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.

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

   On Wikipedia, I have participated for many years in the third opinion process. This often leads to an informal and quick mediation, where a third voice might be able to suggest some ways past a deadlock two editors have reached. In most cases, this is successful at preventing the dispute from escalating further, and in many cases leads to a quick resolution. I also founded the editor assistance project following the dissolution of the now-defunct Association of Members' Advocates, to address the concerns that were brought forth with the latter process. It provides a quick and easy way for editors to ask for help from those more experienced, and has been operating successfully for several years. Finally, my experience at arbitration enforcement has given me good familiarity both with the arbitration process and its results.

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.

   As discussed in the above question, my primary experience with the dispute resolution process is via third opinion, informal mediation, and while not particularly dispute resolution, the editor assistance project. I brought the Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson case to arbitration where informal mediation had been unsuccessful. In this case, one editor, Jmfangio, was discovered to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, while the other was given a six-month civility restriction and is still a productive editor today. I also participated in mediation as a participant at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2, where the issue was resolved successfully via this mediation. Per request on talk, I'm adding some links to my AE participation. A good example is at Archive 128, containing several complex and difficult requests involving the Speed of light and Rich Farmbrough cases, as well as a successful appeal by Mor2 of a previous sanction. I'd also cite Archive 138, where I participated in threads involving the Armenia-Azerbaijan and Troubles cases. Searching my name in the AE archive search [1] will give plenty of other examples.

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?

   It would depend on the circumstances. Generally speaking, I would support harsher sanctions in cases where misbehavior was egregious and/or prolonged, especially where an editor was already advised multiple times the behavior was inappropriate and continued it regardless. An editor who is repeatedly disruptive must be stopped from that behavior. Where an editor made a single mistake, understands why the actions were inappropriate, and there is good reason to believe it will not happen again, I would be more willing to consider leniency. I would also consider whether the editor in question began to moderate his or her behavior before the matter was brought to arbitration.

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 do not foresee any such conflicts. In the unlikely event a case came up concerning my employer, someone I know personally, etc., I would of course recuse, but these are not "hot spots" likely to land at arbitration and I don't expect that to change. I would recuse in cases where I had been involved in the matter on-wiki, where a sanction I implemented or commented on at AE (or elsewhere) is up for appeal or review, or where I could reasonably be named as a party to the case (whether or not I actually am named).

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

    While real life can strike any time, I do not foresee anything that would keep me from fulfilling the term.

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.

    The Tea Party movement case was handled very poorly. Suspending and restarting it as happened there did not work well. By the time a case reaches arbitration, it is already so intractable that other measures are very unlikely to succeed. However, the proposed decision banning all parties regardless of fault was even worse, and although it did not ultimately pass, it eroded confidence greatly in the fairness of the final results. I do not believe there is any benefit to the project for removing editors from an area who were in the "wrong place at the wrong time" but have not been behaving poorly, and I would never support such a remedy. It is true that ArbCom is not a judicial process at which "justice" is sought, but its decisions should still be fundamentally fair. For one handled well, I'd say the Richard Arthur Norton case. The remedies addressed the very serious concerns brought up without being overly harsh or punitive, and the case was handled within a month, which I would generally consider reasonable.

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?

    I'm not sure one could apply a blanket "good" or "bad" label to it. If fewer cases need to come to ArbCom, that's a very good thing, as it indicates issues are being successfully handled by other processes. If the ArbCom is turning down cases it needs to handle, that's certainly a bad thing, because that's the last resort to resolve the hardest problems. For criteria to accept or reject a case, I would normally be interested in whether other methods of dispute resolution have been tried and failed to resolve the issue. ArbCom should be the last resort, not the first, and if there's a reasonable chance of the normal dispute resolution processes working, I'd be inclined not to accept. However, there are certain instances where a case may need to come immediately to ArbCom. Such would include credible allegations of abuse by an administrator or other holder of advanced permissions and cases which would involve a review of private or sensitive information to be properly resolved.

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

    It may be a cliche indeed, but more transparency. There is a wide perception that cases all too often get filed, evidence is presented, and then sit until a proposed decision appears out of nowhere. Arbitrators or clerks should give periodic status updates on these cases, especially if they may go beyond the original deadlines. Also, if a deadline is likely not to be met, an updated projection should be given based upon the current status. Finally, if private evidence is necessary to resolve a case, the arbitrators should draft a statement giving a general outline of what was used and why, as much as would be possible without breaching the confidentiality of such information.

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 should remain the last stop for intractable disputes. Other than that, the direction of the community is the responsibility and decision of the community as a whole, not the ArbCom. ArbCom might have a place in initiating a discussion if a case makes it clear one should take place, but not in overruling or making decisions for the entire community, nor in directing what the outcome of such a discussion would be. Individual arbitrators, of course, are still members of the community and could participate in community discussions as such. Development of any other governing mechanisms would also be the place of the community, not the ArbCom. WMF only intervenes in cases of possible legal jeopardy or the like, and that is as it should be.

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?

    The ArbCom should never issue a binding ruling on a content dispute. It may need to deal with editors who are persistently violating content policies, but this is deciding a behavioral, not content, issue. Ultimately, "What do the best sources say?" and "How can we present that in a neutral way?" should be the only questions that decide a content dispute. It is also the place of the community to decide on, make, and revise policy. ArbCom is called upon to interpret and enforce those policies, but it is beyond its remit to make them.

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

    The policy is already implemented, and I think well. ArbCom should treat any instances in a case of BLP violations, especially where the editor undertook them willfully or maliciously, as a very serious violation. Such violations can cause real harm to real people and must be stopped. As one of our most critical policies, with a great deal of latitude to enforcement, it is also extremely important that BLP be enforced properly. Editors who accuse others of BLP violations without cause weaken the regard for this critical policy and often have a chilling effect on genuine, acceptable discussions regarding article content. While genuine mistakes are to be expected at times, editors who repeatedly or deliberately misuse BLP and its enforcement mechanisms as a bludgeon should also, if necessary, face sanctions for this.

