Roger Davies

I've served five years on the committee now. My two terms have been personally rewarding, though at times a steep learning curve. What have I found most challenging? Trying to do my best to balance the conflicting needs of policy, individual editors, the community and our readers.

In my first term, I was active in pushing through major committee reforms. I followed this by negotiating with the community the first update to Arbitration policy in six years. It ended up gaining solid (85%) support.

I’ve participated in more than seventy cases, drafting/co-drafting the decisions for about sixteen of them. I’ve served in every aspect of the committee's work, including my work on two subcommittees, "BASC" and "AUSC". I helped draft the committee’s CheckUser and Oversight procedural policy, and I’ve supervised/organised several appointment cycles. For five years I’ve moderated ArbCom's mailing lists, typically involving about 75 emails a day; this is mundane stuff, but it still needs doing. I take an interest in arbitration enforcement and I’ve drafted or co-drafted several of its procedures. I'm currently working on a discretionary sanctions update.

Arbitrators should regularly stand back and take stock. I’m aware of a growing distance between the committee and the needs of an evolving community. To focus on core functions and perform them better, I believe the committee needs to shed some of its numerous responsibilities. This won't happen overnight, and the transition must be orderly, but the community and the WMF must start sharing some of the load. In this context, I have been one of the arbitrators tasked with WMF liaison, which requires great patience.

Content-wise, these days I tend to either copy-edit or add refs/sources. Before I joined ArbCom I was very active both at Milhist and FAC. I've added significant content to five FAs, and extensively copy-edited another eight. The subjects have varied enormously, for example, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Welsh rugby, Emily Dickinson, the Roman emperor Maximian, the Battle of Arras, and the First Indochina War.

Addendum: I'm delighted that the WMF has agreed to change access to CU/OS, paving the way for the election of non-admin arbitrators. I've advocated this for years, and believe it will help bring ArbCom and the community closer together.

Mandatory statements: I have never edited from any account other than Roger Davies and (occasionally) User:Red Dragon, which prior to renaming was called Roger Davies II. As a sitting arbitrator, I am already identified to the WMF and will continue to comply fully with the non-public data policy.

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

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate: Roger Davies Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

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

2. What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?

   I have five years' experience in all aspects of the committee's work. I'm familiar with the relevant policies, and the tensions that exist between them. I'm usually calm and organised, and enjoy finding solutions to complicated problems, working to find common ground to forge consensus. Consensus-building is very important in a committee environment which famously has its fair share of strong-minded, strong-willed personalities with wildly differing views.

4. What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.

   I've either drafted or co-drafted sixteen decisions, including those for two of ArbCom's biggest/messiest cases. I prefer a hands-on approach in cases I draft, interacting with the participants to get at the facts, and to discuss/workshop solutions.

6. Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?

   I don't think I have a harsh/lenient mindset. But bitter or protracted disputes have a terrible effect polarising and dividing editors. Cases are usually about discovering what steps are needed to get the topic back to functioning normally in a collegial atmosphere. Sometimes reminders or admonitions are helpful, but if they are likely to fall on deaf ears other measures may be called for.

8. Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).

   I'm not aware of any conflicts of interest though I have recused from time to time for a variety of reasons.

10. Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?

    None that I'm currently aware of.

12. 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.

    Most ArbCom cases are effective in putting an end to conduct issues. It is probably impossible to avoid controversy altogether as by the time something gets to ArbCom, the parties are entrenched. The Tea Party case could have been handled differently; perhaps just speedily authorising discretionary sanctions might have fixed it.

14. The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?

    It depends what you mean by 'recently'. This year has more or less the same number of cases (10) as 2012 (11) and 2010 (12). There was a bit of blip in 2011, which saw 16 cases. (Source: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases) Overall, though compared to say five years ago (2009 saw 30 cases; 2008 had 39), it has dropped dramatically. This is probably because the community is far better at dealing effectively with disputes at earlier stages and because the administrators working in arbitration enforcement do a good job in handling on-going problems.

16. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?

    Once procedures have bedded in, and been running a while, they need reviewing to see if and how they can be improved or simplified. Discussion with the stakeholders (community, admins) is very helpful for this, as it brings bright ideas and fresh perspectives.

18. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?

    ArbCom has far too many different responsibilities, historically because there was nobody else around to handle them. I'd shed some current ArbCom duties:

    • The community should work on creating an efficient and equitable process for hearing community blocks and bans. These are currently handled by ArbCom's BASC and are time-consuming.
    • A community process for appointing oversighters/checkusers would be good. There was an experimental community process for this a year or two back but it deadlocked, so more work is needed.
    • A community process for desysopping is overdue.
    • The WMF should be handling child protection and serial harassment/stalking issues. If they need more support staff to do this, so be it.

20. It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?

    I am not aware of any instance where ArbCom has created "new policy by fiat" (which is how the Arbitration Policy puts it). Instead, the role of ArbCom is to enforce existing community-created policy; I'll expand on this in responses to individual questions as it is clear from some of them that people's expectations of what ArbCom can and can't do may be unrealistic. However, the ArbCom/Community relationship is symbiotic and ArbCom does influence the community and references to ArbCom decisions sometimes turning up in policy.

