WIKIPEDIA:ARBITRATION COMMITTEE ELECTIONS DECEMBER 2012 CANDIDATES COREN

Coren

Hello. I'm Coren, a regular Wikipedian since 2006, administrator since 2007, and I have served on the committee from 2009 to 2011 and as a checkuser since.

Why choose to run again? The first reason – and I suppose the most important one – is that I know I can do the job. I spent my year of "vacation" occupying myself mostly with SPI, normal administrative work, and implication at the Foundation level and find myself again with the energy I no longer had at the end of my previous terms.

Some people have described me as a "baseline candidate", and that's probably not far from the truth. I'm not the most flamboyant or revolutionary of candidates, but I have a solid track record of getting the job done. I think this is something the committee needs at this time: the past year has seen a bit too much shooting from the hip, and I think the more measured approach of 2010-2011 is desirable.

Finally, I think that this year has a regrettable paucity of candidates for the job (despite the impressively high quality of the selection). I'd be lying if I said the job was easy, or that I didn't understand why many would hesitate to step forward to so much scrutiny in order to get a seat that seems to bring so much aggravation. Nevertheless, I believe it's important that the voters have a meaningful choice between several good candidates in order to keep the committee healthy; it works best when it is diverse and representative.

I am already identified with the foundation [1] and have no undisclosed user accounts. I have a few bot accounts, only one of which is nominally active: CorenBlockMonBot, CorenANIBot, CorenSearchBot, CorenGoogleBot, and one doppelgänger that never edited to protect my real name. — Coren ^(talk) 23:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Arbitration Committee Election 2012 candidate: Coren

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

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

General questions

Skills and experience:
a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
I've been an administrator since 2007, and served on the committee from 2008 to 2011 so I know what the job entails. In addition, I've been working as a regular checkuser (not involving arbitration) for a year.

b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
In addition to my past work as arbitrator, I've always kept an eye on the various noticeboards and helped where I could.
Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?
I tend to lie a bit on the harsher side. By the time a dispute reaches the committee it's already clear that the problems could not be solved by normal application of lesser measures, so it's more likely that decisive sanctions will be required.
The most likely factors to affect my decision is whether the editor for which sanctions are considered is likely to be able to contribute positively in some other capacity, or whether they are repeat offenders.
ArbCom Practices:
a) ArbCom and policies:
i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
Yes, although it's important to remain careful to avoid "legislating from the bench"; so almost all such positions should be clarification and interpretation rather than new policy.
A significant factor causing disputes to reach committee is when existing policy and practice is ambiguous or contradictory, and the parties lie on different interpretations. Unless the committee clarifies matters – or finds a way to allow the community to do so – we can't actually resolve the dispute; just delay its escalation.

ii) 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?
It's of direct importance: the pillars are the reason we are here to begin with. They state the original "contract" that we agree on when we commit to making this encyclopaedia a reality. I suppose you could say they are the foundation of our faith in the project, in a philosophical way.

iii) 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?
One thing that is too often forgotten is that we are important and influential. Our BLP policies (including the direct mandate from the Foundation in that regard) form the foundation of our important ethical responsibilities as the primary repository of knowledge on the 'net.
We have, today, the power to ruin people's lives. This requires us to be responsible and to always err on the side of caution. We are not a tabloid, nor should we be.

b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
Actually, I think the committee should take a bigger part in helping solve content issues. Certainly, ruling directly on article contents is not a possibility; but most content issues can be solved by ruling on policy or methodology alone.
Perhaps it's by making binding mechanism to settle issues (as has been done occasionally in the past), or by placing specific criteria on disputed topics, for instance (say, whether some kinds of sources are or are not appropriate for an article, etc).
The exact nature of that increased involvement would need a great deal of community discussion, of course, but it's undeniable that many long-lasting disputes could be helped that way.

c) ArbCom and motions:
i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
Motions are actually simple: If the facts are not in dispute, and the situation is clear, a motion is the right way to end a problem without dragging this for weeks in an unnecessary full case.

ii) 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 case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
Those are three very different questions.
A motion is not appropriate if the facts are disputed, or if it's important that the situation be discussed and examined in detail before a reasonable solution be taken. I'd argue that any situation too complex to summarise adequately in a paragraph probably needs a full case.
The problem with the idea that the committee could not override community consensus is that I don't remember having ever seen community consensus expressed. Consensus of involved parties, often. Consensus of a fraction of active followers of a dispute or noticeboard, also common. Consensus of the entire community? It's not even possible to define, let alone evaluate (do you include readers? The foundation? Other projects?). Yes, the Committee can, and should, override a local consensus when it goes against policy or our fundamental principles. Even if all the editors involved in an articled agreed to make it a partisan screed, NPOV is not negotiable.
No, the committee should not intervene in cases where its help has not been unsolicited except in cases related to privacy-related information (like checkuser) or imminent danger to the project. That said, we should encourage the community to come to the Committee earlier when problems arise, before they become intractable messes. This includes making it easier to request intervention.

iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 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.
The fair number of "housekeeping" motions and simple appeal work ( Opening of Proceedings, Climate change) were quite correct. This is what motion work is there for.
Some of them, however, could only be charitably qualified as clusterfucks ( MF mess, RF mess) and show too much eagerness for the facile shortcut of motion work where something else would have been better. And a motion on procedure for motions? Really? Bureaucracy much?

d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
It's necessary to do the job; I know from experience that it was necessary to refer to older material at regular interval while I was on the committee.

ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
My own opinion is that three years sounds about right to cover 95% of the need to refer to older material. In practice, things we expect we should keep longer because of context could then be re-examined as the timeout looms, and either retained in summary form if indispensable or discarded.

iii) 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?
During my time on the committee, I would estimate about 80% of the work of the committee was done off-wiki. Much of this discussion is productive because it isn't made in public; arbitrators should be free to be candid when examining alternatives, something which is impossible to do when every word is scrutinized and responded to by kibitzers (observe what tends to happen on workshop pages, then multiply by 10).
The other reason is that sometimes the discussion between arbs can be... robust. This is a side effect of having so many different approaches and perspectives, but the result is strength: what can survive the trial by fire of internal discussion ends up being more carefully considered as a result. I would expect that most of the more... baroque actions from this year's committee did not involve such internal discussion away from public view. In public, that healthy debate could not take place without arbitrators having to measure every word, and the timid debate would lead to weaker consideration.

iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
I think that the internal panic this generated caused a great deal of ill-considered reactions. In the end, work has been done to find new ways of doing things that are to reduce that risk, but this was made harder and longer by our initial reaction.

v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
I tend to keep my private life separate from my Wikipedia involvement, but there is no secret about my identity and anyone can readily find it with minimal effort.

vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?
In almost all cases, users should be able to see the evidence that is considered against them. In the rare cases where that is not possible (because it would share information that is, itself, private) then they should be presented with an accurate summary of all the points that would be considered.
The community itself, however, has no such right where it conflicts with our privacy policies; those editors who have a personal interest may certainly inquire, but ArbCom proceedings are not a spectacle; privacy and respect override curiosity and desire to be in the know.

e) 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?
In practice, the committee uses a principle of jurisprudence as used in civil law rather than stare decisis. Past decisions are not binding, but they are persuasive authority; they guide current decisions and provide "defaults", but may be reexamined in light of the evolving context. The idea is that, in general, we should strive to be consistent, but not calcified.
Division of responsibilities:
a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
The foundation has one absolute function: make sure the projects are protected and thrive. In practice, their policy of keeping management at arm's length has served fairly well. There are cases which require the legal apparatus to get involved or cross-project help, but they have been responsive on that front and have recently taken good strides to give the communities the help they needed.

b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
I don't think it's useful to make a demarcation between the two. The guiding principle is that the community should be allowed to do everything it can, and the committee should be available to help when it cannot. That said, however, management of advanced permissions needs more direct oversight than a loose community can provide; which is why the committee is tasked with that.
Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with " civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
It's entirely possible to be on Wikipedia to push an agenda and remain perfectly civil. This is a problem, because we currently lack a good method to enforce neutrality since it is exclusively a content issue; consensus and other editors may help stem the tide, but Wikipedia lacks a mechanism to counter systematic POV pushers that manage to remain within behavioural guidelines and outlast neutral editors (pretty much by definition, someone who strives to be neutral will not be as passionate as someone who has the Truth on their side).
We need a content dispute resolution mechanism, and I'm pretty sure ArbCom isn't it (at least, not like it works now).

b) " Factionalism" 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?
It's an unavoidable consequence of having thousands of people approaching the project with differing philosophies. People will naturally gravitate towards groups sharing those philosophies, and the construction of echo chambers is inevitable. The same happens in real life every time large numbers of people start caring about something. I honestly don't know what can be done. I suspect that if I found a solution, I'd have also found the way to peace in the Middle-East, the end of the red-blue divide in US politics, and a definite fix to the Troubles. You'll know I found it when I they announce my Nobel peace prize. :-)
In the meantime, we work at the symptoms and try to keep things under control with added scrutiny and empowering uninvolved administrators to keep the heat low.

c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
I don't think anyone knows for certain what all those numbers mean in real life. Is it a consequence of the shifting focus of the project, a symptom of problems in our internal culture, or a mix of those and other factors. I don't think we're in an emergency situation; I continue to see progress and things don't seem to be falling apart.
I know the Foundation is expending no small effort looking into this matter; and I expect they are in a better position than we are, and have better resources than we do, to try and puzzle it out.
Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
I'm not certain why, but there is a clear pattern this year: simple cases with few parties tended to be well handled ( Article titles and capitalisation, GoodDay) while many that were more complex were handled... in a less optimal fashion ( Civility enforcement).
I think, however, that the biggest problems in 2012 wasn't in how some cases were mishandled, but how so many requests were mishandled. The current committee refused to take a number of cases it really should have which resulted in situations deteriorating beyond salvaging, and make people reticent from bring problems to ArbCom. Worse yet, some intemperate fighting by the arbitrators in requests have led to situations getting worse. It's the committee's job to hear the cases the community brings to them – not all of them are ripe for arbitration, but if you raise the bar so high nothing short of nuclear warfare (no relation) can meet it, then you've failed the community at your primary purpose.
Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
I don't think any sweeping changes are in order. Case management needs a swift kick in the pants, certainly, and I still think we should be looking into a method for simpler and faster cases that needn't involve the entire committee en banc but that still allows more deliberation than motion work. I'm probably going to work towards that end again if I get elected.

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question: #:A:

Questions from Altamel

I apologize for bringing the first of an "onslaught" of questions, but I do have a few concerns.

In light of some of the concerns expressed by editors in the prior election over whether arbitrators should continue to contribute to the article mainspace, how important do you feel prior experience in dispute resolution versus involvement in writing content is for being an arbitrator?
It's critical that the committee has a good number of good content contributors in its ranks. Does it need to be every arbitrator? I contend that this would be a bad thing.
Wikipedia requires a lot of people to do a lot of very different jobs to work right. You need good writers, researchers, copy editors, vandal fighters, people who do cleanup work, formatting gnomes, categorizing gurus, bot writers, technical expertise on templates, checkusers manning SPI, diplomats and mediators, people working at quality assessment, welcoming committees and guidance, front line user support (OTRS), etc, etc.
The committee, ideally, should be a representative sample of all of those "jobs"; none of them are "unimportant", all need to be done, and each one of them should be understood by the committee.