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?

    I would request the checkuser tool, as I have the technical skill necessary to use it properly and interpret its results. The use of checkuser is mainly for instances where there are credible accusations of sockpuppetry and technical evidence is likely to aid in the determination. I would not see any immediate need for me to have the oversight tool, but if help were needed with oversighting I would be willing to do so.

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?

    My real-life identity would be discoverable without too much effort, and it's been that way for quite some time. I've already been subject to some harassment during my time as an administrator, and it doesn't bother me terribly.

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?

    There should be a clear retention policy in place. I don't think it's wise to destroy such information immediately in all cases, since such items as previous checkuser data could be useful in tracking and identifying a long-term abusive editor, and the details of a case may be important to an appeal or if further problems arise. However, such information should be securely destroyed according to set criteria, not "when someone gets around to it". In all cases, during or after a case, arbitrators must take all necessary precautions to ensure that such information is held and discussed securely.

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?

    I cannot think of a case in which I would support taking action against a user based on information not shared with them. "We're sanctioning you, but we won't tell you why." I can't imagine ever doing that, and I think a user accused of wrongdoing has the right to respond and provide context from their perspective. Particularly sensitive information, such as personal contact information in an email, might be redacted before sharing with the user so accused. On the other hand, it is within the remit of the ArbCom to handle cases involving private and sensitive information. The ArbCom should share as much with the community as possible, but may not be able to share details without breaching the privacy they are entrusted to safeguard. That balance would always have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and if at all possible, the user(s) whose private information is involved should have the opportunity to comment on any proposed statement before anything is made public.

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=}}

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?

   I didn't follow this case, so please excuse me if I don't know some specific aspect of it. My general feelings on such a case is that, while there may sometimes be a valid reason for cases to extend that long, they shouldn't just sit in the meantime. Arbitrators should let the community know the reason for the delay (at least in general terms) and the new projected time frame when this happens. If the arbitrator who is to draft the case must leave for unforeseen reasons, and expects the absence to be extended, a different drafter should be selected.

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?

   The purpose of a WikiProject is to work with a specific subset of articles on Wikipedia, and serve as a point for coordination between editors interested in these topics. It can also serve as a resource for these editors to ask one another for peer review and additional resources. WikiProjects may set article assessment guidelines for articles within their scope, but project participants do not own articles within it or have greater say over them than than any other editor does, nor is participation in the WikiProject a requirement for editing any such articles. If there is a conflict between editors within the WikiProject, or editors within it and those not, the normal dispute resolution processes (including the critical first one, try to resolve it through calm discussion) should be followed. Being an expert is not a requirement for participation in a WikiProject, just having an interest on articles in the topic area.

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?

   In some cases, yes. While our best contributors should be held in high esteem and we should do everything possible to support them, that does not include giving them a free pass on behavior that would be unacceptable otherwise. We all can get frustrated and short sometimes, and the occasional occurrence of that is no reason to go after someone, but those who are repeatedly and especially deliberately nasty should not be allowed to continue. As to what to do, we should make clear that just as we would not tolerate a good editor occasionally committing deliberate vandalism, our behavioral expectations apply to every editor here. Our next great editor could be driven away from the project by ill treatment if it is not addressed.

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?

   For a), not in all cases. I've seen totally unprovoked attacks occur where the other editor does not respond in kind. However, in many cases, there is less than ideal behavior on the part of more than one editor, or deliberate goading. For b), just because one is goaded or poked does not mean one has to respond. I would sanction the person doing the poking in addition to the one responding poorly, but neither is acceptable. In very severe cases, however, I would take into account when an editor has been treated abusively over a long period and finally snapped, and that this is not nearly as likely to indicate future problems that steps must be taken to prevent.

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?

    When there is a credible reason to believe that such abuse or misconduct has occurred, and such abusive conduct was either egregious or repeated. Admins are frequently accused of abuse without grounds for such an accusation, so the mere allegation of such is not enough for action. There must be substantiating evidence that gives a good reason to believe the allegation is correct. If low-level poor behavior over a long period is accused, I would also generally want to see a conduct RfC first, but this may not be necessary in cases of egregious abuse or bright line violations (e.g., wheel warring, self unblocking, use of tools while involved). Whether the matter would be better resolved via a case or by motion depends upon the complexity of the underlying matter. If the facts are relatively clear and undisputed, a motion would often suffice. If they are unclear, in dispute, or the matter is very complex, a full case may be needed to sort everything out.

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?

    ArbCom has no jurisdiction over any of these sites or services. Editors on Wikipedia may also be members of sites critical of Wikipedia and are free to do so. Indeed, some of the most relevant and constructive criticism may come from those who have firsthand experience. That being said, if an editor is using third party sites to harass or out another editor due to on-wiki conflict, ArbCom is not required to stick its fingers in its ears, and may need to take what action it can to protect that editor. It is necessary in such cases, however, that we are absolutely certain the editor on the other site is the same as the one on Wikipedia, and is not a joe job. Generally speaking, I would only support this in extremely egregious and clear-cut cases. Editors have and should have the right to criticize Wikipedia or how it works, and should not fear sanctions simply for doing so.

14. What is your definition of "outing"?

    Outing is the revelation of personal or identifying information about another editor which that editor has either not revealed on Wikipedia, or once revealed but has since had suppressed, and done without that editor's explicit consent. It is important to note that it is the attempt to do so that is outing, whether or not the revealed information is actually correct. This is for two reasons. Firstly, action being taken only on correct information would confirm that it is correct. Additionally, an erroneous revelation could still subject some totally unrelated person to harassment. Outing is very serious harassment against another editor and, especially where clearly intended to harass or intimidate, is grounds for an immediate site ban.