    On the second point, I am not aware of any instance where the committee has consciously decided a content dispute - and indeed it is not the committee's role to decide who is right on content and who is wrong - though sometimes the line between a conduct dispute and a content one is a fine one.

22. What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?

    It is an important policy but just one of several equally important ones. The community expects ArbCom to enforce all the encyclopedia's policies. Fewer BLP disputes come to ArbCom nowadays, which suggests that the community is better at resolving them.

24. 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?

    As a sitting arbitrator, I already have these permissions. I use them occasionally for ArbCom-related activities and, extremely rarely for non-ArbCom business.

26. 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?

    Yes, I am able to deal with it. I have already been on the receiving end of some of it.

28. 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?

    In principle, data should be deleted at some point, though there is no consensus whether this should be two years, or five years, or whatever. In practice, however, the Mailman software does not really allow pruning of message bases. We could move to more sophisticated software that would allow this but without dedicated support people to manage the software such a move could bring its own fresh problems.

30. 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?

    Very rarely. The Arbitration policy sets out the position about redacting evidence for private hearings here clearly. Harassment/stalking and child protection are obvious examples where it may be better to provide a redacted summary of the facts to the perpetrator. The checkuser element of sockpuppetry cases is usually summarised to conceal "tells".

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:

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

Questions by Sven Manguard

2. 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?

   ArbCom uses various types of motion. They are for the expeditious resolution of issues where the facts are not in dispute; for dealing with matters with a significant privacy or legal component; for housekeeping; for resolving amendments and clarifications; and sometimes for fixing problems that were partially or wholly of ArbCom's creation (and for which it retains jurisdiction). I have opposed them where the issues are too complex or too much in contention to be dealt with summarily. Another kind of motion altogether is the type used to authorise new procedures or processes.

4. 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?

   If a matter is complex and multi-party, and is brand new to ArbCom, it is exceedingly unlikely that a motion will be appropriate. It not normally within ArbCom's remit to overturn community consensus. (This is something we have discussed together in the distant past, and you have a point. As I mention in my statement, ArbCom has sometimes been a step learning curve.) However, the community does not always reach consensus, or only reaches local consensus. In these circumstances, especially if the matter has already come before ArbCom, it is reasonable (though not necessarily optimal) for ArbCom to act. It all depends on the precise circumstances.

6. 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.

   The committee passed nineteen motions this year. Most are housekeeping and/or case follow up. This is an interesting example of multiple motions being used to resolve something publicly. The Mathsci ban is an example of something that needed no case as the facts were admitted.

8. 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.

   Acting on this was always going to be controversial in some quarters. However, once we had been alerted to it (by several people), we were few options. The facts aren't complicated or even much in dispute: Phil Sandifer published the alleged name of another editor's current employer and the alleged location of his current workplace. This is non-public personal information that had never been disclosed on wiki. There is an argument for conducting the entire discussion on-wiki but I'm not sure it would have changed the outcome. Both the ArbCom and outing policies recommend dealing with such stuff discreetly.

10. In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?

    I strongly believe that engaging with the community with rationales of decisions is highly constructive. I also try to take criticism on the chin, rebutting where appropriate, and see what can be learned from it. None of us is perfect and we all make mistakes.

12. 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?

    It's certainly true that we get a lot of emails (see this link for some rough figures and outlines of how we deal with them). However, as you see, many of these are not really for ArbCom at all and are simply referred elsewhere. Additionally, a substantial number are about community ban appeals, which the community really ought to be handling itself. Otherwise, inter-arbitrator traffic is running at very much lower levels than when I first joined the committee (2800 emails in my first month; 200 emails a day were not unusual). Contrary to popular belief, most case discussion usually takes place on the case pages. Apart from this, it is difficult to say how much ArbCom business is actually conducted by email. Some of it is stuff that would normally be by private email anyway: "Can you handle this?", "Have you replied to this yet?", "I'm away til Monday. Can it wait til then?" type stuff. This is not for reasons of secrecy but for convenience: it is much easier to send a quick email on the move from a smart phone than to log onto the wiki. We probably need to do some serious analysis/number-crunching to identify what's what and then can plan accordingly.

14. 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?

    This year has been problematic in several ways so some things have ended up on the back burner. Because of the consensus nature of the committee, it takes a small team of people working together to make things happen, Plus, and this is an important point, Additionally, I had real life issues in the late spring and summer, which meant I temporarily reduced my involvement. On a more positive note, There is a second draft of mailing procedures to better inform about how emails are handled; this could probably be voted on once the lame duck period is over.

Questions by Gerda Arendt

Thank you for volunteering.

2. Basic first question of three: please describe what happens in this diff. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   A collapsed metadata table at the foot of the page is replaced by an infobox at the top of the page.

4. I like you short and precise answer. - Second 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) 09:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   Without any context, I imagine I'd be puzzled. ;)

6. I'd be puzzled in any context ;) - So I guess you would ask your colleague why what has been described as restoring the state of the day before and stopping an edit-war might cause that approach? - Anyway: last question: imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, and an equal number of arbs voted against it, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. Will you? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   I wouldn't ban anyone for that one diff alone but diffs aren't the whole case. They're usually just illustrative of the issue outlined in the finding of fact.

8. This answer was surprisingly long ;) - No, I didn't ask about that diff any more. I asked about making any final decision with a narrow margin in a future case. Some would do that, others not. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   I take great care if mine is the casting vote; I try to usually (but not always) err on the side of caution as I don't believe decisions should pass by the slimmest of margins.

I agree, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Questions from Rschen7754

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.

2. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

   One of my initiatives was to introduce target time tables. This brought case turnaround times down an average of 60 days in 2009 to about 45 days in 2011. This case far exceeded that.

4. 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?

   1. WikiProjects exist to facilitate cooperation between editors with shared interests and often differing skills. In a well organised WikiProject, some editors will work directly on content; others on finding sources for ranging of articles; yet more on improving style or layout. By combining resources, they make the whole greater than the sum of its components. By setting high standards, and helping editors focus on important tasks, they can immeasurably improve the articles within their scope. This is very good for the encyclopedia.
   2. They are very different things. Stewardship is about caring for and looking after something; ownership is saying "This is mine. Hands off!".
   3. Conflicts should always be resolved through calm discussion of the contentious issues to find common ground. If WikiProjects, or subject editors, are acting in a way that brazenly ignores policy or is disruptive, the community may need to deal with it appropriately. (Ultimately, the community clearly has the authority to split up a project: an extreme example, from many years ago, was the Esperanza project.) Conversely, WikiProject sometimes have serious concerns arising from its unique insights into problems the encyclopedia faces in specialist areas. (One such example is the Medicine wikiProject.) The community should listen to these concerns and, in appropriate cases, help tackle them by amending existing policy or creating new policy.

6. 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?

   The community only has a problem when a contributor starts acting in a way that makes it clear that they believe that the policy no longer applies to them. This can arise in all sorts of areas: ownership issues, or civility issues, or even socking. Although the community is tolerant and usually goes a long way to accommodate individual eccentricities, there sometimes comes a point where the contributor has to be told to adhere to policy or consider leaving the wiki. A related problem is when policy is amended in a well-meaning attempt to accommodate unusual behaviour by a vested contributor, producing all kinds of complications.

8. 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?

   1. Yes, it usually does takes two to tango, though – to mix a metaphor – there are some people who turn up here who would try the patience of a saint.
   2. The poor conduct of others is occasionally powerful mitigation but never, in itself, exoneration. When, for example, someone has been baited for years by trolls and vandals it is easy to understand why a point sometimes comes when enough is enough. However, if things are getting too much, the best thing to do is take a break, not take revenge. Although I try to look at the big picture on this, repeated serious misconduct is inexcusable, whatever the background.

10. 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?

    Absent community desysopping procedures, the committee is duty bound to investigate promptly and, if necessary, act swiftly on complaints of admin abuse. That said:

    1. accusations of abuse of tools are often made by sanctioned parties who either don't understand the applicable policy or are looking for payback;
    2. conduct unbecoming is usually reserved for serious misconduct (socking, harassment, serial breaches of copyright after repeated warning, repeated 'involved' use of the tools in a content dispute) and usually supplements another remedy (ie topic ban or site ban, plus desysop).

12. 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?

    The committee has no responsibility in policy for Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia or conduct outside the English Wikipedia. HOWEVER, as per the same policy, the committee "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". (Sorry about the long quote, there's no easy way to summarise this.) So, in practical terms, if something happens on an external site that may harm an editor on our site, the committee is explicitly authorised by the community to act.

14. What is your definition of "outing"?

    On wiki, the one I rely on is the community's definition: publishing "non-public personal information" which the subject of the outing has not voluntarily disclosed on the English Wikipedia. In other words, each item of information needs an unambiguous diff.

16. 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)?

    Use of both tools is governed by Wikimedia policy. Their use is monitored by other users of the same tool (who are expected to keep an eye out for irregularities). Serious complaints are handled by the Audit subcommittee, which was established by ArbCom and staffed 50/50 by arbitrators and community members. There is also an Ombudsman commission, operated by the WMF to handle certain types of escalated complaint relating to use of the tools.

18. Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?

    I haven't been involved in any serious article content disputes at all; minor ones can be easily resolved by discussion and sources. I have frequently resolved content issues relating to policies and procedures. Some content disputes are incapable of resolution because the parties are completely opposed and have, for instance, completely different belief systems or codes of ethical values. In the worst kind, neither party listens to the other side at all. The discussion disintegrates into personal attacks.

20. Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?

    This is easy. The committee is responsible for a rag bag of responsibilities, accumulated over the years because there was no one else to handle them. This is probably 70%-80% of the committee's workload. It is also a disproportionately heavy work load for arbitrators. As so much of what the committee is firefighting problems that aren't really its core responsibility, it needs to shed most of its current responsibilities to concentrate on its core function. That core function is serious conduct disputes which the community has been unable to resolve. It is worth noting that over the past four years there has only been on average about one case a month. With less work, the committee will be able to devote more time to doing a better job on its cases. (And individual arbitrators perhaps have more time available to work on content.)

22. Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?

    Yes. No problems with it at all.

Questions from Hawkeye7

2. You filed your nomination on the last day. Does this indicate a reluctance to run? What factors influenced your decision to run for re-election? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   Although I had been thinking about it for some time, I only really made the final decision at the beginning of the week. It took a bit of time to get a statement together (as I had other things to do) and then I slept on it. Hence, Tuesday. My decision to run.

   The reason for seeking re-election was a growing belief that the committee was no longer entirely fit for purpose. This was partly influenced by a growing sense of dismay as we lurched from crisis to crisis (both this year and last) but also by the need to get a clear mandate from the community to introduce sweeping reforms, aiming at shedding some of the vast and time-consuming range of responsibilities the committee currently has.

Question from Iselilja

2. What do you think about a suggestion that arbitrators should more often recuse themselves on a time availability basis and be more involved and quickly to vote in those cases they do take part in?

   Excellent idea. I think that arbitrators should indeed go inactive from time to time, and take little breaks from committee work, more often. That's part of the reason by we have fifteen arbitrators.

Question from MastCell

2. This is a conflict-of-interest question; you may choose to regard it as a hypothetical or as reality-based, but either way I'd be interested in your thoughts. Suppose our coverage of a new religious movement (and its purported medical benefits) were written largely or wholly by accounts directly affiliated with that movement. Is this potential conflict of interest a problem for an aspiring serious, reputable reference work? And do we have any obligation to disclose this potential conflict of interest to the casual reader?

   I'll respond to it as a hypothetical. The question you ask is interesting but, whatever my personal feelings, this is not ArbCom's bailiwick. ArbCom is solely concerned with the enforcement of existing policy, and certainly can't make up a new "appearance of impropriety" policy out of new cloth. Only the community can resolve the underlying issues, either by creating specific new policy or modifying existing policy to cover the specific circumstances you describe. In the meantime, there is no consensus to strengthen the COI guideline and thus this whole area remains controversial.

4. If ArbCom cannot consider the "appearance of impropriety", how do you explain WP:ARBTM#Avoiding apparent impropriety and WP:ARBSCI#Avoiding apparent impropriety? Some guy named Roger Davies proposed those principles ( [1], [2]), and they were adopted unanimously by ArbCom in the relevant cases. So obviously it's well within ArbCom's remit to consider the appearance of impropriety. You don't owe me a follow-up, but I was hoping for a little more than this from you. MastCell  ^Talk 23:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   I didn't say we couldn't consider it. We do, and agonise over it. But while we all agree that "the appearance of impropriety" is sub-optimal, which is what those principles are about, it is not in and of itself sanctionable. What is sanctionable is clear breaches of those policies (for instance, personal attacks, NPOV editing, socking, harassment) that are sometimes associated with certain kinds of polarised content dispute. While this may be unsatisfactory, and even intensely frustrating, ArbCom cannot really act without evidence of sanctionable misconduct. If the day comes when community consensus is that COI editing is no longer "strongly discouraged" but explicitly prohibited, then the whole landscape - and very likely the entire editing environment - changes.

Question from Tryptofish

2. 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?

   Risker's draft already covers the ground, but that only describes how email is currently handled. I have already copyedited a second version ready for discussion, and once we have the data (referred to in Sven Manguard/Q6 above), it might be possible to prune further.<p.In broader terms, I'm all in favour of more transparency and talk openly about my own position on issues, and were I stand on internal discussions. I have also released the text of emails I have sent, which is fine, as have many of my colleagues. In fact, in the event that triggered your desire for such a procedure, the arbitrator in question voluntarily released the text of the email himself. Overall, the releasing of the emails of others is controversial and I do not think the committee should ever be in the business of doing so unless the author has consented. If someone has done something so egregious, their conduct can be addressed via the usual provisions for removing an arbitrator. Per policy, the committee is responsible for its own procedures. So, in the unlikely event that disclosure is really necessary, the committee can vote to release the material as a one-off, it doesn't need to be codified as a procedure first.

Question from Mark Arsten

2. Do you feel that the current Arbcom has been consistent in the way it deals with outing issues? If not, could you give an example of something that was handled poorly?

   Yes, I do. But perhaps you have a specific example of inconsistency in mind?

Questions from Sceptre

2. 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), why do you think you deserve another term as an arbitrator?

   1. The Sexology case followed the evidence.
   2. I was travelling most of September and had too much catching up to do so I was inactive on the Manning case
   3. I took no part in that discussion and it wasn't an ArbCom decision. Jimmy has explained what happened.

4. In the third example given above regarding the undeletion of a libellous BLP, what role did you have in the arbcom-l/oversight-l discussion?

   None.

Questions from Collect

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

2. An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

   I don't think that "inevitably" is the right word but there is a statistically high likelihood that sanctions will be imposed on at least some of the parties. By the time a case gets to ArbCom the dispute is so entrenched that the parties need prising apart with a crowbar.

4. 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?

   All sanctions need a finding of fact. The height at which the bar is set for imposing sanctions varies from case to case. As the final finder of fact, the committee will usually do what it considers necessary to put an end to the dispute.

6. Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?

   I always follow /Evidence and /Workshop pages even when there's precious little evidence and they've descended into brawling and name-calling.

8. 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?

   Yes, it is right to decisions that are not binding on future committees. First, the committee is elected by the community and decisions should reflect the community's will. Second, policy evolves and the committee doesn't make it. Policy is, I suppose, in this case, the common law. If the committee followed its own precedents, we could end up with decisions based on precedent which are contradicted by current policy. (A good example of this is the socking policy, which is a good deal less black and white than it was five years ago.)

10. 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 essentially an overview and is updated from time to time. In the hierarchy, it's probably a guideline summarising key policies. Broadly, the committee follows the policy itself rather than guidelines summarising them.

12. 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?

    Actually, this is trending downwards but it is true that a much-used (and deplorable) tactic often seen in content disputes is to slant our biographies of the authorities in the field, either towards or against the subject, depending on the point of view the contributing editor is pushing.

14. "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?

    Yes, opposing groups of editors fight (sometimes viciously) over article content all the time. Effectively, they take over the topic, pushing out neutral moderate voices. Once the issue is identified, topic bans are effective. (For an example, see the Scientology case.)

Thank you. Collect ( talk) 00:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Questions from User:SirFozzie

2. First off, Congrats on five years.. I'm not sure this means you're committed to dispute resolution, or just need to be committed for a rest in one of those houses with the padded walls :)... but my question is as follows.. you've worked hard on making the ArbCom policy a living document, updating it as needed. (We've discussed issues where unforseen circumstances have prevented the policy from working as it should).. where do you think it needs to go in the next two years and how do we get there?

   I'll come back to this once I've responded to the other outstanding questions. It is a very good question, which needs a detailed response.

   Thanks for your patience. What follows is a brief outline. In terms of timescale, I think a year to discuss and plan (RFCs, community discussions about drafts etc); and a year to implement is realistic. ArbCom's involvement in some things is very intricate and involved. The changes fall into two types. The first type is aimed at reducing ArbCom involvement and increasing community/WMF involvement. The second type is improving ArbCom process/procedure to remove banana skins from the path forward.

   1. Community ban appeals

      It is going to be quite challenging passing this over to the community as there is neither community enthusiasm to take it on nor community structures in place to handle it. The last RFC on this, in August last year, was disappointing. It has to be done by in conjunction with the community.

      1. One route, which I'm not very keen on, is to approach the job in two stages. First, recruit community people onto the subcommittee and get it running; then reduce arbitrators involvement in it. This reform cannot be "imposed".
      2. Another approach is to set up a new structure, then transition to it gradually. (Month one: Usernames starting with A-C; Month two: Add usernames starting with D-E etc.
      However, none of this gets round the fundamental difficulty that there are up to thirty appeals a month; they arise out of all aspects of misconduct, some requiring checkuser/oversight input; and can provide a platform for trolls/harassers. This means they are likely to be difficult to handle publicly, and even more difficult to handle expeditiously. Moving this to the community is likely to have all sorts of knock-on effects, and these need considering.
   2. Checkuser/Oversight

      To reduce (and eventually remove) ArbCom from the process involves various steps.

      1. Independent, community-run, elections.

         The major barrier here is the Access secion of Meta Oversight policy, which essentially says that unless the appointments are made by an ArbCom, the consensus (support/oppose ration) must be 70%-80%. This may mean that we could work with lower consensus if ArbCom leaves the process to the community, but makes the formal appointment based entirely on the community vote. A lot of this depends on what the WMF say/feel.

      2. Activity/monitoring

         The Oversight and Checkuser teams are big enough to organise their own monitoring and internal disciplinary procedures, especially in conjunction with AUSC.

      3. Pre-election vetting

         If this is retained, it could also be handled by the CU/OS teams themselves as their knowledge of the job, and the experience required to do it, is at least as good as ArbComs.

   3. Extremely serious misconduct/criminal activity

      It is inappropriate for ArbCom to try to handle this. It needs handling either by the WMF itself, or by very clear and comprehensive WMF-produced guidelines which the committee can refer people to.

   4. Mailing list

      I've already prepared a second draft of Risker's mailing list draft. However, that simply describes how things operate at the moment. What is probably better is to do the number crunching I referred to above in Sven Q6 and see what the results are like before pushing ahead with it.

   5. Demarcation/communication

      There are occasions when the community and committee talk past each other. In reality, they are two sides of the same coin. While I do not believe the cmmittee should be activitist, there are occasions when it can legitimately step in to reduce disruption. This whole area needs looking at, to reduce unnecessary friction.

   6. Any other business

      This is likely to be substantially added to.

   7. Caveat

      None of these things can happen in isolation, or in the face of ineria/serious opposition from either other arbitrators or the community. If re-elected, I will do my very best to acheive what I have set out above.

Question from Piotrus

(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.

2. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?

   Site bans are for very serious misconduct issues (for example: threats, outing, harassment, serial copyvios, serial socking, repeated POV-pushing, repeated and calculated disuption, and for repeatedly ignoring limited restrictions). Restrictions are for less serious - or one-off - misconduct, typically for dampening down multi-party disputes.

4. 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)

   I'm not persuaded that all editor misconduct is a cry for help nor am I persuaded by people who promise to not do it again, when they have alrewady done it again, and again, and again. In passing, it's worth mentioning that ArbCom bans far far fewer people than the community, though they tend to be higher profile editors.

6. 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...?)

   ArbCom is a dispute resolution body on an internet site. Its main purpose is to end disruption so that people can get to work building an encyclopedia. I'm not seeing any comparison with real-world justice systems.

8. 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?

   If it were to follow a justice model, arbitration is much closer to European systems than American ones.

10. 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?

12. I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.

Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Questions by Fæ

2. Do you believe that it is a good thing that Arbcom accepts unproven or defamatory allegations about off-wiki events that may seriously damage the careers, personal lives or reputations of the Wikipedians involved as part of their investigations?

   Addressing the core, rather than the loaded, aspects of this question:

   1. The Arbitration policy states: "The Committee 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." It was this provision that enabled us to ban a harasser.
   2. The Terms of Use state: "the Wikimedia community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies." (My emphasis.)

4. Do you think that that Arbcom should continue to retain online records that include unproven or defamatory allegations or unpublished assertions about the personal lives of parties involved in a case, or do you think that the risk of leaks makes this unacceptable?

   The committee has no practical means of removing from its archives material sent by email. The risks of contacting the committee by email are set out in the "Communications and privacy" statement.

6. Do you believe that Arbcom should continue to run its own investigations into suppressed or deleted information from other projects?

   Please see (1), above.

   • Thanks, though your answer does not appear to address my question. Arbcom currently runs detailed investigations on projects other than the English Wikipedia, and yet the policy you point to states "applicable to the specific Project edition" as a constraint on its investigation. Is there a policy that supports Arbcom running or commissioning "its own investigations into suppressed or deleted information from other projects"? -- Fæ ( talk) 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   • I don't know what your mean by "ArbCom currently runs detailed investigations on projects other than the English Wikipedia". ArbCom does nothing of the kind. However, the functionaries of various projects cooperate in many areas, for example, possible/potential copyright violation and the possible abusive use of multiple accounts.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
     • Thanks, there seems little point in continuing this as my real life experience does not seem to match your statement. I will put this difference in understanding to stem from my interpretation that when a sitting Arbcom member runs a detailed technical investigation into non-English Wikipedia events and reports their findings as part of an active Arbcom case, in the process risking unfortunate Streisand Effects, then I see them as acting with the authority of Arbcom. Presumably your interpretation is that they do not. -- Fæ ( talk) 10:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
       • Given your celebrity, your numerous accounts, and the nature of some of your uploads, this was always going to be a sensational case. We took reasonable steps to protect you from the worst excesses, while at the same time taking reasonable steps to evaluate what damage if any had been caused to the encyclopedia.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
         • What is noticeable here, is that you prefer to deflect the question. As I said, your point of view as to whether Arbcom members act for Arbcom when they run their own investigations off-wiki neither matches my experience nor a conventional common-sense view. There seems little more to say here as I doubt you will be prepared to use my question as an nice opportunity to explain what you personally and Arbcom in general have learned from mistakes made when handling these situations rather than making pointy public remarks at my expense.

         I hope that next year's Arbcom will be more capable of handling cases of persistent cyberbullying and homophobic harassment in a way that can respect the personal life of the individual and avoid causing further damage through its own actions. -- Fæ ( talk) 12:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

8. In what circumstances would it be okay to assert that on-wiki comments or allegations from other contributors appear homophobic or transphobic?

   Serious allegations to be supported with serious evidence as otherwise the making of the allegation itself might be a form of personal attack. In this instance, the allegation needs support by a diff that are, on the face of it, homophobic or transphobic. ( Applicable policy)

Question from User:MONGO

2. 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.

   Examples:

   • One of the main contributors to five FACs: Battle of Arras (1917), Issy Smith, Hamlet, Operation Camargue, Emily Dickinson
   • Copyedit/MOS edit for (or during) FAC: Prince's Palace of Monaco, Wales national rugby union team, Maximian, Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi, Montana class battleship, Battle of Verrières Ridge, Harry Murray, Tom Derrick
   • Prospective FAC (work-in-progress): Arthur Rimbaud
   • Created: over 100 articles, the two most recent being Frédéric Rimbaud and Ernest Delahaye, (to support the Arthur Rimbaud, article)
   • Translated/partly translated: about 20 articles (either EN>FR or FR>EN, and occasionally created both EN and FR versions).
   • Featured article reviews/Milhist peer reviews: I don't know exactly, 50-100? Maybe more?

Question from User:Sjones23

2. As an arbitrator, what steps do you take to help appeal Arbcom bans on BASC (for example in the BASC discussion on Will Beback's appeal back in April)?

   My position was to allow him back with restrictions. I didn't participate in the strawpoll. As a point of information, appeals of ArbCom decisions are heard by the whole committee (BASC hears appeals of community sanctions). Otherwise, I have spent a lot of time on BASC in the past, including administering it for its first two years of operation.

Question from User:HectorMoffet

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:

2. Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?

   I'm not sure that the community is currently at an optimum size. It still needs, for example, just maintaining 4,5 million articles requires a sizeable workforce.

4. In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?

   It wouldn't hurt at all to simplify policies and guidelines. These are mindbogglingly complex for new editors and it is easy to fall foul of them. Finding a way of dealing with factions (fan clubs and fight clubs) would help the editing environment for newcomers, who sometimes get stuck in the middle, enormously.

6. In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?

   They obviously need to continue developing strategies to effectively recruit new editors. But they could also help improve the editing environment by taking action in several very contentious areas, which fall more readily under their remit than the community or ArbCom.

8. Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?

   I'm not sure that ArbCom has a major role to play in this, though the mileage of others may vary. On one hand, we sometimes urged to impose a lenient sanction on User:abd123XYZ because of the key role they play in improving the encyclopedia. On the other hand, we also urged to be impose a harsh sanction on User:abc123XYZ because they are driving away good editors. However, as a practical step, which is neither harsh nor lenient, we could make sure the ArbCom house is in order with clearer and simpler policy and procedures. This is underway.

Questions from John Cline

2. Answering Sven Manguard, you stated: "None of us is perfect and we all make mistakes." Please describe an example where you recognized having made a mistake, in an official capacity as an arbitrator, which affected the outcome of a case.

   I'm open-minded about FOFs and Remedies I've drafted. I often copyedit them during voting to fix any errors or inaccuracies. I've sometimes reversed myself, by switching from support to oppose, or ranked my votes (which has the same effect) if a better one turns up. I've also reversed myself after the event, using the clarification/amendment process. Here's a clear example of this, from a few years ago. I proposed this motion to reverse an innovative remedy involving featured content which I had originally proposed and which seemed to me increasingly like a Bad Idea.

4. Do you strongly agree that Arbcom's authority to sanction a user predicates on prevention alone, or do you sense that some situations ought to engender a punitive sanction?

   Yes, I agree that ArbCom's role is preventative. Our role is usually to fix a dispute which is sapping the community to enable people to get back to the business of building an encyclopedia. I can't think of an instance when a sanction has been purely punitive though I can think of examples where the risk of possible defamation and/or privacy concerns prevent us from spelling out in detail exactly repeat actions are being prevented.

Question from Carrite

2. Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?

   Late questions are not a problem; I'm sorry you've waited for a response.

   Wikipediocracy often provides an interesting alternative perspective on wikipedia and many good people, whom I like and respect, are regular participants. Criticism, even robust criticism, is crucial to a healthy dynamic; any organisation as influential as Wikipedia needs a watchdog. That said, Wikipediocracy sometimes goes much further than legitimate fair comment and it is heartening that the moderators recognise this and sometimes rein in the wilder elements. Unless the community radically changes longstanding policies, abusive actions are actionable by ArbCom (and indeed by any administrator) no matter where they take place.

Thank you. Carrite ( talk) 04:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Question from Harry Mitchell

2. You and Roger Davies are the only two incumbents who are up for re-election, and you both think I've been excessively harsh in my voter guide. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, so I'll ask a quick question: What accomplishments are you most proud of from your last two years on the committee, and what are your ambitions for the next two years? How would you try to achieve them? There is some overlap with a couple of the questions above, and I realise you've already answered an absurd number of questions, so I'm not looking for something the length of War and Peace.

   I didn't think your comments were "excessively harsh", but I didn't thank that describing me as "part of the furniture" (with its connotations of inertia and inactivity) was particularly accurate. I've drafted several complicated cases over the past two years, including several with a significant off-wiki component. Additionally, I've handled a considerable amount of behind-the-scenes stuff, which – apart from helping BASC out occasionally earlier this year - I can't really go into detail about.

   My objective for the next two years is the committee preside over an orderly handover of many of its numerous and diverse responsibilities to the community (and occasionally to the WMF). We are involved in too many areas where there is no need for us to be involved at all. I have set out a few goals for reform and the practicalities of getting there in my reply to Sir Fozzie, above. But just to illustrate the point here, I'll talk briefly about checkuser/oversight.

   ArbCom is very involved with the checkuser/oversight teams. There are various hurdles to overcome in introducing a direct election process but the task is not impossible and we can seriously scale down our role in the interim. Currently, the committee

   • vets candidate checkusers and oversighters;
   • runs a public community consultation process;
   • weighs up the consultation and appoint the best candidates;
   • sets the rules for activity levels;
   • monitors activity levels; and
   • removes permissions where necessary.

   What's probably better is to put most of this directly in the hands of checkusers and oversighters. They can:

   • vet candidates more effectively than ArbCom because
     1. there are more functionaries than arbitrators;
     2. they are specialists and understand the role well;and
     3. they have fewer distractions.
   • be responsible for producing monthly/quarterly activity stats;
   • monitor for irregular use of the tools while they go about their usual business;
   • determine sensible activity levels themselves; and
   • better identify who is and who isn't pulling their weight.

   As I mentioned on your talk page, if re-elected, I will be the only arbitrator on the committee with: (1) in-depth experience of widescale reform, (2) in-depth experience of the complexities of the task and (3) explicit stated reform goals.

   If you have any further questions, just ask.

Questions from iantresman

2. 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.

   These processes are governed by WMF policies; they cannot easily be changed. Checkuser involves IP data, which is private; Oversight involves the removal of improper material, which is also usually private. In both instances, public logs would provide too much information. General data about the use of the tools is published regularly on-wiki and functionaries do comment (albeit guardedly) at SPI.

4. 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).

   Blatant attacks are usually swiftly removed (not struck through). However, removing allegations too readily can mean that people are deprived of presenting a legitimate case. ArbCom is not a court - and parties are not (usually) lawyers – so some latitude has to be given. On the broader issue, the quality of evidence at cases has long been a problem. I did start writing some notes for parties on this about a year but it could put on the backburner as other priorities surfaced.

6. 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?

   Hmm. The problem here is that what is clearly uncivil to one person is not clearly uncivil at all to another. For instance, some people regard effing and blinding at the height of incivility; others regard it as adults speaking bluntly. It usually requires several examples of different types of incivility from the same user for sufficient consensus to develop for a community sanction of the editor. The committee doesn't sanction very often for incivility as if there are sufficient examples to build an ArbCom case, there is enough for an administrator to act on.

8. Editors whose username lets them be identified easily in real life, are frequently subjected to "oppositional research" by anonymous editors who can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY. Do you think this double standard is fair, and should anything be done?

   It's an entirely personal choice whether or not to edit under a real name and the risks of doing so are spelled out. Many people start under their real name and switch to a pseudonym, and vice versa.

10. 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?

    I usually read everything. This isn't always easy. Check out the archives on the Climate change case. I did a rough word count on that case; I think (unless my memory is playing up) it ran to around a million words. While I do participate very actively in cases I draft, it's often simply not possible to address every point made; and in any event not all points necessarily need a reply.

Question from Bazonka

2. 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?

   No, I don't really engage much in off-line real world Wiki activities (though I have been to a couple of meet ups). I don't see that changing much whether I'm on or off the committee.

Question from user:Ykantor

2. 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?

   Not all misconduct is actionable because sometimes it's of a relatively trivial nature and can/should be dealt with by a quiet word with the editor concerned. However, by the time stuff gets to arbitration, positions are usually so polarised that it often doesn't take much to kick the dispute off again.

4. Does Our NPOV policy mean that an editor is violating the policy if he only contributes to one side?

   The issue is discussed her: [3].

   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.

   Added later: I am sorry, but I was not clear. I am talking about a situation in which both opposing opinions are supported by wp:rs. An editor has deleted my well supported sentence, because he claims that I have to write for "the enemy" too, although I do not have access to the other opinion sources. I said that he should describe the other supported opinion, and both could co-exist in the article. Am I wrong? Ykantor ( talk) 17:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

   In my experience, the best collaborative work comes about when there is slight (and friendy) tension between the cooperating editors. People should strive for neutrality and instead of taking sides, "aim to explain the sides, fairly and without bias" (as NPOV policy puts it). So, providing someone is not engaging in POV-pushing, and providing their edits are essentially neutral, I cannot see much wrong with their edits reflecting their interests. Examples of this might include editors:

   • regularly editing military history articles and, say, focusing on battles involving their country;
   • editing architecture with an emphasis on their home region;
   • editing ornithology articles focussing on birds local to their region.

   Obviously this is a huge simplification, and much depends on the exact edits themselves.

   Response to addition: there's nothing in policy that requires anyone to write about stuff that they have no sources for. I'm taking this, incidentally, as a hypothetical question. If this was an actual on-wiki situation, the position would need looking at carefully (including hearing from the other party and checking diffs) before commenting.

6. 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?

Questions from user:Martinevans123

2. Should articles ever use The Daily Mail as a reference source? Should articles ever use YouTube videos as external links? Is there still any place for a " WP:civility" policy, or does it depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes? Is humour now an outdated concept at Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

   The Daily Mail has done some good work (notably fighting hard to bring Stephen Lawrence's killers to justice) so yes it can be a reference source. Against that, it has some seriously taboid material, which probably counts for less. Provided the YouTube content is not a copyright infringement (and a good deal of YouTube material is legitimate) it can be linked. There's no prohibition on citing copyright material as a source. The problem with civility is that different editors have very different ideas about what constitutes incivility; it has nothing to do their edit count. I like humour but see too little of it on-wiki; I haven't come across anything that makes me splutter coffee all over the monitor for ages. (The best one I recall was the SPI case claiming that all members of ArbCom were Jimmy Wales' socks.)

Many thanks, Roger. Yes, it's certainly spit coffee over that too, I think. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply