or was simply decided badly), but that we have no choice but to follow it forever because it established a binding precedent.
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?
I think the Five Pillars are a reasonable restatement of our basic policies, and I see no problem with referring to it in ArbCom decisions.
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?
The BLP policy has come much more forcefully into ArbCom's domain since two of the most recent cases (Manning and Tea Party) both involved people invoking BLP as a trump card (and thus claiming their arguments were immune to consensus). IMO, for people to argue that calling the Tea Party "anti-immigration" (as opposed to "anti-illegal-immigration") constituted a BLP violation against living Tea Party adherents in general was a case of stretching the intent of the BLP policy, and the BLP exemption to the edit warring policy, beyond reason. The community isn't likely to try to tweak the BLP exemption to edit warring because the perception is that the BLP policy has been imposed by the WMF and is not subject to community input; and even if the community were to try to do this, BLP trump card players would claim a right to defy any contrary community consensus by insisting that "consensus cannot override policy". ArbCom may not want to get involved in this policy issue (because that kind of thing is not supposed to be what ArbCom does), but it may really have no choice but to (at least) strongly propose tweaks on behalf of the community, for the simple reason that nothing is going to happen otherwise.
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?
If you're specifically not talking about WP:TAGTEAM here, then I'll assume you're referring to situations where a group of otherwise independent editors who get attracted to an article or topic, and just happen to share a strongly held set of views, all get heavily involved in promoting their shared position. Depending on how the individuals act, their actions might or might not be coordinated and intentionally disruptive — and it might be difficult to tell for sure if a bunch of like-minded editors are acting as separate individuals, or if they are coordinating their efforts behind the scenes (as happened in the 2009 Eastern European mailing list case). If it's clear that a set of editors are not part of a tag-teaming conspiracy but are coincidentally sharing the same views, it would hopefully suffice to remind them (and others not sharing their positions) that consensus is not a simple vote, and that the strength of an argument lies in its quality, not in how many people come out in support of it. At the same time, the 2009 ArbCom noted in the EEML case that it is sometimes reasonable to presume that a group of editors may be coordinating their actions — all the more reason for independent editors who see an ad-hoc "faction" forming regarding a contentious article may wish to take extra care to follow the accepted rules and not to appear to be acting inappropriately as a group.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Single question from Go Phightins![edit]

In your opinion, what are the top three issues facing Wikipedia right now, and what (if any) role do you think ArbCom plays in their rectification?
(1) Retaining/expanding our editor base — something made particularly difficult because of such obstacles as our technogeeky editing interface and the antisocial behaviour of some editors (including both explicit rudeness and less obvious "civil POV pushing").
(2) Continual edit-warring in articles dealing with deeply divisive social / political / ethnic / religious topics, where ordinary dispute resolution procedures are ineffective because participants with deeply entrenched positions are uninterested in compromising with "the enemy", and because anyone we ban for disruptive editing in these topic areas will be quickly replaced by new editors holding the same hard-line views (and/or the old editors reappearing as sockpuppets).
(3) Biased editing of articles by corporate insiders or hired professionals, and the difficulty of preventing or stopping this practice — our conflict-of-interest policy is frequently unenforceable in practice because any in-depth investigation of an uncooperative editor's identity or connections is precluded by our all-but-inviolate outing/doxing policy.
What (if anything) ArbCom can do about the above problems:
(1) Stronger enforcement of policies against disruptive editing — except that the community is divided over the issue of sanctioning productive editors whose only obvious sin is overt impoliteness, and sanctioning of "civil POV pushing" is difficult because this sort of misconduct is frequently very hard to identify as being disruptive at all.
(2) Identifying these hot-button topic areas and authorizing "discretionary sanctions" to empower the community to deal with them more expeditiously.
(3) Not clear to me if ArbCom can do much in this area right now; the community and/or WMF would probably need to update the COI and outing/doxing policies first.

Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 14:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Gerda Arendt[edit]

Thank you, precious candidate, for volunteering.

Please describe what happens in this diff.
The editor in question tried to improve a biographical article by unhiding the infobox and moving it up to the top of the article (as called for in the Manual of Style for infoboxes). He also tried to move an existing photo of the article's subject into the infobox — which would have been a good thing if he had done it right — but he ended up breaking the image and leaving raw wiki markup text in the infobox. The moral of the story is that whenever you edit an article, you really need to use the "show preview" button and carefully examine the result of your planned change before saving it — and if you simply do not know how to perform some essential editing task properly, you should wait until you can find instructions or get help, rather than leave an article in a damaged state. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Love your answer ;) - The editor's next edit was to fix the described problem. - Next question: 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) 08:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note (and this is the key here) that I said the editor in question clearly tried to improve the article. This is not vandalism. Without additional evidence of malice or pervasive cluelessness, I don't see any valid grounds for using this incident as a reason to ban the editor in question, and I would be very surprised to see another arb recommending such action. I would, of course, make sure I understood whatever the other arb's reasons were for proposing a ban, but unless that reason were very good, I suspect he/she and I would have to "agree to disagree" on the matter.
I loved your answer because of what you bolded. Even vandalism in one case would be no reason to ban someone. Now imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a lot more were involved here — such as, perhaps, a long-term pattern of sloppy and incompetent editing which was causing a serious disruption, and which the user had failed or refused to do anything about despite earlier warnings — I can scarcely imagine how something like this could possibly have come before ArbCom in the first place. But assuming only what you have said — that a user had made one botched edit and was being seriously considered for banning despite having promptly fixed the problem — I would unquestionably vote against such a ban, regardless of whether I were the deciding vote or not, and even if (again, totally beyond the bounds of rational imagining) the rest of the Committee were for the ban and I would be the lone dissenting vote.