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)?

    I have not seen many serious concerns raised with the checkuser or oversight tools on the English Wikipedia. I don't have experience with how they are used elsewhere, but the enwp ArbCom would have no jurisdiction over misuse anywhere but here. If you'd like to ask about a specific instance or type of use, please feel free to ask a followup question.

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 mentioned above the Jews for Jesus incident, which was successfully resolved via mediation after an impasse was reached. I've also worked a great deal with the third opinion process, which is generally successful. The intractable content disputes I see are ones where users already have an entrenched position, and are unwilling to listen to one another or attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution. Often, this degenerates into nastiness and namecalling, and quite often an edit war, with a lot of I didn't hear you, worsening the situation further. Neutral outside editors are often reluctant to step into such a toxic environment. These are the matters where enforcement and intervention from outside often becomes necessary.

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

    I don't think many changes to the role of ArbCom are necessary. It certainly should not be deciding content or addressing issues other than behavior. I would, however, like to see more communication, especially during cases. The community often becomes very frustrated with protracted cases, and while those can't be avoided entirely, routine status updates would at least assure the community that progress is being made. I would also like to see the ArbCom use temporary injunctions more frequently where misbehavior continues during a case, especially if the time frame for the case becomes longer than expected. This will at least help to keep the lid on while things progress.

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, I have read this, and would be able to meet these requirements. I cannot conceive of any additional requirements that I would be unable to meet.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for volunteering.

2. Please describe what happens in this diff. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   In this diff, the editor changes the collapsible navbox into an infobox, and includes an image file in it. However, the colon before the image attribute causes its title to display as text rather than the image itself displaying properly. This could have been solved by previewing, but it is a relatively harmless and clearly unintentional error that the same editor corrected quickly.

4. Good answer! - Next question: imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   It would depend on context. If the edit were an example of one edit in an unapproved bot run or an edit war, it might be relevant, but in that case it's the bot run or edit war, not that specific edit, that's the reason for sanction. If that edit alone were presented as a reason for sanction, I would not support the sanction. The occasional error in editing is to be expected.

6. Good answer! Now (last question) imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   If that diff you cited were the sole rationale for sanctioning them, I would vote against the sanction. I would have also tried to talk them out of placing the motion to sanction in the first place. I certainly would hope, however, that if there is a remedy proposed against an editor, and especially if it has a good chance of passing, it is for far more significant issues than a single minor editing mistake.

8. Your answer did not quite answer what I wanted to know, I try to clarify: Would you be ready (and if yes in what case) to vote for a ban (not a minor remedy) if as many of your colleagues support and oppose it? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   I don't believe I could give a blanket answer to this. I would not be categorically unwilling to cast the final "support" vote, but with the arbitrators being that sharply divided, I would be very hesitant to take that step. Especially if it were a serious sanction, I would want to find something the Committee could more broadly agree on. Ultimately, however, if after examining the evidence and reasons for opposition I still felt the measure was necessary and justifiable, and there were no better alternatives with broader agreement, I would.

Thank you, passed ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 00:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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?

   When a case comes to arbitration, it means that something has gone seriously wrong, and just warning the editors involved to stop and telling them it is unacceptable has not worked. If it does turn out that warning the editors involved will be sufficient, that is what should be done, but it probably also means that it was premature to take the case. This being said, sanctions can be on a given article or topic area rather than levied against specific editors. Especially in areas with many editors engaged in problematic behavior, this approach may be superior to sanctioning a few individual editors, though some editors engaging in egregious misconduct still may be subject to additional sanctions in those cases.

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?

   I touched on this above to my answer on the Tea Party case. In short: No, I would never support such a resolution to a case. ArbCom is not a justice system, but its outcomes should still be fundamentally fair. There is no benefit to the project to removing contributors from a topic area or otherwise sanctioning them where they were not acting inappropriately, simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Additionally, we should encourage, not discourage, neutral outside editors to join into difficult debates and try to help resolving them, without fear that they will be caught in such a dragnet approach even if they conduct themselves well.

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?

   A decision without weighing the evidence and input would be closing one's eyes and opening fire. While evidence and workshop entries must be weighted appropriately, they should never go unread. Evidence, especially, should all be considered toward the final decision.

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?

   I think previous cases should be considered advisory, not binding, precedent. While circumstances and best practices may have changed since previous decisions, especially very old ones, there is also a value to consistency and predictability. Generally speaking, ArbCom decisions should not be a bolt out of the blue sky. If a novel approach or break with precedent is to be considered, I would want to first make this a Workshop proposal and get community input, and discuss it thoroughly with the full ArbCom. It should not happen lightly or often.

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?

    The Five Pillars is an excellent view of what we expect of editors. It is, however, a synopsis of underlying policies. I think in these cases, it would be more useful and clear to refer to the specific underlying policy rather than 5P directly, i.e., " Copyright violations are not permitted on Wikipedia" rather than "Free content is a pillar of the site." The first makes it much clearer what the exact problem is.

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?

    It depends on the issue. I would not see it as outside the Committee's remit either to warn or sanction an editor for BLP violations, or to warn or sanction an editor for misusing BLP enforcement provisions to chill discussion. Those are ultimately conduct, not content, issues. BLP violations are serious breaches of our conduct expectations, as they could cause real harm to real people, and should be weighted accordingly when deciding upon sanctions.

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?

    It depends what is meant by "factionalism". It is natural for editors with similar interests to gravitate together and cooperate, and this in itself is not harmful. However, should such a group become an entrenched bloc, and especially if it works to shut down discussion or disrupt the consensus process, that is problematic. If it is found that the group of users intentionally coordinated disruptive action, such as in the Eastern European mailing list case, that certainly may factor into what sanctions are appropriate. If they're just behaving inappropriately in general, but without evidence of group intent or coordination, that can be handled as with any other such case.