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. 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, and 2011; 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?
Too long! I seem to remember the committee having been distracted at that time, but this case is nowhere near complicated enough to have taken this long to slog through.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
It's a wonderful organizational tool. It allows collaboration between editors in a same topic area to work in the same direction to make good coverage of a subject better.
It's also a little dangerous, because it favours the creation of echo chambers. So long as the project is inclusive, not exclusive, it's a net positive. Like all power tools: "handle with care".
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?
We have, as a community, the very nasty habit of counting positive contributions as some sort of "mitigation" towards bad behaviour. Not only is this fundamentally unjust, it destroys the confidence of newer editors who cannot help but find the system rigged against them in favour of the "good ol' boys' club".
I have always considered that misbehaviour is misbehaviour; I oppose calculations of "net positive / net negative". Behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated from a newbie is no more tolerable because it comes from someone's buddy or a long-time contributor. Period.
Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
If I was unable to do the job anymore because of new real-life constraints, or conflict of interest. I would also resign if I lost enough of the trust of the community that I lost adminship, though I expect I am far too bland and uncontroversial for that to be likely.
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?
Yes and no. There is an issue of editors being goaded into misbehaving by other editors and ending up facing sanctions. Does misbehaviour of one excuse the response of the other? Mitigate, perhaps; explain, often. Justify? Never.
That said, unless it's habitual, that one was reacting to provocation can be a consideration in sanctions or remedies. Someone who ends up over and over again in that situation does have a problem, though, and needs to learn to disengage from the person/topic/project or will need to be separated.
ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
It's not so much gray area in the policies as it is "room for discretion" (generally on purpose, and for good reason). A decision you (or the archetypical "reasonable person") can look at and say "I don't agree, but I see where that came from" is, by definition, not abuse. That said, there are bright line offenses: breach of trust, unblocking oneself, wheel warring, or using the tools to gain the upper hand in a conduct dispute.
Yes, I believe ArbCom can (and, indeed, has a duty to) intervene in any case of admin (or other right) abuse that it becomes aware of, regardless of how.
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
There is no jurisdiction outside our own project, of course, but what happens outside can influence what happens here. Harassment that spreads to other projects doesn't suddenly become okay just because it's not in our logs, and someone who uses the Commons to vandalize enwp has still vandalized enwp.
And, yes, if the effects of something that happened on another projects reach here, then authentic evidence is valid even if it comes from another project. Their logs are just as good as ours.
What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
It's deplorable, and is a consequence of our lives being increasingly integrated with technology despite most people not being familiar enough with its workings to protect themselves. I have the luck of being in a field where comprehension and practice of security is a necessity, and it is very unlikely that I could end up in that much trouble, but only because of constant vigilance.
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
Yes. I was running out of steam at the end of my last term, but a year's vacation does wonders for boiler pressure. :-)

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Question from User:Casliber

I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
That's pretty much what I was discussing in my answer to general question 3(b) above. I think it's clear that Wikipedia is increasingly a battleground on contents, and that those that seek to misuse us as a platform are increasingly cunning in staying well within the lines of behavioural policies.
Indeed, I feel so strongly about this that I attempted to get the Committee to take notice in 2011 over the Santorum mess. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, the result, was an exercise in wishy-washy timidity I still think is one of worst handled cases of recent years – or more precisely it was wasn't handled, the committee carefully avoiding saying anything of substance.
O-kay, so moving from the abstract to the concrete....let's say you're the drafting arb on a case where editor A is complaining about editor B on various content-related issues ....are you gonna examine concerns about (a) misrepresenting sources, (b) using synthesis to push a point of view, (c) reliability of sourcing, (d) undue weight? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Right now, I'd be hesitant to do so unless it involved a BLP because the community explicitly expects us not to. It certainly believe we should, however, and would find it an important and integral part of examining the entire context of a case. Is the best solution to forge ahead despite the predictable objections of ArbCom trying to expand its powers or overreach? I don't think so; ultimately, we need to have the buy-in of the community before we start really including content-based policy in our mandate, or it'll flounder.
I'm really hoping that the people who read your question and your notes on the various candidates' pages get the hint to start such a discussion. I'd be entirely receptive to collaborating with that effort as a member of the committee, but it needs to come from the community first.
We did it for the abortion case and the sky didn't fall in. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Indeed it did not. Perhaps the community is already willing to have us do this, or at least a sizeable portion of it is. Nevertheless, I would not yet feel comfortable doing so habitually until we have a clearer mandate from the community. Perhaps the (lack of) reaction to Abortion is a good indication that the time is ripe.

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.
There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.
How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?
I very much lean towards the "community" end of that spectrum, but I also understand (and observe) that the extreme there is unworkable; there needs to be some method of making an actual decision where discussion and compromise cannot reach a consensus. I think the point of having some authority isn't so much a question of having someone "in power" but of having a method to reach authoritative decisions.
This neatly rejoins the second part of your question, because one of the easiest way to reach an authoritative decision is to have a rule to apply. But that is also the facile way of reaching a decision, and must be tempered with judgement and deliberation, not applied blindly.
So, as an arbitrator, I see the rules as proven, workable tools to reach decisions that – like all other tools – must be applied with care and for the right purposes. The community relies on us to settle things with authoritative decisions so they can move on, our job is to examine the situation and find the right tools to reach them.
What does "Civility" mean to you?
Respect. Being civil is the recognition that those you interact with are also human beings and deserve to be treated as such. It means striving to not demean or attack, to remain polite (yes, politeness is superficial, but it's also important), to listen, and to accept. It means being able to agree to disagree, and that the "other" isn't a moron because they disagree with you. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe you are. Are you a moron because you were wrong?
It doesn't mean never loosing one's temper, it means not treating people you're angry with like crap. You don't have to call someone an "idiot" to treat them like idiots. Being rough around the edges or using strong language isn't a problem, routinely telling people you disagree with to "fuck off" is – not because you used the word "fuck" but because it shows lack of respect.
In the end, it's all about treating other editors as peers, not as plebs that can't possibly understand your genius, or as adversaries. That is what the civility pillar is about: work with each other.