Thank you, passed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Mark Arsten[edit]

Which sanction imposed by Arbcom in the past couple years do you most disagree with? (if any)
As I said earlier, I'm less than satisfied regarding the strength of the findings of fact in the Tea Party case. Additionally, I'm concerned about the way the indefinite site ban imposed on Will Beback (in the February 2012 Timidguy ban appeal case) has continued for close to two years now — though I'll concede that I have not been privy to whatever off-wiki discussions may have taken place between WBB and ArbCom.

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?
A motion is a way for members of ArbCom to handle a situation where a full case is unnecessary or inappropriate. Motions are useful for dealing with issues such as clarification or amendment requests, or for procedural changes.
I would not generally support the use of a motion in a complex situation that really ought to be dealt with as a full-fledged case — especially if there is any genuine doubt as to who (if anyone) is at fault in a dispute. If a case has already been dealt with (as a case), and followup action is necessary (such as revision of a remedy previously decided in a case), then a motion will generally be the way to do it.
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?
In general, if the community has reached a consensus, ArbCom should not be trying to overrule the community just because the arbs believe the community got it wrong. It might be appropriate for ArbCom to handle a situation via a motion provided it is the kind of issue which is recognized as being ArbCom's responsibility — a question of procedural interpretation, for example, such as the March 2013 motion on oversight-related blocks. However, ArbCom should not step in and "settle" an issue by motion which is outside its remit (such as "settling" a long-standing content dispute).
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.
Appropriate:
CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity (decided 2013-03-11) — this clarification of existing policy shouldn't really have been necessary, but since some admins were evidently confused, it was a good thing to make it much clearer.
Usage/retention of CU/OS permissions by community Audit Subcommittee appointees (decided 2013-03-11) — an uncontroversial case of ordinary common sense.
Arbitration motion regarding Mathsci (decided 2013-09-17) — in general, I don't believe one-way interaction bans work well, and the 2013 ArbCom was right to clean things up by converting the one-way interaction bans (imposed in 2012) into two-way bans. While it is unfortunate that Mathsci continued acting disruptively and had to be indefinitely banned a month later, sometimes it is necessary to give a borderline-disruptive editor a chance to show whether he is or isn't truly prepared to act in a civil and collaborative manner.
Not appropriate: Although I'm not sure I would have gone along with the majority on all of the 2013 motions, none of them really stand out in my mind as having been "inappropriate".
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'm not (yet) sure what I think about this particular motion. On the one hand, ArbCom is supposed to confine its dealings to matters taking place here (on the English Wikipedia). On the other hand, this situation appears to be a particularly egregious example of someone doing things off-wiki which would unquestionably be beyond the pale if done on-wiki — but under circumstances where no rational person could fail to connect the dots. Other than to say that I approve of the arbs discussing their reasoning (see my comments on the next question), I need to ponder this one some more.
Update: Now that I've finished reading the discussion so far on the Phil Sandifer matter, I have three main thoughts.
(1) For a Wikipedia editor to "out" / "dox" another Wikipedian via posts to another site, where those posts can clearly be attributed to their author's Wikipedia identity, is IMO as much a violation of our outing/doxing policy as if the offending material had been posted on Wikipedia.
(2) Gross misbehaviour taking place off-wiki, where it can clearly be attributed to a specific Wikipedia editor, should IMO be eligible for consideration as a basis for sanctioning said editor (including desysopping in the case of a Wikipedia administrator). FWIW, I note that our policy (see WP:ADMINACCT) already says that "conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship" may be a valid reason for sanctioning an admin (including desysopping); and WP:NPA says that personal attacks made off-wiki may "create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions".
(3) Although I believe summary desysopping of Phil Sandifer was probably justified under the circumstances, I am less convinced that a summary site ban was in order; IMO, a better handling of the situation would have been for ArbCom to open a full-fledged case to consider the idea of a ban, with the summary desysopping being provisional pending the outcome of the case. It appears to me here — admittedly in retrospect — that no effort was really saved here by handling the matter via a motion; the ensuing discussion of the motion was as lengthy as many ArbCom cases.
Without presuming to prejudge the issue, I will say that if I am chosen to be an arbitrator, I will be inclined to view favourably a request by Phil Sandifer to review the appropriateness of the sanctions against him — including possibly reconsidering the entire incident in the form of a full-fledged case — in order to dispel any question of whether the matter is being handled in an above-board fashion.
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?
Given that the matter was inherently divisive, I don't see anything at all inappropriate about the arbs discussing their reasoning, even with the realization that this would result in heated debate. Indeed, if the arbs were to decide not to engage the community in a dialogue, many people would feel (and rightly so IMO) that they were being unduly secretive and arrogant.
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 it would be nice for as much arbitrator discussion as reasonably possible to take place on-wiki. However, I also realize it is unrealistic to suppose that everything arbs discuss amongst themselves should, or can, be made public. Since becoming a member of the Audit Subcommittee, I've seen a lot of e-mail discussions (not on the ArbCom list, to be sure, but on the Functionaries list and a couple of other lists), and this has helped me to appreciate how some discussions legitimately belong in a non-public forum. I'm willing to say here that the default, neutral choice should be to discuss things in public — that is, that if something needs to be kept confidential, there should be a definite reason for this that can be articulated. But I'm not going to join a crusade demanding that everything ArbCom talks about must be 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?