Thank you. Collect ( talk) 21:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply

2. Are there any sanctions that you've imposed on an editor in the past that you now wish you had handled differently?

   On this question, I did earlier this year close a community ban discussion regarding Apteva in terms of inappropriate conduct regarding dash use. The issue was somewhat unique, as it did not cover a topic, but rather a particular type of punctuation. While I do believe the sanction was appropriate, and Apteva's further behavior confirmed this, it was brought to my attention that my wording was somewhat unclear. I think this was a fair criticism, and I could have worded the restriction better and more tightly.

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?

   A motion is for cases where ArbCom action is necessary but a full case is not. This may be an incident where the underlying facts are relatively clear, simple, and undisputed, or to amend a case that took place in the past. The only time a motion would be my first choice is in such simple cases. More complex instances would require more examination, by a full case or (in past cases) a clarification request.

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?

   Generally speaking, the ArbCom should not overrule the community, provided that the entire community has reached a genuine consensus. It is outside of ArbCom's remit to tell the community what it should think or what direction it should take. However, if the consensus process is severely tainted with issues such as deliberate exclusion, misrepresentation of local consensus as global, or widespread canvassing, this may have to be taken into account.

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.

   For a motion I found appropriate, I'll start with one I suggested after it came up at AE. Initially, the Troubles case authorized standard discretionary sanctions for "British baronets". As it turned out, that area didn't remain problematic at all, and one editor had been causing most of the problems. I filed the following motion to remove discretionary sanctions from that area: [2]. I generally think we should scale back sanctions when possible. I do not recall any recent ArbCom motions I found clearly inappropriate, but I'm certainly also not aware of every motion ArbCom passes. If you'd like my opinion on a specific one, please feel free to ask a followup.

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.

   What ArbCom did right here, I think, was to engage with those who brought forth concerns. It was going to be a controversial issue no matter what, and remaining silent would have just made things worse. They were faced with a very difficult situation where someone was going to be unhappy no matter what they did. Without having access to all the evidence, such as private communications, I will not offer an opinion as to whether their decision was right. I think it was, at least, a defensible and justifiable outcome. This was one of those situations where no matter whether any action is taken, or no action at all is taken, someone will not be happy with the result. I think a lot of the anger here also stemmed from the animosity that already was under the Manning case, and that the Sandifer case was, at least by some editors, used as something of a proxy for this.

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?

    It has always been my policy as an administrator that if I am willing to place sanctions upon an editor, I had better be willing, upon request, to explain why I thought that was necessary. I see no reason that a different standard should apply to an arbitrator. However, for very contentious issues, there does come a time to say "I understand you disagree with me, and I don't think anything else I say will change that, so I don't see anything productive in continuing this."

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?

    Not necessarily. My support for increased transparency is not a support for absolute transparency, and I don't think that's a wise idea. As I touched on in the Tea Party case, just the suggestion of a poorly thought out remedy, that didn't even pass, greatly eroded confidence in the fairness of the results and of the ArbCom as a whole. For a decision-making committee, I think it is necessary to be able to have candid and private discussions when an idea may not yet be fully baked. However, the ArbCom should be better about summarizing its decision-making process and rationales, so that it does not appear that decisions just fall out of the air. ArbCom should also provide periodic updates during a case as to where in the process it's at. What I would greatly like to see, though, is more participation by arbitrators in the Workshop phase. I think this is especially critical if new or novel remedies are being considered, to allow the participants and other members of the community to weigh in before something is proposed in the final decision. I think this will strike a good balance between the needs of the community to be involved and the need to come to a carefully, fully, and candidly deliberated decision.

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?

    Should I reach the Committee, and find them unwilling to increase transparency, the first thing I would do is find out why and listen carefully to the reasons. If they have concerns such as confidentiality or the like, I would of course take that seriously. If I disagree, I will try to convince them. However, given the number of candidates and arbitrators who have at least in theory supported an increase in transparency, I would not anticipate this to actually happen. I would presume the discussion will center more around details, of what should be shared, how, and when. If we can't discuss something like that and come to an acceptable solution, we would be poor arbitrators indeed.

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

2. As an arbitrator, what would you do? In other words, would you primarily work on cases, subcommittees, another arbitrator responsibility?

   My main focus would be on getting cases resolved fairly, thoroughly, and in a reasonable time frame. Therefore, my primary focus would be to participate in cases, and hope that my colleagues would do the same. Cases should not sit stalled for weeks just because no one can be bothered. As it's my idea to better update cases while they are in progress, I would also be willing to take responsibility for drafting and proposing a process for making sure that happens. However, the ArbCom does handle additional important work. As I touched on in my answer above, I would request and use the checkuser tool to investigate credible allegations of sockpuppetry where technical evidence is used in the determination. I also would wish to participate in the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. This is the last line of appeal for long-term sanctioned editors, and while in many cases such sanctions will turn out to be appropriate, BASC must be careful of "falling into a rut" and missing a genuine case of abuse or error.

2. You say that A lot of the work I do on Wikipedia is to make difficult calls on contentious discussions and processes. Can you give us an example of a difficult call that you have made, explaining why it was contentious, and the reasoning that you employed?

   The two I would remember most recently are the topic ban of Apteva (described above in my answer to Mark Arsten), and the lifting of the community ban against TreasuryTag. For the Apteva discussion, discussion had been ongoing for a very long time if one includes the previous user conduct RfC. The consensus of the community was clear from those discussions, and it was time for an end to come to the matter. However, there was some very vehement disagreement, and I knew full well the decision would not please everyone. Similar was the community unban of TreasuryTag. Again, consensus was clear, and the discussion was degenerating into far more heat than light. Some editors did vehemently disagree on the unban, and for valid reasons, but in the end, a community ban cannot remain in place if the community does not wish for it to. A look on my work at AE will also provide a good number of examples, far too many to enumerate here. AE threads often become quite contentious and heated, and one may generally expect someone to disagree except in the most egregious and clear cut cases (and sometimes, even in those cases).