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
Honestly, I think that depends on current attrition. The committee is structured in a way that the absence of one or two arbs isn't problematic. Certainly, someone who just disappears for several months is a problem, and I would expect the seat to be made available at the next elections.
There isn't much point it pre-emptively ousting inactive arbitrators; there is no mechanism to refill the seat until the next year anyways.
Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee (indeed, you were on the technical team). Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?
Mostly likely around higher permissions and technical team; those match my areas of best competence. My managerial skills are so abysmal as to be a black hole of dilbertesque proportion, so I'd much rather leave anything that is delay-sensitive to those with actual competence with sticking to schedules and not loosing email. :-)

Questions from User:Hestiaea

Moral conundrum. You discover that a fellow Arbitrator has done something potentially embarrassing for the Committee, possibly even criminal. You are concerned, but the Arbitrator has already stepped down for a different, unrelated reason. A year or two later, he or she stands for election again. You, and a number of other arbitrators, are horrified. Do you (a) persuade the arbitrator to stand down, perhaps implying that you will publicise the affair on-wiki. Or (b) make the matter public, even if it is embarrassing for you, given the Committee did not make the affair public from the very beginning.
Well, obviously that is very much dependent on a great deal of unstated context – how bad the original incident might have been, how relevant it remains, and so on.
My first reflex would probably be (a) above, giving the opportunity to back off without loosing face. In general, it serves to be compassionate and avoid publicly tarnishing someone's reputation if the end result is the same (in your hypothetical, avoiding a possibly disastrous reelection that would necessitate public disclosure and a guaranteed messy drama).
Another candidate has (commendably, in my view) come out against lying. Do you think it is ever acceptable to lie, e.g. if the lie is 'for the good of the wiki', or if the lie prevented embarrassment for Wikipedia or the committee? Do you think there should be a 'statute of limitations' on lying? I.e. if you find a Committee member has lied some time ago, do you think it is best to 'let sleeping dogs lie'? If you do, how does that square with Wikipedia's principles on openness and transparency?
That's a more subtle question. There are certainly times where it is considerably preferable to keep something away from the public. The archetypal example is "would bring the project into disrepute", or would cause grievous harm to someone's reputation or health (for instance, we occasionally intervene in cases where it has become evident that an editor's mental stability is compromised; we unfailingly avoid on-wiki disclosure and discussion given how that's obviously highly prejudicial to that person and could even make matters worse). Some people might see this as a lie of omission, which is not entirely untrue, but I can live with it. We do have ethical and moral responsibilities to keep in mind.
On the other hand, saying something that is untrue is something that (a) I will never do, and (b) will never tolerate one of my colleagues to do. There may be cases when keeping silent is best, but lying is an unforgivable offense from the members of the small group of editors entrusted with what is – in effect – our judicial system. We have to be able to place complete trust in the honesty of our arbitrators, because they are often the only persons even allowed to see the evidence and information.
The committee is often placed in a position where we have to intervene with "Trust us" as the only rationale; if the community is to trust us, then it need to know that we won't lie to them. Ever.
On the second part of your question, it depends on one thing: was it the lie of an arbitrator in their role, or the lie of an editor? The latter is a poor reflection on one's character, the former is cause for demanding an immediate resignation, and a motion to eject from the committee if it is not forthcoming.

Questions from Cunard

Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard ( talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply

RfC closes

Anchor: #RfC closes

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
I have, and I occasionally do. That said, I believe that a sitting arbitrator should in general not intervene in day-to-day management to retain the appropriate detachment. Not only is it hard to predict what may or may not end up in front of the Committee, but I think impartiality and appearance of fairness is greatly improved by avoiding direct implication in matters that are clearly within the remit of the community.
It's not a hard rule; there may be cases where it's appropriate or helpful for a sitting arbitrator to chime in, and not every one places that line at the same place.
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review regarding review of closes of requests for comment.
Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."
Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.
Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
My personal opinion (as an admin, not as an ex- or potential arb) is that less experienced editors are welcome to give a hand in closures, but should only do so in cases so clear that any more experienced editor would see it as self-evident. The point isn't that their close is "less good", but that it is "less disputable" and therefore more likely to stick without someone wasting the community's time with challenging it.
Notice I said "experienced editor" above, and not "administrator". In theory, an experienced editor that is not an administrator is just as qualified for a close as an administrator, but having the bit is readily-recognized shorthand for "is experienced and holds a measure of community trust" which is why this is what most people look for.
The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?"
Deletion discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See " So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5#Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#NAC, supervote and vote counting for several recent examples.

Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Move review, or something else.
I see no reason why a dedicated process is necessary, although I could see why that would be seen as more consistent. There is no fundamental difference caused by where the discussion takes place, really, so long as overturning an RfC requires a clear consensus that the close was in error (and not that the result was disagreeable).

Transparency

Anchor: #Transparency

Arbitrator SilkTork ( talk · contribs) wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
1. Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
2. If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.
  I do not. I know from experience that the committee does a much better job when it takes, collectively, the time to hash out issues on the mailing list in a candid manner before it intervenes on-wiki. That kind of discussion cannot be held in public. Not only would it be stifled (and thereby made less effective) by the necessity to write for an audience, but community intervention in the middle of that discussion (justifiable or not) would require clarification and intervention that distract from the actual deliberation. Transparency is needed in the results.
  It is evident to me that this past year, the committee has deliberated a great deal less in private before acting (no doubt due in part to the influence of the new arbitrators who believe that such discussions are best held in public). The result, as many have observed, is entirely negative: the committee appeared indecisive and divided, and made a serious mess of a number of interventions by "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks", managing to confuse and anger very many people in doing so. All of that would have been prevented by some serious debating in private before posting motion after motion.

Recusals

Anchor: #Recusals

In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.
See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk regarding this case request.
See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork ( talk · contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."
Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.
I agree with SilkTork. Simple past disagreement, or administrative intervention, does not raise an issue that warrants recusal. The gold standard – and the one which I follow – is "would an uninvolved observer have a reasonable reason to believe that arbitrator could not remain impartial"; it is imperative that parties not be allowed to pick and choose which arbitrators hear a case to avoid "judge shopping", so I generally tend to heed the opinion of uninvolved editors.
It occurred once or twice in the three years I have been on the committee that I saw no reason to recuse but where uninvolved observers observed that it would be better if I did. I did recuse in those cases.
Former arbitrator Cool Hand Luke ( talk · contribs) has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.
I think there are very few topics where I have such strongly expressed opinions that my impartiality could be put in question. I'd recuse, obviously, in cases where I have had interpersonal conflicts, but I've never been part of any cohesive group or association that would make it difficult for me to take a case involving its membership.

Consensus

Anchor: #Consensus

How would you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley?
If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?
The close appears clearly correct to me. There are insurmountable BLP issues with the article that the editors commenting to keep have failed to satisfactorily address. (See, for more details, my discussion of your more general questions below).
After considering Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley?
The key, here is in the very link you have provided (not, I expect, by coincidence): "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." [my emph.]
I would endorse.
WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
It's not immediately clear that BLP1E is the best fit in that particular AfD, but BLP issues in general are the most important factor in evaluating an AfD (or, for that matter, any deletion process). We are an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid rag; we have an ethical and moral responsibility to not harm persons for the sake of having the latest scoop on everything that has captured the fleeting popular interest.
The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).
(a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?

(b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?
The short of it: hysteresis is desirable. Overturning any decision where discretion is allowed should always require consensus (that is, the default should be the presumption that the original decision is correct). To do otherwise simply allows substituting one's opinion for another's.
Consensus can override that presumption. That is why we discuss the matter, not just unilaterally undo.
When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
The number of editors giving an opinion is only significant if both "sides" are equally supported by facts and policy; and then again only if one of those opinions clearly overwhelms the other. Otherwise, you go where the actual facts lie or close as "no consensus".
It is to be noted, however, that if the same policy is continually shown to go contrary to where the consensus lies, it's probably a signal that there is evidence the policy needs to be re-examined and discussed. Wikipedia isn't static, after all, and consensus does change (although some things are part of what Wikipedia is and cannot – should not – be changed. No matter how many people agree, NPOV cannot be ignored in an article for instance).
Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
That's exactly what the closer's job is (and the reason why we expect that the closer is experienced and trusted). The participants argue their positions, the closer reads the debate and the arguments (including those discussing the applicability of policy), weighs the balance, and explains the result. Certainly, that is an exercise in judgement and subject to error – that is why we have deletion review after all – but it has shown to be working well almost all of the time.

Desysopping

Anchor: #Desysopping

EncycloPetey ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee on 8 September 2012. His last edit was four hours after the arbitration case was filed 29 August 2012. At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey, arbitrators Hersfold ( talk · contribs) and Courcelles ( talk · contribs) said they would have supported an admonishment and not a desysop had EncycloPetey acknowledged his errors and pledged not to make those mistakes in the future. But because he was non-responsive for a week, the Arbitration Committee opted to desysop him.
1. Would you have supported or opposed this motion to desysop? Would you have proposed a different motion?
  I would have supported it.
2. In his statement, former arbitrator Carcharoth ( talk · contribs) mentioned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision#History of the case as a similar case where an admin left in the middle of a case. He wrote, "ArbCom is not a court, but being able to build in delays for single-party arbitration cases should not be impossible (this would not apply to multi-party arbitrations about a volatile and current issue)."
  Do you agree with his position on building in delays for single-party arbitration cases? If yes, describe how would you have built in a delay for EncycloPetey.
  An important detail which Carcharoth has not taken into account, is that in those previous cases the administrator actually left, not just continued editing on other projects while ignoring the concerns on enwp.
  An important part of what's required of administrators is their responsiveness to concerns about their actions – you can't just hide on other projects hoping everyone drops the matter during your absence.
3. A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship?
  It depends. It's a reasonable request to be heard including the entire context like any other appeal. I would not agree to any resysop going against the community's express will, however. (I.e.: it is reasonable for the committee to review and rescind one of its own sanctions, for instance, but not go against a failed RfA or a successful recall).

Civility case clarification request

Anchor: #Civility case clarification request

A request for clarification was filed for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement in October 2012. See this permanent link before the discussion was archived by a clerk.
1. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, one arbitrator called Malleus Fatuorum ( talk · contribs) " a net negative". Do you agree or disagree that Malleus Fatuorum is a net negative?
  I don't agree with the calculation of "net positive/negative" in the first place. I firmly believe that good work in one area of the project offers neither mitigation nor justification for misbehaviour in another. You cannot buy indulgences with good edits. Behaviour that is not acceptable from a new editor is no more acceptable from an experienced editor – in fact, it is less acceptable since the experienced editor does not even have the excuse of lack of familiarity with our community standards and our policies.
2. A second arbitrator wrote that " Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made." (He later revised the comment.)
  (a) One view is that this comment is an honest and justified—though perhaps overly frank and poorly worded—assessment of the situation that was mischaracterized by some members of the community. An opposing view is that this comment is a hurtful, inappropriate comment that kicked an editor when he was down and inflamed the situation. Please share your thoughts about this comment.
  Normally, I would not comment directly on another candidate.
  That was not a normal incident.
  What Jclemens did is a nasty little rhetorical manoeuvre called dehumanization, however he chooses to word or reword it. Making the enemy "them" as opposed to "other persons", is the kind of propaganda you expect in wartime when you're trying to convince people to join up the army without the volunteers thinking too hard about the "killing other people" bit.
  Even if Jclemens was entirely correct in the substance and that Malleus needed to be banned with no delay, such rhetoric has no place here, or in any civilized venue.
  