Beyond suggesting that a given issue should be discussed publicly if possible, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to commit in advance to a specific course of action. In particular, I will not commit to resign in protest over such a thing, and I would also not defy the rest of the Committee by going public with things which my colleagues felt should remain private.

Question by Wizardman[edit]

I am shocked that this question hasn’t been asked above, as I feel it is simple yet says a great deal about any candidate. No wrong answer to this question aside from “I don’t know”.

As an arbitrator, what would you do? In other words, would you primarily work on cases, subcommittees, another arbitrator responsibility?
I envision my role as an arbitrator (if I am chosen to be one) to be one of dealing primarily with cases, motions, and amendment/clarification requests. I also expect to work with ban appeals at least some of the time. These things may sometimes seem tedious and routine, but they are very important to the people affected (either directly by possible sanctions, or indirectly by the effect ArbCom's rulings have on the articles and topic areas our editors work on).

Questions by Leaky Caldron[edit]

These related questions concern judgement. What should we make of your complaint about the draft election guide in user talk space by an editor banned by Arbcom earlier this year? While neutrally worded, can you say with certainty that you acted with neutral intent? The editor's election guide was not supportive of your candidature. Did that influence your decision to draw attention to it? Would you have taken the same action if the editor had reviewed you in glowing terms? Much drama has now been created at AN/I and Arbcom/C&A. Was that predicable to you and is there anything you wish you had done differently?
I felt that the issue had to be raised, both to protect the integrity of the election process, and also to make it clear what this banned user was or was not permitted to do while their ban was in effect. And yes, I would have brought up the matter even if Kiefer.Wolfowitz's voter guide had supported my candidacy, or had not mentioned me at all. Indeed, if the voter guide had either supported me or not mentioned me, I would probably have acted on my own initiative to delete the guide section from KW's talk page (per WP:BAN, the Banning Policy), and I would also most likely have revoked KW's access to his/her talk page as an arbitration enforcement action (citing last August's arbitration decision banning this user for a minimum of one year). Since I was mentioned negatively, though, I chose to seek outside comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013, lest by dealing with the matter myself I might have been seen as violating WP:ADMIN by using my admin rights to gain an advantage for myself.
If I had been treated favourably by KW's guide, BTW, and had failed in that case to speak up about the evident ban violation, I imagine I could have been criticized for keeping quiet for my own benefit — almost certainly not a sanctionable rule violation, but definitely something that would have spawned criticism of my judgment for purposes of my ArbCom candidacy. So, yes, I really mean it when I say that I would have spoken up regardless of whether I were being criticized or praised.
It might be worth noting, incidentally, that the problem I see with KW's voter guide is only partially because he/she is arguably misusing his/her talk page in violation of the banning policy. More important, I believe, is that KW included a category tag in his/her voter guide, which would (and did) inevitably have the effect of engaging the general community by bringing his/her comments to the attention of everyone who might be following the election — not just to the group (however large or small) of users who may have decided to add KW's talk page to their watch lists. Whatever the community might think about banned users engaging in personal blogging or soapboxing on their talk pages (the banning policy appears to clearly prohibit this, but it's not consistently enforced in practice), explicitly trying to attract the attention of new followers (by adding a significant category tag to one's talk page) is definitely a line-crossing move IMO.
As for what I think about the drama that has resulted here, and what I might have done differently: I imagine I might have decided to wait a while to see if anyone else was going to question the appropriateness of KW's writing and publicizing a voter guide, before doing so myself; the drama would, I'm sure, have still happened, but I would not have ended up so near the centre of it. And as for the "much drama" — we can't always avoid the generation of drama as long as some people are going to edit disruptively, get themselves site-banned, and continue to try to push the limits; and as I said, this bit of drama was almost certainly going to have flared up anyway, and IMO it wasn't caused by me or by anyone else other than KW.
Addendum: I suppose I should add here that I realize I could have tried to avoid some of the drama by contacting ArbCom by e-mail — but given the concerns people have been expressing about transparency, that would probably have been a very bad idea, and I don't regret calling attention to the matter on-wiki.

Question from Heim[edit]