4. One of the voter guides describes you as an ANI, village pump, and Jimbo talk admin. Do you agree that this is a fair characterisation?

   I'm very surprised to see this characterization. Taking a quick look at an edit counter, I've edited other pages significantly more frequently than those three. That's not to say that I never edit them, of course, but I'm generally far more active in other areas. However, voter's guides are for the impressions of the guide writer, and if that's what they think they've every right to say it.

6. Really? Doesn't our BLP policy apply?

   I don't believe that it does. When I signed up to run for ArbCom, I fully expected that I would be critiqued, and I certainly did not expect everyone to have something positive to say. I think use of BLP to suppress that type of criticism would be an utter misuse of BLP; the community must be able to frankly and critically discuss the candidates for election. That being said, if someone were to, for example, start saying that a candidate was once convicted of a serious crime, that might be to the point of real-world harm where BLP enforcement might be necessary. But criticism of me as an editor is entirely appropriate when I voluntarily chose to throw my hat in the ring.

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?

   I think it is an excellent draft. It balances well the Committee's responsibilities which can come into tension, between protecting the privacy of those who contact the ArbCom in confidence and expect that confidence to be kept, and being accountable to the community for its actions and the reasoning behind them. I think the idea of delegating work which can be properly handled by others is a good one, and the draft gives a good idea of when and where such delegation should be done, and where the Committee should handle the matter directly.

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), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?

   I was...disappointed, to say the least, by the behavior of many editors during the Manning case. A good friend of mine for nearly a decade is transgender, so while I cannot claim to know firsthand how hard that must be, I have certainly seen it firsthand and over a very long period. ArbCom cannot, however, erase the past, only take action against those who have already behaved inappropriately. I am not convinced, however, that the ArbCom itself acted inappropriately in this case. It was faced with a very difficult decision, and there were behavioral problems on both sides. Also, there were several editors who were asking ArbCom to rule on what the outcome of the debate should be. While I agree with the ultimate outcome of the page title debate, I do not agree that ArbCom should have made what was ultimately a content decision. It is the place of the community to make content decisions. It is unfortunate that sometimes it takes some time for things to come around and be corrected, and sometimes volumes of discussion take place in the meantime, but that is the nature of a collaborative project which operates by consensus. We do, however, need to make sure that editors are not being excluded from these debates by creation of a hostile environment. That is the misconduct ArbCom addressed in the Manning case.

   The Sexology case was another fraught one, as most of these are. Again, I see many behavioral problems. If I thought someone were clearly and blatantly POV pushing, I would, generally speaking, be willing to sanction for that, but the Committee must be careful indeed not to have a chilling effect on discussion of content. This is a difficult case, and there was no possible decision that was going to please everyone. This should also not be considered an agreement with your assertion that any party to that case is in fact a "fringe POV pusher".

   Finally, for your undeletion question, that appears to be error rather than malice. However, it is a serious error, and demands an immediate review of the processes for handling this type of situation, as well as where the breakdown occurred and what actions took place without proper consideration.

   To answer the main question, I don't see it as within ArbCom's remit to repair any such relationships. The only thing ArbCom can do is to be as fair, thorough, and deliberate in its actions as possible. That, I certainly intend to do.

2. First off,Thanks for running. You mention in your statement that you believe that there's a growing disconnect between the Committee and the Community, due at least partially to Arbitrators not closely engaging the Committee to explain their decisions. Where do you draw the line between answering the Community's concerns, and just setting things up to be argued endlessly (which has happened in several cases)

   As a good general rule, when a discussion has degenerated into both sides repeating and rephrasing their positions and reasons for them, without anything much new coming in. At that point, it is rather clear the two sides are not going to convince one another, and there's nothing productive from both sides repeating the same things once again. I don't think that should ever be considered a foregone conclusion, though. Even if someone doesn't convince me of what they think, they might bring up a good point that gives me food for thought.

(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.)?

   When an editor behaves disruptively in one topic area or with one other editor, but outside of that contributes productively, a limited restriction might allow them to continue their productive contributions without making their problematic ones. Factors that would lead me to favor a full site ban would include that the editor has been repeatedly and severely disruptive across several areas, the disruption appears to be deliberate, and/or that the disruptive behavior is extremely serious such as outing for purposes of harassment.

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)

   Except in extremely egregious cases, I'm generally in favor of second chances. I'm far less often in favor of third ones. In many cases, by the time a case comes to ArbCom, editors have already been repeatedly told what parts of their behavior are inappropriate. They may have already made such assurances to avoid a block or have one lifted, only to return to it. At that point, we may have to conclude that the editor is either deliberately trolling or just can't help themself. It is often impossible to tell the difference. In either case, though, it will often be time to conclude that this is not the right environment for that editor, and prevent further disruption by banning that editor. At some point, one must stop accepting "But I really mean it THIS time!"

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...?)

   I wouldn't. ArbCom is not a legal or a judicial process, and I hope we never adopt that model.

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?

   I disagree with a lot of United States laws which criminalize non-violent behavior, especially simple drug possession laws. That being said, two states (including my own) have moved to legalize marijuana, and several others have decriminalized it. While I do not myself use marijuana, I don't want my taxes being spent to lock up people who do. The same is true of most drugs. On the other hand, those who commit violent crimes and endanger others do need to be kept away from society, until such time as we can be sure they are rehabilitated and won't do it again. For the "middle of the road" crimes such as petty theft, embezzlement, white-collar crimes, etc., where someone is harmed but not violently, I generally support a greater use of house arrest and electronic monitoring. It is far less expensive than full incarceration, and in these cases, there is a much better chance that the nonviolent criminal can be rehabilitated if they are not forced among the violent 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?

    I agree with both sides. We should use the minimum sanction on an editor likely to be effective and protect the project, but we should consider that failure to sanction genuinely disruptive behavior may drive away good editors. I disagree, however, that admins prefer to block than to warn. If I think there's any reasonable chance that telling an editor "You are headed for a block here, knock it off now" will get them to knock it off, I generally won't block. I know many admins who share that view. However, that doesn't mean "Stop that until you think no one's looking again."

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.

    I disagree strongly that nationality should be a required disclosure. I could not care less about any candidate's nationality, and anyone who would vote based upon that is the last person I want knowing it. For age, the only WMF requirement is that one be 18 or older, and above age of majority in one's jurisdiction. Editors are already required to state that, I don't think knowing someone's exact age makes a difference. That being said, any visitor to my user page will see my nationality, and can probably guess my rough age from my photo and when it was posted. But that's something I voluntarily disclosed some time ago, I don't think it should be mandatory. I also am not sure I agree on "education"—I'm a self-taught software developer, and I'll tell you right now I'm a fair bit better than many I've worked with who have degrees. (That is not just my opinion, either, it's been told to me more than once.) However, if the community wants that, they can either make it part of the requirements next year, or just refuse to vote for anyone who doesn't disclose it.

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

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.

   I don't do a great deal of work in that area. I tend more to work with terrible articles to make them at least workable than good ones to make them great. That being said, I was asked for a peer review by Pastordavid during his work on Maximus the Confessor to bring it to FA, and did provide some suggestions for it: [3]

2. Firstly, please accept my apologies for adding to the list of questions! I'm one of the less controversial arbitrators but even I have had my writing twisted, my honesty questioned, my personality derided. I've been the target of unpleasant emails and real life actions. Other arbitrators have been subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?

   As I stated in my answer above, I already have been subject to such actions as an administrator. I tend to let most things roll off my back. I've had, as you said, my integrity questioned, my personality derided, my statements twisted around well beyond to what they meant, and I've also received some explicit threats. Should an extremely serious event occur, such as receiving a credible death threat, I would forward it to WMF for assistance. There are a certain number of people who behave unacceptably and even illegally on the Internet, and anyone who cannot deal with that should probably not use it too much, let alone be in any position of authority on any site. I'm well aware arbitrators deal with this kind of nastiness, and if I weren't prepared to, I would never have written the statement. In the end, I don't think it's acceptable to let those who behave in that way win by intimidation.

2. I've been seeing this concern pop up on a few voter guides, so figured I'd turn it into an official question. Looking at your contributions, it seems that you are frequently absent from Wikipedia for months at a time, so there are concerns about whether or not you would have sufficient time to devote to ArbCom. Are these planned absences, or could you offer some explanation for the uneven activity levels? Thanks.

   That's a fair question. I've had some absences in previous years since I was working on other projects. My most recent one this year was due to a family issue. I will decline to go into detail, but if that ever recurs, I would buy a lottery ticket. As a volunteer, even an admin, I'm not required to contribute at any given time. As an arbitrator, I'm making a commitment to a specific term of two years. Absent a very serious real-life issue (which that family issue would have been one of, and I would have had to take time off to deal with that), I would not go inactive. In any case, however, I would not go inactive without notice. If such an issue as that one this year were to come up and I were an arbitrator, I would have done everything I could have to ensure my absence caused as little disruption as possible and that any pending matters were turned over to active arbitrators.

2. I've seen excellent things from you in several fora, but my principal knowledge of you comes from the Star Wars Kid article. There for a period of a couple of years you argued for strongly for the inclusion of the real name of a minor who had been the subject of cyberbullying. [4] [5], including stating that because you judged that there was no consensus to exclude the name, it should be included. [6]. From my perspective, comments such as these show a deep misunderstanding of BLP policy including WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPDELETE. In this 2009 post to your userpage you state you left WP temporarily because of the way BLP policy was being applied, saying "BLP is currently misused in ways I never would have conceived of." Now, these posts are from the Dark Ages in Wikipedia terms, and you may well have changed your position since then -though to be honest, I am prompted to ask this question because some of your responses to BLP questions above hint that this may not be the case. So I would like more clarification and detail on this point. Do you still stand by your positions of 2008-9? More importantly, what is your current view on our BLP policy and whether it is being "misused"?"

   The Star Wars Kid issue was a difficult one. I would tend to stand by my position there, given that in order for protection of privacy to apply, there must be something to protect, meaning that the information must be currently private. We can no more protect the privacy of widely disseminated public information than we can protect the lives of the already dead. However, that's not ultimately the way consensus went. While BLP is a critical policy and we must be careful with what we write, I think the use of pulling out the BLP hammer to shut down legitimate content disputes is indeed a misuse of it. On the other hand, saying that we cannot write unverifiable things about living people, especially if potentially negative, cannot out genuinely private or semi-private information about living people, and must take especial care to ensure BLPs are neutral and appropriately weighted, are all perfectly appropriate.

Thank you for being honest in your answer. I am disappointed by it, obviously. Do you really still stand by your position that unless there is a consensus to exclude BLP material, it should be included? Do you really think that if something is verifiable we have no duties as editors to "avoid participating in or prolonging the victimization" (amongst other things)? These views fly in the face of our BLP policy - and as you yourself said, the consensus of WP editors in how BLP is interpreted and applied. WP's BLP policy and responsibilities goes way beyond your summary of it- that we cannot write unverifiable material or out private or semi-private material. But as I said, I thank you for being upfront in your answer; I think it is important that those considering your candidacy know your position on these matters. Slp1 ( talk) 13:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

On the specific matter of exclusion vs. inclusion, I think the consensus there has solidified over the past few years that exclusion is the default. That was not nearly so settled a matter at the time, but now it is. Ultimately, as an administrator or arbitrator, it's incumbent upon one to uphold community consensus, regardless of whether or not one personally agrees with that consensus, and I have as an admin closed discussions where the consensus was clear but I didn't really agree. On the other hand, as a member of the community participating in a discussion, I will express what I personally think. My view will not always be the one that ultimately gains consensus, and one who cannot accept that probably shouldn't participate here at all. This is a group collaborative project, and that means sometimes one will find oneself holding a view that is not ultimately how the community wants to go.

You've somewhat misrepresented my views on BLP, as well, in your followup. I did not say or imply that we had no duty whatsoever, and of course I don't think that. If we post material from questionable sources or go digging through semi-public records to make information much more visible than it already is, we could indeed do harm that had not been done before. That would be unacceptable and I've never supported that. I did say we have the duty to consider both the questions of "Given how widely the information is already available, would we in fact be publicizing information that is currently largely private?" and "What have the best, most reliable sources seen and done as the ethical thing to do in this case?" I am very hesitant to substitute our views for those of the very best sources. I would also note that I was far from the only experienced editor to take the position which I did in that case. You're welcome to disagree, you did, and we discussed the matter. That's how we work those things out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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 think it's something of a problem, in that I've seen several good editors go who I wish had not. On the other hand, change certainly is inevitable as a project matures, and it is not possible to make everyone happy. This means that inevitably, some will dislike the direction the project goes to the point that they will decide to part ways. Regardless, no matter how many good contributors we have, one more is never a bad thing, and we should do all we can to bring in and retain newer editors showing a genuine interest.

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

   Mentorship and welcoming of newer editors. Editing Wikipedia can look very simple at a glance and become very complex in practice. It is essential that experienced editors be willing to guide and mentor new editors, and be forgiving of mistakes we would not expect a more experienced editor to make. New editors should be considered a valuable resource, not a burden to be brushed off.

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

   The Foundation's primary goal should be at a larger scale. I also think there is a significant untapped resource in encouraging editors to come in from geographic areas which are currently underrepresented in the English-language Wikipedia. The Foundation should, in terms of this issue, focus on advertising editing, encouraging new editors to come on board, and working with volunteers here to ensure they can have a smooth experience when they do.

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

   Directly addressing this issue would be somewhat outside of ArbCom's remit. That being said, if someone is being persistently nasty to other editors (especially newer editors) and refuses to stop, and the case lands at ArbCom, steps should be taken to stop that. This is a volunteer project, and it is very easy for someone to say "Forget this, I don't need to take abuse for doing free work, and no one cares to step in and help." The civility and no personal attacks policies are not there to say "Don't say that word" or to say that editors must always agree. They are there, instead, to establish a level of decorum and respect with which we should treat one another, even when we disagree. Abusive behavior toward one another can tear a project like this apart, and in egregious cases, ArbCom may be called upon to evaluate and stop it before good editors become non-editors.

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?

   I don't think that anything is an "unmitigated blight". Several well-respected users of this site also spend time on Wikipediocracy. I don't myself, so what I can tell you about it is rather limited. I do know of some criticism I've heard of coming from there and its earlier incarnations that I've heard of secondhand, and in some cases it was at least to some degree valuable and constructive. I do not recall any examples offhand but do that it's happened.

   That being said, I did touch on above that, in extreme cases, ArbCom may need to take what action it can to protect contributors here if they are being severely harassed or outed due to their on-wiki activities. While Wikipedia can't do a thing about Wikipediocracy, as it's not our site and the administrators of Wikipediocracy may run it as they see fit, we at least should not allow people to contributing here if they participate in that type of behavior to intimidate another editor. We would, however, have to be able to make a positive link between the Wikipedia contributor and their supposed offsite identity.

   I would not hold it against an editor just that they do participate in Wikipediocracy, or any other site. What an editor does elsewhere is ultimately none of my business or concern, unless their actions elsewhere serve to do serious on-wiki harm. The last thing I want is for Wikipedia to be insulated from criticism. For a dynamic and growing project like this, especially one largely run by its users, constructive criticism is essential to making sure we run things as well as possible.

Thank you. Carrite ( talk) 03:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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.

   There has to be a balance between transparency and protection of privacy. ArbCom is a body users of the site can approach with sensitive or private information, and it is absolutely essential that ArbCom keep that confidence. However, it is also essential that the community know why ArbCom is undertaking the actions that it is. These two goals will come into tension, and how to best keep the community informed while not compromising someone's privacy or confidence must always be a case-by-case determination. For the same reason, there will always need to be a private and secure discussion venue accessible only to arbitrators.

   We do know who accesses these features, or at least we know who can. There are a relatively small number of checkusers and oversighters, and so it is easy to determine who has access to these tools at any given time. If you mean frequency of access, I wouldn't see any harm in releasing a quarterly or annual summary report of how often a given holder of the tools used checkuser or oversight, without providing details as to where or on whom, but this would have to be discussed both with the CU/OS teams and with the ArbCom to identify any possible concerns, and with the community to gauge interest (if there's little interest, compiling such a report or developing a script to do so would be a waste of time.)

   I also strongly am in favor of having community representatives not on ArbCom on the audit subcommittee. We can't let everyone see the checkuser and oversight logs since they contain such sensitive data, but no one body, including ArbCom, should be absolutely in charge of ensuring misuses do not occur. The presence of non-ArbCom representatives on the subcommittee will help to ensure that concentration of power in this way does not occur.

   To answer the ultimate question, on a collaborative project like this, transparency is an exceptionally important goal. However, given the nature of some of the privacy concerns brought forth with some various issues, 100% transparency is not a realistic or even desirable goal. Any holder of advanced permissions should always strive to be as candid, responsive, and clear about the use of those tools as is possible without breaching privacy or other security concerns.

   I know for me, some of the edits I've emailed in to be oversighted were very serious indeed, and while I'll decline to go into detail for obvious reasons, the last thing I would want to do is draw attention to them for someone to pull them out of a cache or mirror. Time is our friend in those cases; the mirrors will eventually refresh and the cache update or drop.

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).

   Slinging of allegations without any backing, or classifying clearly appropriate behavior as violating policy, is in itself a form of misconduct and poisons the consensus process by chilling discussion. This is true whether the mudslinging is done at ArbCom or elsewhere. While I don't think ArbCom should be in the business of striking statements (in some cases, this would cause a significant extension of time to case resolution if nothing else), I would have no problem with inviting an editor to either substantiate an allegation or retract it, and in fact have done so. If they refuse to do either and keep slinging mud without any evidence to back the allegations, I have no problem with considering sanctions for this as inappropriate conduct.

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?

   I don't necessarily think enough is done, actually. It's a difficult issue. On the one hand, we certainly cannot enforce civility by a list of "bad words". It is possible for an editor to be speaking in a polite and even formal tone, and yet to be routinely making statements that are condescending, rude, and dismissive. I think the second is actually more corrosive than the occasional "%)(@*#@%)(*!!!!" said in frustration.

   We all have bad days and get frustrated. There will also be cultural differences between users which may lead one user to misunderstand a statement as uncivil when it was in fact not meant that way at all. The occasional occurrence of either is not grounds for a sanction. It is rampant and repeated incivility that leads to a toxic environment and ultimately drives away good volunteers.

   Ultimately, the end goal of civility is not that no one ever use a "bad word", but rather that we operate in a collaborative manner and genuinely listen and respond to the concerns of other editors in a reasonable and respectful manner. Editors who routinely play I didn't hear you, who are snide and condescending to any who disagree, and who do this in a consistent manner so as to create a toxic environment, are far more damaging to the consensus process than those who use occasional salty language.

   As far as what to do about it, that decision is ultimately up to the community, unless a case is already at ArbCom, in which case what to do would depend on the nature and severity of the misbehavior. Thus far, no consensus has been reached. It is important that the discussion continue (and itself remain civil), so that some standards of behavior can be established. Mistreatment of volunteers by others, with no intervention to help, can easily lead to those volunteers deciding they don't need to have abuse heaped on them for providing free labor. In that case, it should be the routinely abusive editors who are told to moderate their behavior or be asked to leave, as would be the practice in any other volunteer organization I've ever worked with.

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?

   Editors who post details about the real-life identity other editors which that editor has not chosen to reveal on-wiki are violating our policy on outing, which is a very serious form of harassment and grounds for an immediate site ban. That is true whether or not those details would be readily identifiable. It is that editor's decision, and theirs alone, what details they would like to reveal about their real-life identity, from near-complete disclosure to none at all. In cases where an editor is already subject to harassment due to outed details, ArbCom should work with that editor to protect them, including consideration of remedies such as a rename with details they've previously revealed being suppressed or a clean start.

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?

    Especially for large cases with a great deal of input, it would probably not be realistic for arbitrators to reply individually to every point raised, as in such cases there can be hundreds. However, they should take each point made under consideration when making the final decision, weighting each piece of input as to how it shows or refutes a pattern of misconduct requiring action to be taken. If during the proposed decision phase a significant number of editors, especially disinterested editors, are telling the arbitrators they are not addressing a critical point, that should be carefully considered, and the arbitrators should be willing to explain why they either have already addressed it, do not believe it needs to be addressed, or will take that input and take steps to integrate that into the decision as well.

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?

   I currently attend meetups of Wiki(m|p)edians in my area, and would certainly continue to. I've met some people I very much enjoy the company of that way, and would love to continue to get together with them. However, most editors do indeed collaborate entirely online, and that's the model Wikipedia is designed for. It's up to the individual editor whether such real-life activities are something they'd like to participate in.

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?

Currently some articles are in a "Wild West" situation while the arbitrators are busy and justifiably sanction a complainant who disturbs with minor claims. As a result, there are low quality articles, and some Complainant may stop editing (I can produce examples). A minor misconduct counter, may relieve the arbitrators to deal with the "heavy duty" problems. Ykantor ( talk) 04:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

1. It sounds like you are describing types of tendentious editing. While we should not sanction editors just for having an opinion which is at odds with the current consensus, nor even arguing that the consensus should change, there comes a time to accept that it's not actually going to change at the given time. We do want to make sure that consensus does not become stasis, and that editors are free to present alternate suggestions. We must also, however, ensure that they do not attempt to simply win by exhaustion. I don't think this could be solved by a mechanical "counting" mechanism, though. It has to be examined on a case by case basis. Mechanical systems invariably result in gaming.

2

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

The issue is discussed her: [7].

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. !

1. Not necessarily. Our policies on NPOV and due weight must be considered. The contributors to the article on Earth are not violating NPOV by not equally presenting the views of the Flat Earth Society. Indeed, they are upholding NPOV and giving proper weight by not doing so. However, if an editor is editing in a highly partisan manner, especially combined with aggressive tactics, this is cause for concern and certainly could be cause for sanction. I don't think a single editor is required to "argue all sides" in all cases, but if someone else wants to add additional perspective in a neutral and duly-weighted manner, they also must not stand in the other editor's way. The real question is if the sum total of the editor's behavior, both in editing and discussing content, helps or hinders the goal of ultimately having a neutral article which fairly and with due weight represents significant and verifiable views.

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) 11:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC) (UTC) reply