  (b) Does this comment violate Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?
  It may skirt the outer edge of NPA, but it most certainly is about as far from civil as you can get.
  
  (c) Was the block of this arbitrator for "personal attacks" justified or unjustified under Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?
  It was pointless and inflammatory. Or, more precisely, it was very much made to make a point, which is about the worst possible reason for a block.
  
  (d) Describe your thoughts about what it means to be a Wikipedian. Include discussion about indefinitely blocked editors and banned editors, both those who have contributed positively to the encyclopedia and those who have only vandalized the encyclopedia.
  A Wikipedian is anyone who chooses to engage with the project constructively (that is, who wants to contribute to it in some manner). Due to a number of reasons, some Wikipedians are no longer welcome to contribute; it does not change their original intent or engagement.
3. Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum ( talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum?
  Probably not. As far as I can tell from the evidence, the entirety of Malleus's difficulties was at RFA and nowhere else. I see no reason why a topic ban would not have been a better tailored remedy if one was necessary.
4. The motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum and the comments made by some arbitrators sparked much dissent in the community. Some editors considered leaving Wikipedia: Sitush, Black Kite, Floquenbeam, John, Pablo X, RegentsPark, Boing! said Zebedee, Drmies, SpacemanSpiff, ThatPeskyCommoner, Beetstra, and Nortonius.
  (a) When there is such a backlash to a proposed decision, how does the backlash factor into your decision?
  It doesn't, but that's because I believe such considerations should take place in private before a motion is posted. When examining hypotheses for a remedy, the whole spectrum is generally considered and then rejected as disproportionate; even a moment's deliberation in a cool setting would have swiftly shown that this was not appropriate.
  
  (b) SilkTork ( talk · contribs) withdrew his support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum the same day he wrote, "The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want."
  Do you agree or disagree with his opinion?
  I disagree on the principle. The Committee's role isn't to uphold consensus – if there was consensus there would probably be no cause for the committee to be involved in the first place! It's to find solutions when there itsn't consensus.
5. Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to further restrict Malleus Fatuorum ( talk · contribs)'s participation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (2)?
  I do not know. I did not examine the evidence and context is sufficient depth to make such a call, nor do I believe it is useful to make it now.
6. If you would have opposed the above two motions, or if you believe a better decision could have been made, what action would you have suggested?
  See above.
7. Courcelles ( talk · contribs) wrote on his talk page, "As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying 'you get the admins you get, no opinions from you' but still having them be a member of the community."
  Do you agree or disagree with his need to have "an insanely high bar" to ban users from RfA?
  I agree with the idea that the bar must be high for pretty much the same reasons. I don't know whether I would place it quite as high as Courcelles appears to place it.
8. Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?
  Like I said above, I don't believe in this net negative/positive calculation. I believe site bans are appropriate when a user is behaving disruptively and where it is evident that lesser measures will not prevent the disruption; either because the disruption would simply continue and change venue, or because the user is disruptive everywhere and refuses or is incapable of corrective action.

Note and thank you

I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to #RfC closes, #Transparency, and #Civility case clarification request, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.

Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard ( talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Question(s) from Risker

With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.
How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?
I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker ( talk) 08:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply
There is no question in my mind that, once a decision has been made, arbitrators have the duty to stand by it even if they were strongly opposed to it during the discussion and vote leading to it. It would be the height of hypocrisy to demand that the community abide by our decisions if we were unable to do so ourselves; and a close decision is no less legitimate than a unanimous one – the community doesn't elect a diverse committee in the expectation of a hive mind.
In fact, I would think that an arbitrator willfully disregarding a decision from the committee is grounds for an immediate vote for their expulsion.

Question from SilkTork

As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC) reply
I am located in North-American Eastern time (nominally, GMT-5) and can usually be gotten a hold of at least over email between 14h and 4h UTC (with my normal period of primary activity between 0h and 4h).

Question from Bazonka

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? Bazonka ( talk) 23:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC) reply
I occasionally attend Wikimania, when finances and time allows. My presence (or not) on the committee is not a factor in whether I attend.