Your platform includes support for civility. How would you seek to enforce that as an arb? What sanctions would you support for what levels of incivility? How would you respond to the oft-given "(s)he may be uncivil sometimes, but (s)he does good article work" argument? Should baiting be considered as a mitigating factor? And to what extent should baiting itself be sanctioned?
Civility is one of our "five pillars" — one of the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia is supposed to operate. It can sometimes be difficult to define, and enforcement is often tricky. I don't naïvely, unrealistically expect to be able to reform the playing field regarding civility single-handedly and overnight, but I do believe it is important for us all to aim higher than some of us have done in the past.
The WP:CIVIL policy page says a lot about civility, and I would urge everyone to read (or re-read) it carefully. Some of the many overt behaviours generally considered not to be civil are listed in the policy's section on "Identifying incivility" (WP:IUC).
Incivility is a problem on Wikipedia, not only because it threatens the collegial, collaborative atmosphere which we need to build in order to work here successfully, but also because we risk driving away new editors who may not yet be sufficiently devoted to the project to be willing to deal with an insulting, unfriendly atmosphere — as well as sometimes causing old editors to give up and quit because they just can't take the abuse anymore. Difficulty in attracting and retaining editors has become a matter of serious concern, and we simply can't afford the luxury of gratuitously fostering and tolerating an unfriendly climate for no valid reason.
I may personally be willing to look past the surface imperfections of curmudgeons, gadflies, and crusty sailor types and try to accept them for the value of their insights and content work, but not everyone can do this, and we as a community don't have the right to decide that people who aren't thick-skinned enough to put up with chronic verbal abuse aren't worth keeping around. And just because a given editor offers insightful commentary and does a lot of good article work should not, in my view, give them a free pass to act antisocially — if anything, a long-term, high-quality contributor should know better and ought to be setting a good example, and the community has a right and a responsibility to hold such people to a higher standard. We should try, where possible, to convince high-quality editors with serious civility problems to mend their ways, but there may still come a point (as described in our banning policy) where whatever good someone is accomplishing is, unfortunately, outweighed by the harm they are causing.
In my opinion, it is very important to understand that civility involves more than just using "nice" language and avoiding "bad" words. It is, sadly, all too common for people to do so-called "civil POV pushing" (see the WP:PUSH essay page), whereby they engage in long-term disruption while remaining superficially polite. And people guilty of "civil POV pushing" can often frustrate other editors to the point of causing them to "blow up" and act in obviously uncivil ways that get them (but very possibly not the "civil POV pushers" who provoked them) into trouble.
In fact, although I believe that obviously uncivil behaviour is detrimental to what we are trying to do here, I consider the insidious "civil POV pushing" problem to be just as dangerous, and arguably more so. Unfortunately, "civil POV pushing" tends to be harder to identify; you usually can't point to a single isolated diff as evidence of this sort of abusive activity. This is, I believe, a big part of why our track record of dealing with "civil POV pushing" isn't nearly as good as our ability to handle the much easier problem of overt, superficial incivility. We really need to do something about this, but as I said earlier, it's not going to be easy, and I don't claim to have a magic bullet that I can use all by myself to make the problem evaporate.
I don't believe that someone's uncivil actions should be totally excused because they were provoked / baited, but I do think the circumstances may be taken into account as a mitigating factor. Someone who is clearly acting intentionally and deliberately with the object in view of provoking other editors into acting uncivilly and/or leaving a topic area (or leaving Wikipedia entirely) in disgust or frustration is, in my view, committing a severe breach of this project's social contract, and such misbehaviour needs to be dealt with accordingly — including long-term site bans / blocks if necessary to force it to stop right away.
Last year (November 2012), editors were invited to answer a lengthy questionnaire on civility. I was one of 100+ people who did this; see here for my answers. I recently reviewed what I wrote on this subject a year ago, and I still basically agree with what I said at the time (though I have changed one of my answers, as indicated on the page).
If I am chosen as an arbitrator, I will make a serious effort to confront the "civil POV pushing" problem. Indeed, it may very possibly turn out that a goodly number of arbitration requests of the sort which ArbCom has declined in the past as "content disputes" not ripe for arbitration can, upon closer examination, be seen as examples of bad-faith disruptive editing practices that need to be stopped sooner rather than later — and I will point out such situations where I see them and try to persuade others on the Committee to my view — though, of course, I can't guarantee that everyone will agree with me all the time.

Questions from Hawkeye7[edit]

Both last year and this year, you've touched upon the scope of ArbCom's remit. Would I be mischaracterising your position as a strict construction of ArbCom authority as only extending to matters of editor conduct and not policy or content? can you conceive of an ArbCom case where editor conduct is not an issue? Do you support extending ArbCom's mandate?
The current arbitration policy says that the Committee has a duty and responsibility to "act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". The policy also says that "the arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat", and that ArbCom "does not rule on content", but that the committee may interpret existing policy and guidelines, create procedures for the enforcement of policy and guidelines, and may propose means for community facilitation of content dispute resolution.
If the community wants to change the arbitration policy, there is a specific procedure for amending the policy (involving a community referendum with substantial participation and majority support for any change) — but until then, all arbitrators (including myself if I am chosen to be an arb) clearly must respect what the existing policy does and does not permit.
Given the above, I can't really conceive right now of a legitimate ArbCom case were editor (mis)conduct is not the main point at issue — and, indeed, many arbitration requests are routinely declined because they are judged to be primarily content disputes which (even if difficult) are not within the authority of ArbCom to settle. There was one particularly notable instance this year (the Tea Party case) where several arbs supported the idea of a blanket, no-fault topic ban to unjam the futile efforts to resolve content disputes, but even though some arbs felt this move was justifiable as a last-resort, least-bad remedy to an otherwise intractable problem, others insisted that a topic ban was a sanction and that, as such, must not be imposed against any editor without any finding of misconduct on the editor's part.
As I've indicated elsewhere, I am willing to support the idea of ArbCom's getting involved on a very limited basis in a narrowly defined subset of content disputes — such as in cases where a seemingly intractable content dispute is closely linked to "civil POV pushing", or when a content dispute relates specifically to disagreements over the interpretation of the BLP policy (where it might sometimes be necessary per WMF-imposed requirements to make binding decisions without regard to community consensus). I do believe it may be wise to ask the community to explore issues like this more carefully, but I absolutely do not propose or intend to do an end run to implement any such changes without a clear community consensus to do so.
If the community doesn't want to consider (or even to talk about) possible minor expansions to ArbCom's remit such as the above, then the only effect along these lines which you're likely to see by having me on the Committee is that I may be slightly more inclined to accept a case that is a Gordian knot tangling both difficult content issues and subtle user misconduct issues together — cases of a sort which, in the past, have frequently been declined on the basis of the content aspect, but where I might be more inclined to focus on the potential user conduct aspect. Even then, I would be one vote out of (hopefully) 15, and if my fellow arbs disagreed with my view and decided to outvote me, then I would be outvoted. As far as making decisions would go, I will definitely follow the strict letter of the current policy and not even try to impose solutions to content disputes (not even BLP-related content disputes), until and unless the community should decide to revise the current policy. And in particular (quoting something I said earlier), I will absolutely never vote for any sort of punitive sanction against any editor in the absence of genuine, credible findings of misconduct (or stubborn incompetence / cluelessness) on his/her part.
You have mentioned transparency above. Do you regard this as a problem? Do you have any personal proposals in this regard? Is it acceptable for ArbCom to enforce a decision without publishing it?
I believe the policies and procedures currently in place are generally adequate, and I'm not really sure there are any major problems. In general, I believe ArbCom decisions (together with the basis for those decisions) should be made public except in specific, rare cases where confidentiality is essential. I do realize that some discussions do legitimately belong in a non-public forum, and although I believe that the default, neutral choice should be to discuss things in public, I am not going to join any crusade demanding that everything ArbCom talks about must be on-wiki.
(Follow up) You say that the procedures currently in place are generally adequate; but if you bring up almost any recent ArbCom case, you'll find an instance of a resolution with little or no rationale or reasoning, followed by an up and down vote. For example, consider this straightforward motion. There is a discussion about why a particular page falls under a ban, but only one Arb has provided a reasoning or rationale to explain his vote. Do you regard this as adequate? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe the discussion was adequate for this motion. It seems clear to me that this "probation" request was supported by several members of the community (and no one from the community chose to speak up in opposition). One arb did wonder whether granting this request was a good idea, but he eventually changed his mind after noting the extent of community support, the limited extent of the exception being proposed, and the willingness of a specific admin to keep an eye on the situation. As for the way the arbs voted, my reasonable assumption is that the ones who supported the motion without offering any explicit reason were agreeing with the reasoning already articulated by other arbs — if you want a "real-world" example, this is kind of like a SCOTUS opinion written by one member of the court and concurred in by other listed members who, however, did not give any specific reasons. In summary, I don't see a problem here.

With SCOTUS everyone puts out or signs on to a concurring or dissenting opinion. In this case we assume that there has been some discussion, but we don't know that the others actually agree with the one who published his reasoning. And all they had to do was write "Per Richwales" to indicate this. This would be a simple reform. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. If I am chosen as an arb, I will make a point of saying something (even if just a "per so-and-so") on each of my votes, and I'll encourage my colleagues to consider doing the same thing. I'm still not sure it's really necessary in a straightforward motion like this one, but it couldn't hurt. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 it is reasonable to tweak the existing language in the arbitration policy to make it clear that most communications should be public (or at least summarized in public) where reasonably possible, but that e-mail correspondence will normally be kept private. I do believe ArbCom discussions should be public to the extent reasonably possible — though, as I've indicated before, I do recognize that some ArbCom business is reasonably done via confidential e-mail — and I won't agree to join any crusade either to demand that everything ArbCom does must be made public, or else to demand a detailed and convincing justification for each and every private communication. Note, too, that changes to our arbitration policy would need to be approved by a broad community consensus and cannot be made by the arbs acting alone.

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?
The "undeleting libel" issue appears to be being handled properly per our BLP policy (as best I can tell right now). As for your evident disagreement with the way two ArbCom cases were handled, I'm not going to comment other than to say that in almost any case, there are going to be people on both sides, and no matter how a decision comes down, some people are going to be very pleased, while others will be outraged. And without having any intention here of slighting the sensibilities of transgender or other LGBT editors or readers of Wikipedia, our task here is not to "repair" or otherwise enhance Wikipedia's reputation amongst any particular social, political, religious, or ethnic group — we are here to build an encyclopedia based on a gathering and distillation of information from reliable mainstream sources. Decisions by ArbCom should be made in accordance with Wikipedia's policies (and, in particular, in keeping with the way editors' conduct does or does not conform to those policies) — not with a view toward either placating or offending any particular group.

Question from User:SirFozzie[edit]

First off, thank you for running. You mention that you have a good amount of dispute resolution experience.. do you think that's a positive in dealing with a job that is primarily dispute resolution, ie, you know how the sausage is made, so to speak.
Well, yes, I do believe prior experience with resolving (or trying to resolve) disputes is important for a member of the Arbitration Committee to have. And even though not all of my attempts to resolve disputes have been successful, that has still given me valuable experience for being an arb.

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.)?
It depends on the nature and magnitude of the disruption to Wikipedia being caused by the editor in question. A full site ban would hopefully be used only when no lesser remedy seems likely to be effective to protect Wikipedia from ongoing disruption.
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)
Bans/blocks are intended to be protective and preventative, not punitive. If it is clear from an editor's behaviour up till now that they have no intention of changing their ways, no matter what they may say, then a full site ban is likely to be necessary for the sake of protecting the project (regardless of their empty and meaningless promises to reform).
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...?)
An injunction against trespass.
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?
Regardless of what I may think about this issue, I'm going to decline to answer your question because I don't see its relevance to Wikipedia or the process of choosing arbitrators. If you can give a cogent argument showing why this question is in fact pertinent to the ArbCom election process, I may reconsider.
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?
Your essay raises some good points, but I'm unwilling to accept the idea that we should go easy on misbehaving editors because (aside from their disruptive misbehaviour) they may be valuable contributors to Wikipedia. Are you really saying that if someone is doing lots of good work, we should cut them some slack and allow them to be disruptive to a greater extent than we would tolerate in someone who isn't such a stellar contributor? This sort of double standard, in my view, would lead to all sorts of problems that I really don't think we want to have to deal with. If someone truly is a productive editor who makes lots of valuable improvements to the project, it really shouldn't be that difficult to expect them to be respectful to others, refrain from "civil POV pushing", 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.
If, and only if, there were a broad community consensus or a WMF policy directive to this effect. It happens that some of the information (about me) which you are requesting can already be found on my user pages; what is not there already, I respectfully decline to make public at this time per Wikipedia's existing privacy policies. Similarly, the fact that I have chosen to mention some details about myself on my user pages should not be interpreted as any sort of endorsement on my part for expecting other candidates to disclose anything more about themselves.
If I were to yield to your "request" for this kind of personal information, in the absence of any official policy statement requiring me to do so as a condition of ArbCom candidacy, I would be putting unfair pressure on other candidates to follow my lead — something which I have no right to do on my own in the absence of a properly adopted policy change.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 20 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 Featured Article effort to date is United States v. Wong Kim Ark (about an 1898 US Supreme Court decision dealing with citizenship). I've also shepherded one other article to FA status — Afroyim v. Rusk (about a 1967 US Supreme Court decision, also on citizenship) — as well as six Good Articles and five DYKs (two of the DYKs later became GAs). A description of the highlights of my content work can be found at User:Richwales/Tabs/MyWork. I know this isn't a huge amount of output compared with many other editors, but I believe it does show that I do understand how content creation should work.

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've already taken abuse from time to time over the years for obstructing the work of tendentious, combative writers on certain topics — both here on Wikipedia, and also in connection with some of my other online activities farther in the past. While I've considered it unlikely that my activities here on Wikipedia, or elsewhere online, might result in undesirable real-life consequences to myself or my loved ones, this is of course always a possibility as long as some people don't like the things I say. And I realize this could become more of a possibility if I am chosen for a high-profile role such as the Arbitration Committee — it's not supposed to be an inherently dangerous position, but very few activities worth doing in life are absolutely without risk. Without a crystal ball, there is only so much one can realistically do to prepare for every possible eventuality, and I'm not about to shy away from every opportunity to be of service just because someone out there might get angry enough to strike out at me. Yes, I realize there could be some risk, but I don't intend to let it paralyse me into inaction.

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 really is a problem. Many (perhaps most) of the "obvious" articles have already been written — or, at least, started — but we still have lots more to do to make Wikipedia a comprehensive, in-depth encyclopedia. To do this, we need to attract new editors and keep more of the ones we already have. This task may be complicated by the fact that today's Wikipedia is not the Wikipedia of a decade ago, and some people who were attracted to the trailblazing, free-wheeling atmosphere of the project's early days may be put off by the complex bureaucracy we have become now.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?
We need to be more friendly, welcoming, and encouraging to new editors, who may be put off by our procedures and the jargon we've developed (which we understand but newcomers may not), as well as by the unappreciative cold shoulder they frequently get from some established users who quickly become impatient and do not suffer those whom they may imagine to be fools. If a new editor writes something that isn't quite the way a Wikipedia article ought to be, we should offer to help them rather than brusquely delete their work because of some noncompliance issue that, even if important, could probably be fixed with a bit of patient handholding.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?
The WMF may be able to help by improving the editing interface — though their recent attempt to do this via the Visual Editor was too hasty and exhibited numerous problems that could/should have been ironed out through a greater amount of community input. And any innovations designed to help newcomers must, if at all possible, be implemented in such a way that established editors (who are already comfortable with our existing editing tools) can continue to work in a manner that is as close as possible to what they have already become accustomed to.
Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?
The primary way ArbCom can help in this endeavour is to make sure that editors who conduct themselves badly are forced to stop and change their ways. Misbehaviour of any kind which interferes with our goal and drives off new (and/or not-so-new) contributors should not be tolerated here, and ArbCom needs to handle such situations firmly (as well as fairly).

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?
IMO, essentially everything in Wikipediocracy is written from a viewpoint that insists Wikipedia is bad in every possible way, and that those having any responsibility for WP who fail or refuse to accept and proclaim its utter rottenness are either naïve or corrupt. Wikipediocracy may sometimes be helpful as a means of drawing our attention to issues which we might not be handling ideally, but I certainly wouldn't recommend to anyone that they should give unquestioning acceptance to every claim or opinion articulated on the site.
We (Wikipedia / ArbCom / WMF) can't "do" anything about Wikipediocracy. And even if we could, we almost certainly shouldn't — any such action most likely would be very unwise, both from a public relations perspective (i.e., cries of "censorship"), and also for fear of triggering a Streisand effect and making Wikipediocracy immensely more popular than it currently is.
To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?
The arbitration policy says that ArbCom "has no jurisdiction over ... conduct outside the English Wikipedia" — but also that ArbCom "may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors." Additionally, the accountability section of our administrator policy says that "conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, etc.)" may be grounds for sanctioning (including possibly desysopping) of an admin.
So, if a Wikipedia editor engages in abusive conduct such as the above on Wikipediocracy, and their posts on Wikipediocracy can be clearly and uncontroversially attributed to the poster's Wikipedia identity, then yes, I can easily accept the notion that their inappropriate conduct on Wikipediocracy may legitimately have ArbCom-prescribed consequences on their Wikipedia privileges.
However, if someone is posting scathing criticism of Wikipedia or an ArbCom ruling on Wikipediocracy, I don't see that as being automatic grounds for sanctioning them on Wikipedia unless they are doing things like outing/doxing, personal attacks, actively promoting meatpuppetry, etc., etc. And if there is any legitimate question as to whether an abusive Wikipediocracy posting really did come from a specific Wikipedia editor, fairness would dictate that we give them the benefit of the doubt (since, for example, we can't do CU checks on Wikipediocracy postings).

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 17:53, 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.
While transparency should be encouraged to the greatest extent reasonably possible, there are aspects of ArbCom's work that do require respect for sensitive information that must be kept private. I'm certainly prepared to support greater openness to the extent that this goal can be accomplished without hampering the Committee's ability to deal with sensitive, private material. An indiscriminate crusade demanding an unquestioning commitment to total transparency, regardless of the circumstances or the consequences, would (IMO) seriously impede ArbCom's crucial work, as well as the necessary tasks of those individuals with the Checkuser and Oversight privileges. But again, if a given issue really can be handled on-wiki, I do favour doing this rather than discussing it on a closed e-mail list just because that might seem more convenient at the time.
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).
Offering arguments without substantiation (or with diffs that don't correspond to the arguments) is always inappropriate, and may even be deserving of sanctions if clearly done with an intention to mislead. People who do this should be asked to clarify their statements, add acceptable substantiation, or retract what they have said. Some of this work could probably be done by the arbitration clerks instead of by the Committee itself.
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?
This question seems clumsily worded; I'm going to assume you didn't mean "why" in the second sentence and wanted to ask me a yes-or-no question (i.e., whether or not I think enough is being done to deal with clear cases of incivility).
First off, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "clear cases of incivility", and I'm not certain the community really agrees right now on exactly where to draw this line. I should say here that I know some people have firmly decided to label me a superficial "bad words cop" and probably won't change their minds about this no matter what I say — but if by "clear cases of incivility" you specifically mean potty-mouthed (potty-fingered?) editors, I do think this particular activity is potentially harmful to the community and we would be better off without it, but I don't generally think it merits ArbCom action except when someone is constantly doing it, despite repeated cautions, with full knowledge that it's making other people really uncomfortable and disrupting productive discussions, and in a context where they are clearly either trying to drive people away (or bait them into uncivil behaviour of their own) or simply refuse to care how others may feel.
As for other kinds of uncivil misbehaviour — such as personal attacks, refusal to engage in good-faith discussions, refusal to acknowledge policies, edit warring, treating Wikipedia like a battleground, sockpuppetry, and the so-often-elusive "civil POV pushing" — these issues are indeed a matter of serious concern, and they are always going to be with us. Are we doing enough? Some might say we aren't, because the problems haven't been eradicated and aren't likely to be in the foreseeable future, but every bit we do accomplish is a small victory. Are we ignoring these not-necessarily-clear cases of incivility, and instead expending all our energy on sanctioning potty-mouths while the "real" problem cases sneak through the cracks? It's certainly possible this may have happened, but I don't intend to allow it on my watch without speaking up.
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?
I see two issues here. First, editors have the right to disclose as much, or as little, of their real-world identity as they wish. Any effort to "dig up" and reveal more about someone's identity than they themselves have chosen to make available is strictly prohibited by our outing/doxing policy and should be sternly sanctioned in order to discourage people from engaging in it.
This applies even when someone may think someone else's real identity is important for the community to know. We (the community) still need to sort out how best to handle situations where an editor's identity needs to be uncovered in order to deal with serious policy violations (such as paid editing) — but for the time being, as far as the actions of self-appointed investigative reporters may be concerned, the clear answer is still "don't do it".
As for the perceived double standard between users whose real-life identity can be determined without a terrible amount of work and those whose identity is well and truly hidden, there really isn't much that can be done about this, short of prohibiting all logged-out IP address editing and requiring everyone to self-identify with the Wikimedia Foundation in order to get an account (something that I think everyone will agree is simply not going to happen). And this isn't something ArbCom could impose anyway (even if they wanted to) — only the WMF could impose such a drastic policy change, and as I said, I'm sure it's not going to happen.
Dealing with this question personally, I sometimes wonder if I might have been better off registering on Wikipedia, many years ago, via a nom de plume not obviously linked to my real identity. If I had it to do over again now, I probably would have chosen a much less transparent user name, and I would definitely encourage people opening Wikipedia accounts now to do so. But in my case, what's done is done — I've done far too much work on the site by now to have any realistic hope of making a "clean start" even if I wanted to — and I've made my peace with that.
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?
People who end up on the losing side of an arbitration case will often feel their points were overlooked or ignored, even if the truth is that what they said was in fact taken into consideration but the ultimate decision went another way. That having been said, the Committee should work hard to acknowledge and consider all arguments in order to make a decision that is not only fair, but is also seen to be fair.

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?
With all possible respect, I am going to decline to answer this question, in order to focus people's attention on activities taking place here on Wikipedia, and also so as not to put inappropriate pressure on other candidates to disclose aspects of their off-wiki lives which they would prefer to keep to themselves.
Thanks for your response. I can kind-of understand your reluctance to answer the question. However, last year I asked you the exact same question (it's my way of gauging what kind of person you are) and you did respond. What's changed? Thanks.
What I said last year pretty much still applies, and I suppose there's no real harm in my posting it again now. By answering this question now, I am in no way suggesting that I believe other candidates should feel obligated to do likewise.
I am not currently involved in any off-wiki, Wikipedia-related projects. While I conduct most discussions on-wiki (in article and user talk pages), I do occasionally use e-mail for matters which appear to be particularly sensitive — such as the occasional revision deletion request, or confidential discussions related to my membership in the Audit Subcommittee. I have an IRC account, but I have used it only a few times. As I have said in response to earlier questions, I would prefer as much ArbCom discussion to be on-wiki as is reasonably possible, but I recognize that some matters do require privacy.

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?
I don't agree with the idea of counting / tallying small-scale violations in order to sanction someone once a specific "score" has been reached. Each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and with a primary view toward preventing future problems rather than concentrating on punishment for its own sake. A long history of "small" violations might not be worth dealing with, or it may be a sign of a pattern that is eroding the project and which needs to be stopped. This decision can't be made mechanically.
This is related, in a way, to our edit warring policy — if it is clear that someone is edit warring, they can be blocked even if they haven't technically violated the three-revert rule; they don't automatically get three contentious reverts.
Followup question: Ideally each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits, but currently it does not work. The arbitrators are busy and justifiably sanction a complainant who disturbs with minor claims. Hence those editors can continue with small-scale violations, and some real low quality articles. I can provide an example if required. It is better to have not so good solution rather than no solution at all. A counter will stop most of those malfunctioning editors before they arrive at the threshold, and even if they are sanctioned, they can ask for a review. The bottom line is better articles and relieving the arbitrators to deal with the "heavy duty" problems. Ykantor (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Situations like this would, of course, not often actually reach ArbCom (as opposed to being handled by the community). In any event, I stand by my previous answer; I do not believe a "counter" approach is a wise or appropriate idea. In any case, this would be a question of a possible policy change, something that is not within the responsibility of ArbCom to decide whether to enact or not — such a change, if made at all, could only be made as a result of a clear consensus of our editor community. If you feel this is a change that ought to be made in Wikipedia's policies for dealing with disruptive editing, you may of course bring it to the community for thorough consideration (definitely more thorough than can possibly be accomplished by asking me or other prospective arbitrators).
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 built in internal balancing. The bureaucracy is fully automated, but the editor may opt for manual intervention, and as a benefit, a misconducting editor will have to stop it, unlike nowadays .
See the answer I already gave to your earlier question (#2 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. !
The NPOV policy is (and ought to be) much more subtly nuanced than your suggestion would make it. If a given user is consistently editing in such a way that one view is being constantly advanced and other, significant, reliably sourced views are being whittled away, then this may indeed be a violation of NPOV. But if a group of editors are each favouring different views, but are cooperating in an orderly way so that the article will represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources", then this may be a good way to achieve NPOV.
Some will say that the ideal would be for everyone editing in a controversial topic area to present all views fairly and impartially — "writing for the opponent", as it were, and possibly even reaching a state where outsiders can't really even tell where (if anywhere) any given editor's biases may lie. But that's very hard to do in practice, and we're more likely to have to settle for a situation in which editors have individual biases, but at the same time they recognize and accept that legitimate alternative viewpoints exist and that all of these are entitled to be fairly represented and described.
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?
I am hesitant to answer such a general question as this without additional details. In a specific situation, the answer is likely to depend on a reasonable interpretation of the rules and/or a balancing of seemingly conflicting rules — not simply an abstract, black-and-white matter of whether to enforce or ignore rules in general. Since you appear to have a specific case (or cases) in mind here, I believe it would be better if you could indicate exactly which case (and which issue in that case) you want me (and the other candidates) to comment on.

I have experienced this problems as I am involved in a continuous conflict but I hope for a general solution, which as a by product, will markedly improve those low quality articles as well.

However, as an example of a specific situation, say that an editor deletes a supported sentence and write in the edit summary, that ""already written in the article "firmly opposed" or "opposed to any form of" means the same"". But it is not in the article, and the quotes are definitely not the same. (It is just an example, and I have no intention to use your reply anywhere) Ykantor (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from user:Martinevans123[edit]

Dear Rich Wales: 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) 18:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Material from the Daily Mail is of problematic and uncertain reliability; I would normally recommend against using a Daily Mail piece as the main source for any claim.
In general, I am skeptical of the usefulness of YouTube material on Wikipedia. WP:YOUTUBE (a subsection of the External Links guideline, WP:EL) says that there is "no blanket ban on linking to YouTube"; however, much of the material on YouTube is unlikely to be suitable for Wikipedia because of copyright violations, difficulty confirming the true origin of a given piece, and a general lack of any sort of editorial control. YouTube material on the official channel of its copyright holder — where the source and copyright status are clear — may be usable if it otherwise meets our standards.
Note, of course, that since ArbCom isn't charged with deciding content disputes, questions about Daily Mail or YouTube material aren't likely to show up in an ArbCom case, except when (for example) someone is insisting on including such material in an article, is ignoring or defying other editors who are objecting on reliability or copyvio grounds, and ArbCom needs to deal with the resulting edit war.
I've already said a lot about civility; read my earlier comments on this page. But to be brief: yes, we still do need a civility policy, and no, having a long record of "good" edits should not give someone a free pass to treat other people like dirt.
I'm not sure if anyone can accurately predict how busy ArbCom will be with cases next year. I think it's safe to assume, though, that the Committee will have plenty of ban appeals, amendment / clarification requests, and other work to do.

Many thanks for your clear and sensible replies, RW. Yes, I read what you have said about civility and it makes a lot of sense. I agree there is larger problem than editors habitually calling other editors "idiots" or "cretins", or telling them to "fuck off". But for many editors that particular problem is bad enough. What is much more damaging is the attitude that "I'm better than you because" ... I've been here longer, I've made more edits, I've got a fan-club, or (worst of all) "I know more than you do." And the attitude that because an editor makes "a mistake" he or she is to be insulted and made fun of, rather than gently helped and encouraged. But I'd better get down off my little 70s platform shoes now and start sharpening my voting pencil. Martinevans123 (talk)