Question from Begoon

I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.
Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?
It's actually a problem of terminology. Arbitration is a very wide term that ranges in meaning from "voluntary binding mediation" to "obligatory binding arbitral tribunal"; we tend to hover close to the latter while some people expect something closer to the former. I suppose that could be called "sitting in judgement and hand down sanctions from on high", but that's exactly what it's supposed to be doing. (From our own article on arbitration "Arbitration is a proceeding in which a dispute is resolved by an impartial adjudicator whose decision [...] will be final and binding. There are limited rights of review and appeal of arbitration awards."). The necessity of having a body that can make final and binding decision over disputes is indispensible and – despits its numerous failings – ArbCom does that fairly well.
The obvious consequence of having a body that makes final decisions is that, pretty much by definition, there is going to be at every such decision at least one "side" of the dispute who is going to be incensed by a decision being obviously wrong (since it wasn't the one they wanted). Thus, ArbCom becomes The Man; the "wielder of arbitrary authority blind to common sense and its basic duties (i.e. do what I wanted)". "GOVCOM" is just one of many sobriquets invented to express displeasure at that concept. (I'm personally fond of "Arbitrary Committee" myself; it's much funnier that most).
Thank you. Because I realise that my original question was badly phrased, I'm going to pull out one aspect of it which I didn't ask anywhere near clearly enough, and try to rephrase it, if you don't mind. Do you think that the "political" nature of arbcom, with elections, campaigns etc... presents any problems? I'm thinking of a couple of things here: the current "split" over the "leak" is one obvious one, and the fact that an arbitrator might (I emphasise might) vote or opine in a way he would not have if he did not have the need to consider his re-election prospects is another. If you do think it can be problematic, are there ways you can think of to mitigate the problems, or are they unavoidable, because we need a mechanism for when consensus cannot be achieved in the normal way? Begoon ^talk 08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply
A democratic election is pretty much the least worse way to pick arbitrators: there is some amount of inevitable polictics involved, although I would say it's more distasteful than seriously problematic. We do need a diverse and representative ArbCom, and it must have a good amount of support from the community, so I would be hard-pressed to find a more utilitarian system than elections – warts and all.
I think that, on the whole, our process is fairly clean: I would think that most voters vote on substance, and most arbitrators vote along their concience and not their campaign. I don't think what problems there might be are avoidable; we just have to be careful to understand their existence and take them into account.

Questions from EdChem

I am confident that you would remember this case request (which you initiated). I would like to ask some questions based on it, and I thank you in advance for your views. EdChem ( talk) 10:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply

If you are elected and another Giano case arose, would you recuse?
Yes.
Your block of Giano was for an indefinite period, accompanied by this talk page notice. It was described as a "request to bend over backwards" and that you were acting as an "über-admin," but you described it as "offer to return to productive editing under conditions." Were your actions reasonable and appropriate? Would you post such a notice to an editor now?
At the time, I believe they were. While Giano has since seriously mellowed out, his behaviour during that period was – put simply – calculated to be as offensive and denigrating as possible against anyone he precieved as part of a cabal.
In framing that request, you indicated that you saw your own block of Giano and the unblock by John Vandenburg as "peripheral to the core matter" and not as "an issue worthy of inclusion."
(a) Is it appropriate for an editor to request an arbitration case but to have their own actions excluded from the case?
I have no wife which I could have beaten.
It never occured to me to "exclude" my actions from the case, but they were just one of many identical incidents in which some administrator attempted to block Giano immediately followed by an unblock by some other administrator making any attempts at enforcing community standards impossible; that was the worrying pattern and not the specific unblock done by John. Hence peripheral. There would have been little point in involving every admin who ever blocked or unblocked Giano in the case – me and John just being the latest in a long history.

(b) In his response to the case request, John Vandenburg wrote that "Coren wisely does not want to name me as part of this "spat", and would like us all to disregard the context. That is not going to happen folks." What do you think John meant by this comment?
I a have no idea. At the time, my impression was that this was a simple ad hominem; rather than engage on the substance of my concerns, John was trying to deflect attention away from the core matter. Why he would do such a thing was, and remains, unfathomable.

(c) John V also wrote that "As other members of the Committee know, there have been prior incidents of Coren taking action without strong Committee backing. It is my opinion that this most recent block of Giano was another such example of poor judgment on Coren's part." Please elaborate (within the bounds of confidentiality) on situations where you have taken action without strong Committee backing, and why you chose to act in that way. Would you approach similar situations in the future in the same manner, if you were re-elected?
John never made any secret of the fact that he very much disliked me. Of course, I have taken action without strong Committee backing – so has every other arbitrator (himself very much included). Having a seat on the committee does not make one part of a hive mind, we remain independent individuals capable of self-motivated action. If he attempted to imply that I have acted as an arbitrator or in the name of the committee outside in that or other incidents, then that was flat out false.

(d) Finally, John wrote that " I've spelled out what I did wrong. I hope Coren can do the same, and maybe strike the claim that "many editors are being driven away by [Giano]" unless he intends to support it with good evidence if the case is accepted."
(i) Please describe what (if anything) you did wrong in that series of events.
Yes, John did write that. Sadly, writing something down does not make it accurate.

(ii) Do you still claim that, while he was an active editor, Giano had "driven away uncountable productive editors"? If so, what evidence would you have offered to support this claim, had the case been accepted?
Yes. If I did not sincerely believe that claim, I would not have made it – let alone open a case on its basis.
No, I'm not going to start compiling evidence or dredge up this matter from the gutter at this time. Dragging up past ills and trying to create drama over history is exactly part of what I felt was one of Giano's worst behaviour problems and I'm certainly not going to indulge it in myself.
The present situation with Jclemens illustrates the problem when arbitrators advocate positions on the mailing list and act on those position on-wiki but decline to discuss them with the community. Are there any significant issues from your time as an arbitrator that your former colleagues are aware of but which have not been disclosed to the community? If so, please elaborate.
I think that Jclemens's behaviour on the mailing list is comparatively minor. That is, he certainly shouldn't have indulged in politics on that forum – but that's no worse than any possible venting to colleagues one can do on such a list. Put another, perhaps clearer, way: if an arbitrator acts (in a personal capacity) on a position on-wiki and refuses to discuss it with the community, then having talked about it on arbcom-l or not is immaterial. If it was improper behavior, it is made no worse (or no better) by having been discussed in private.
As to the second part of your question; I have, like every other arbitrator, been in my share of disputes and heated arguments on the list. Where those disputes had an on-wiki effect, their results were discussed on-wiki – as they should be (be it by votes in a case, or by my own independent actions).

Questions from GabeMc

Question: Would you close a formal mediation RfC when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that eventually resulted in said RfM and RfC? Assuming this has happened, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc ^{(
talk|
contribs)} 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC) reply
That's, er, an awfully specific scenario.
I would say that, as a rule, involvement with a party to an RfC (as opposed to involvement in the dispute itself) does not preclude closing it – the RfC is about the substance of the issue after all and not the participants. Of course, this doesn't apply to an RFC/U. Furthermore, participation in a discussion about sanctions for an editor does not in itself create an involvment the way we mean on Wikipedia. But again, that's tempered by the nature of that participation (e.g. did you participate in the discussion because you were involved in the underlying dispute, or because you opined on a public request).
In other words, the general answer is "it depends on the whole context".
Question: Thanks for your response. I actually thought the idea here was to word the questions in a vague way so as to avoid naming names or finger-pointing to specific situations. Your above answer seems to contradict: " Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Would !voting to block someone constitute a conflict of interest or an indication of bias when said admin later closes a RfM to which said editor was a party when blocked? Perhaps I am misreading an important aspect of this guideline, will you please clarify the extent of the caveat? GabeMc ^{(
talk|
contribs)} 00:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Well, in particular, I see a discussion regarding a possible sanction (including a ban) to be an administrative action – and that if this is the extent of the involvement then it does not preclude further actions in an RfC later. I don't think that thinking that an editor's behaviour is problematic in any way implies prejudice on the substance of that editor's position. Conversely, having opinined on the substance itself regardless of uninvolvement with the editors involved, would preclude closing the discussion.
All that said, in particularily prominent cases, it might be wiser to abstain from closing the RfC if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I don't think that having done so regardless is especially problematic, but a pattern of such lapses would raise questions.

Question from Piotrus

Civility enforcement questionnaire

Or more of a request: I'd appreciate it if you'd take part in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire, or if you decline, say here why you consider this questionnaire not to be worth your time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC) reply
I'd rather not.
While I appreciate the intent and the work behind that survey, its methodology is so severely flawed as to render it harmful. In the first place, there is little probative value to be found in a survey where the respondants are self-selected, even if it had been written by experts who understand the critical importance of the wording and structure of the questions. Worse yet, by making the responses a public exercise you guarantee that the responses are going to be worthless. Whether by design or by accident, that questionnaire ended up being a push poll.
I welcome further discussion of my stance on civility enforcement (either as follow up questions or on the talk page), but I don't think that questionnaire is the right place to do it.

Thanks for your reply. I have some additional questions on a somewhat different matter below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 22:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Additional questions

when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
Well, there are two factors I would consider: (a) whether the actual sanctionnable problem is particular to one specific area and (b) if it is, whether it is likely to displace elsewhere in the case of a more limited sanction.
A good rule of thumb is to use the "least" sanction that is likely to solve the problem while still allowing as much positive participation by the editor in the future. If the problem is widespread, or has already shifted from place to place, then a site ban becomes the only option left.
on a related note, 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?
It's not completely off – the fundamental is there (see what I wrote above about allowing a sanctionned editor as much participation as possible – but it's missing one fundamental component: what is the effect of enforcement (or lack of enforcement) in itself?
There is an eminently destructive effect to unequal enforcement of the rules: editors will see (rightly) that treatment as fundamentally unjust (why did I get sanctionned and he didn't for the same thing), and it will encourage further misbehaviour (X got away with it, there's no reason I shouldn't do it too).
It's not, by far, the most important factor; enforcement for the sake of enforcement is just stupid. But if you don't take that into account, then there are long term consequences.
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 too...?)
... also a restraining order (except one to keep you away from a place rather than a person).
I think a better analogy is that of a store manager refusing entry to a customer that has caused damage or keeps yelling at other patrons. Ultimately, we're comunally-managed private property and while we'd love to welcome everyone, we can't allow disturbances that detract everyone else from what we're trying to do.
do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
Not even close! It's more like we put up a sign that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service" at our restaurant door, and refuse entry to those who refuse to wear a shirt. The affected user is welcome to go eat elsewhere, or to do whatever else they please, but if they want to eat here they have to follow our rules.
do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world ( List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?
I'm not sure what this has to do with arbitration, but my own very personal opinion is that this is a symptom of the combination of the ridiculous "war on drugs" combined with poverty-driven social inequalities. It's a deplorable symptom of profound societal ills, and certainly nothing to be applauded.

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 22:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Question from Martinevans123

Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.
That has got to be one of the most... baroque assertion I've read in ages!
While there is nothing especially wrong with occasional profanity is some contexts ("fuck[ing]" as an intensifier, for instance, is not especially outrageous and has lost most of its shock value), the idea that it is somehow desirable because it... brings everyone down to the same level(?) is patently ridiculous. I don't know where that originated, but it was good for a chuckle. I really, truly hope that was a pastiche or sarcasm.

Yes, I expect we all hope that. Or maybe it was just an outrageous rhetorical question that you cleverly answered with a respectful side step. But don't be so quick to go dissin' the fuckin' baroque, ok??!! I mean, what's occurrin', ffs?! Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Coren

General questions

Individual questions

Questions from Altamel

Questions from Rschen7754

Question from User:Casliber

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

Questions from User:Hestiaea

Questions from Cunard

Question(s) from Risker

Question from SilkTork

Question from Bazonka

Question from Begoon

Questions from EdChem

Questions from GabeMc

Question from Piotrus

Civility enforcement questionnaire

Additional questions

Question from Martinevans123

Coren

General questions

Individual questions

Questions from Altamel

Questions from Rschen7754

Question from User:Casliber

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

Questions from User:Hestiaea

Questions from Cunard

Question(s) from Risker

Question from SilkTork

Question from Bazonka

Question from Begoon

Questions from EdChem

Questions from GabeMc

Question from Piotrus

Civility enforcement questionnaire

Additional questions

Question from Martinevans123

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook