Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thank you for being ready to offer your service! How would you comment in this case of arbitration enforcement? Hint: My so far favourite comment has four words ;)

   Hi Gerda, and thanks for the question. The four-word answer: " no harm, no foul." And the longer answer: "Thanks Nikkimaria for raising the issue. However, a) the edit is not a technical breach of the sanctions, as it fixes an existing (attempt at) an infobox, rather than adding a new one or commenting on the issue, and b) the edit is a good-faith improvement to the article, for which one might in any case invoke WP:IAR. The context of the original sanction - the apparently indiscriminate addition of infoboxes and some hostile commentary -- is useful in interpreting it. That context indicates this edit is not of itself a recurrence of that conduct. Per this context and also WP:BURO and WP:IAR, no enforcement action is presently required."

Thank you. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Questions from Collect

2. Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

   Yes it can. There must always be due consideration of the option that no sanctions will ultimately be required to resolve a case. In practice I suspect few Arbcom matters can actually be dealt with this way. But all cases should be approached with an open mind to the possible outcomes.

4. Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?

   1) Yes. 2) Arbcom should have the authority to impose a topic ban without that having been supported (or even considered) in a preceding ANI. But again, individual topic bans require individual findings that a policy or guideline was violated by the affected editor(s).

6. Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?

   I can't think of any circumstances where I would participate in an Arbcom case without carefully reading the material.

8. "Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?

   Yes, the position is valid- WP:NOTLAW applies to Arbcom as it does everywhere else. In practice the "principles" section will be similar from case to case - being essentially a restatement of relevant policy elements upon which findings and remedies follow. But the findings and remedies must be determined on the merits of the individual case, not on precedent from other cases which were decided in other circumstances. Every case is based upon the same or similar policies, but the specifics are different and should be considered as such. To do otherwise would encourage "justice" over dispute resolution, and create a further incentive for wikilawyering.

10. Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?

    Of course. I don't see the "Five Pillars" as an essay - as described, they are the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and should be considered the bases upon which the editing process is built. They should be upheld in the spirit of every Arbcom decision, as they should be everywhere else in Wikipedia.

12. Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?

    A great deal. I think it is outlined best in the first three principles in this case. There are plenty of good-faith disagreements about BLP content, but the Committee should very substantial weight to the enforcement of BLP policy in relevant cases.

14. How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?

    A faction is a group of editors united by the advancement of a principle or their own members over others. Factions can form deliberately or subconsciously around articles, topics or individuals. The "team" environment within a faction may have a beneficial effect in encouraging collaboration and editing output. But they can play havoc with dispute resolution by overwhelming debate, by creating a misleading impression of consensus, and by encouraging false dichotomies. Current policies encourage collegiality over factionalism and urge the universal assumption of good faith, but these have not proved universally effective in preventing factionalisation. The Committee can address factionalism through tools such as discretionary sanctions which may help level the playing field among editors and reduce the influence of noisy and united minorities. But the Committee should not seek to address factions by "making an example" of putative faction leaders. As above, individual sanctions should rest upon individual findings.

    Thank you. Collect ( talk) 14:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. As a break from past years, I am not assigning "points" for the answers, but the answers to the questions, along with other material that I find in my research, will be what my guide is based on. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

2. What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?

   It sounds corny, but I joined to be part of a project that expands the availability of human knowledge. Nothing compares to Wikipedia in providing a vast storehouse of well-referenced, unbiased information about every subject under the sun. There's much more to do, but it's a fantastic concept and something I'm keen to be a part of. My personal editing history: like many people I was a regular Wikipedia reader for years before I actually started editing. In real life I work in transport law, but my hobby was/is exploring the dusty historical byways of 18th century Europe. In early 2008 I was bothered by an obvious error in HMS Euryalus, and after some hesitation I created an account to fix it. I've been here ever since. Day-to-day, I do what I've always done - create or expand article content, reword articles into more neutral tones and carefully reference older material. Day-to-day as an admin, I resolve ANI threads and apply the outcomes in a transparent and (hopefully) communicative way. I also work on backlogs of proposed deletion, old requested merges and the massive unsourced article list. I'll continue to do all these activities regardless of the outcomes of this election.

4. What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?

   I'm experienced in collaboration with other editors, including through the FAC, DYK and peer review process and in various Wikiprojects. Some examples here and here. I used to also spend some time in extended debate on some contested Australian political subjects ( example). What I've learned is that collaboration often produces stronger content than any two editors working alone, and that all good-faith viewpoints deserve to be taken seriously even when I don't ultimately agree with them. Each contributor will have their own approach, and manner of communication, and these differences should be respected. Listen to other editor's views; offer a compromise outcome if possible; and if not, explain your position in a polite and collegiate way. The same holds true in my admin work, of which there are presently some examples on my talkpage.

6. Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?

   I've never been directly involved in an Arbcom case. But like most admins I follow their progress to stay abreast of outcomes and sanctions, and to be aware of how they are to be applied. I'm therefore familiar with the stages and processes of an Arbcom case through observation over time. There are community views, routinely expressed, about the scope and clarity surrounding accepted cases. My opening statements touches on these as matters for further consideration. Addendum: I should add, as I partly have elsewhere in answer to another question, that efficient and consultative process management is critical to delivering a project on time. It's a tedious but necessary job to herd people and attempt to keep to timelines, but it's one I oddly enjoy and would be happy to contribute to here. However,in the arbcom context I'd say better a slightly delayed but well-reasoned outcome than one thats weakened by being pushed along too fast.

8. Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?

   I'm familiar with this issue most directly through WP:SHIPS, where there are several regular editors who would rank as international "subject experts." From personal experience I'd say in most naval articles there is a general respect for subject expertise, a willingness to quietly address any markup or MOS errors that arise, and a collaborative approach on expanding articles. I appreciate however that this relative harmony is not universal across Wikipedia. At the risk of simply paraphrasing others, I'd say both groups have a responsibility toward the other. As the encyclopedia matures we have greater and greater need of subject experts to lift good standard content to the level expected of a global encyclopedia. We therefore need to create the editing environment that enables subject experts to understand that their contributions are respected, and that others will assist in protecting high article standards against the mythical "Randy from Boise." On the other side, subject experts must acknowledge that good Wikipedia editing is a skill which general editors may possess, and that Wikipedia has layers of editing complexity that rival many university degrees. Subject experts can show the way on high-quality sources, content and analysis. General editors can show the way in turning that expertise into the articles that Wikipedia requires. Respect, and a willingness to learn, are required from both sides.

10. In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?

    I touched on this briefly in my candidate statement. I should make clear I don't see this as a critical issue, but I am attracted to a couple of ideas. First: as Arbcom is the only effective means of removing an admin, it should adopt a fairly low threshold for accepting cases alleging admin misconduct. Case acceptance does not presuppose any finding, but the community needs to have faith in the admin team and confidence that accountability mechanisms are routinely and readily available. Second: I'm interested in further community discussion on renewable term limits (say, 5 years) for admins. ANI sometimes sees problems with admins who edit regularly but havent used their tools in years and are out of date with policy. Other admins may over time lack the communication or attitudinal skills for the job, but never breach "the rules" sufficiently for a case to be brought. Further, it is good general good practice for those in positions of community trust to seek periodic re-endorsement from that community. I recognise the issues with reconfirmation RfA's being overwhelmed by editors with personal grievances against legitimate tool use, and don't propose to have the answer at this stage. But simply put, I believe the issue deserves further community consideration.

12. Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?

    As an admin I've had considerable experience in dealing with exactly these issues, especially with editors who are unhappy with an outcome and choose to personalise it to the admin concerned. I've also recently played my part in dealing with the IAC sockfarm, which has involved various unpleasant emails and legal threats. And in real life I work in a field which involves (among other things) prosecutions; regrettably, legal threats and occasional verbal abuse comes with the job. The keys are to sift valid criticism from unfounded accusation, to neither over-react or take the bait, and to simply get on with what needs doing in a non-judgemental way. Many people who resort to unfounded threats or abuse are simply angry about a current issue and will calm down in due course. But whether they do or don't, the goal is to stay focused on the task at hand.

14. What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?

    I'm familiar with CU through observation of its use at SPI. However, other than the IAC matter and one or two others, I've not been heavily involved in sockpuppet investigations and don't see this changing, so I'm unlikely to make much use of it. I'm more familiar with oversight, through observation and also through my own use of the revdelete function via the relevant policy. I've been here long enough to remember when page deletion and partial restoration was routinely used to hide offensive material, and consider oversight a much more effective tool. By their nature, use of CU and OS rely on community trust, especially as interpretation of their polices can vary between users. It's appropriate that CU and OS users are held to a high standard, and that allegations of misuse are taken seriously. On the privacy policy - its a good standard for an organisation with potential to collect substantial user data. I'm aware of occasional allegations about the risk of data misuse by WMF staff, but I've not seen much to substantiate the claims. Overall I'd say the policy works well.

16. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?

    Community-based dispute resolution is Wikipedia's gold standard. Arbcom dispute resolution occurs within narrow bounds, including handling specific disputes where community processes have failed, and where privacy or legal restraints prevent broader involvement. These are powers granted by the community to Arbcom, via ratification of ARBPOL. Outside ARBPOL's criteria, dispute resolution appropriately rests with community processes.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Questions from EllenCT

2. Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?

   I'd say this would comfortably be dealt with at WP:RSN or ANI, rather than via Arbcom.

4. When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?

   Yes. It may be necessary to understand a content dispute in order to resolve related behavior issues. But it is not the role of Arbcom to resolve it, or to verify the underlying facts and sources. Arbcom's focus should be resolving behaviour issues which the community has referred as intractable. The content dispute that gave rise to that behaviour stays with the community to resolve.

6. How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?

   An editor's personal views shouldn't play any role in editing. You can personally disagree all you like with the sources, but if they are otherwise of sufficient quality for inclusion, and meet other Wikipedia guidelines and policies (for example, WP:UNDUE), then they can legitimately be included. It's only an essay but WP:TRUTH also offers some useful guidance. A group of editors who acted in the manner described (essentially, repeatedly disrupting articles to insert their own point of view) would reasonably face sanctions if the case was referred to Arbcom.

8. If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?

   The circumstance you describe suggests the editor doesn't understand the meaning of COI, or why it's important in judging reliable sources. So yes, it is legitimate to consider this should there be further issues with that editor and COI.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT ( talk) 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Questions from Gamaliel

2. Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?

   Yes we do, and the burden is on the entire community to address it. The "five pillars" come as a set - we can't pick or choose which ones we uphold. Why is incivility a problem? It destroys the collegiate environment upon which editing is based, and drives away good-faith contributors who don't want to spend their leisure time facing personal attacks. It is not solely a list of "bad words." Rather, it is the use of the editing environment to criticize, belittle or intimidate, and to show disrespect for the views or feelings of others. An uncivil environment reduces Wikipedia's capacity to renew its editing base and has a disproportionate impact on participation by certain groups. The challenge in addressing incivility is that it takes time and an analysis of context. Vandalism is quickly reverted. Incivility can be harder to spot or address. The civility policy provides various options, and ultimately sanctions play a role. But problems with Wikipedia's editing environment won't be addressed by banning this person or that, or by proscribing this or that word. These actions only treat symptoms. The cure is a long slow process of building or rebuilding a collaborative, friendly editing environment, and through relentless community disapproval of those who won't take part.

4. Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?

   It's a problem if it limits article coverage, and if the culture of Wikipedia's editing environment limits participation by female editors - we need all the content contributors we can find. Of course anyone can create or edit an article on any topic, but the reality is we edit according to our interests and the availability of sources. That's why we have excellent coverage of sportspeople and IT issues, and comparatively weaker coverage of (say) female scientists. Activities like this are important, practical steps in addressing the content gender gap. And community efforts to encourage a more collegiate editing environment may also attract editors from a wider range of backgrounds (of which more in the answer above). But first and foremost, these are matters for the community - neither can be addressed by Arbcom fiat.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Questions from Everyking

2. How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved? Everyking ( talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Your question reply

   I'm happy to commit myself to high standards of communication and transparency. But I don't support all Arbcom discussions being held on-wiki. There needs to be space for all options to be canvassed and minds to be changed without everything being said "for the record" or with an eye to what others might immediately take from it. I'd suggest Arbcom deliberations would become entirely unwieldy if conducted this way - if nothing else, discussions over what might be sensitive personal information and how to present individual deliberations without revealing it, would consume a very great deal of time. Lastly, I suggest it would be unworkable for some members of a Committee to insist on publishing their comments when others do not - to do so would be to breach others' confidences through the surrender of your own. I appreciate that Arbcom functions well only with community trust, and needs to earn that trust through openness. But while acknowledging the intent behind the proposal, I don't see that it would work and can't make the requested commitment.

Questions from Rich Farmbrough

2. Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?

   My view: The Committee has a narrow mandate and must take care not to usurp the community's role. As you point out, the Committee has no jurisdiction over policy or content, and remedies must not impose or imply a policy change. This case: I'd suggest NEWBLPBAN derives from this sentence in the first finding of "Footnoted Quotes": "There is considerable hesitancy on the part of many administrators to act decisively in these cases, often because the relevant policies are contradictory or unclear." If NEWBLPBAN is addressing the first half of the sentence (hesitancy by administrators) then it is a legitimate remedy, empowering decisive action in upholding the BLP policy. If it addresses the second half ("relevant policies are contradictory and unclear") then it is an attempt to address a policy debate and may be out of scope. Note I'm using NEWBLPBAN interchangeably with the original, less structured remedy that it replaced. On balance: I'd come down on the side of this being a legitimate remedy; it doesn't seek to clarify the policy wording, it exercises a remedy already authorized for the Committee (discretionary sanctions), and it directly addresses the non-policy issue in the finding (better equipping admins to deal with non-compliance). I suspect I may also be influenced by the remedy's efficacy in practice, and that a case might be made for this remedy under IAR. But that's not the heart of my argument, which might be summarised as follows: I support the narrowness of the Committee's authorisation; would take care to thoroughly consider any proposal that might step outside that role; but consider that in context, NEWBLPBAN falls within the Committee's mandate in this instance.

2. Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?

   I mentioned this in my candidate statement, but am happy to discuss further. I presently spend 10-15 hours a week either editing or researching for Wikipedia (presently reading up on Arthur Phillip whose article is somewhat inaccurate but whose personality is a little opaque; also researching the remaining red links at HMS Aldborough). This time usually sits in blocks of 2-3 hours, meaning there is the opportunity to give proper focus to any individual issue. I could comfortably devote this time to Arbcom matters, plus around 5-10 additional hours in any particular week at busy times. This would somewhat reduce at Christmas, and like everyone I take the occasional holiday.

4. Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?

   I'd be open to the discussion, but unlikely to support. Hearing cases is at the heart of that Arbcom does, and the community should expect the highest possible level of committee involvement in this task. A advantage of a 15-member committee is that outcomes reflect a healthy range of inputs, which leavens individual biases and ensures a full range of options and outcomes are considered. This would be diluted if there was a smaller "case committee." I understand other Arbcom functions are distributed among smaller groups, and have no problem with this practical division of workload. But subject to some compelling argument to the contrary, I believe cases should continue to be heard by the committee as a whole.

6. Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?

   I believe so. As I said in answer to Worm's question, I work hard at never losing my temper or responding badly to abuse or criticism on Wikipedia, and I believe I've succeeded over time. If you get upset, step away from the computer for an hour or two and come back fresh. And most importantly, stay focused on the task at hand. It seems self-evident that Arbcom disputes are complex, and can only be fairly resolved if all key parties have had a chance to be heard and all options considered against policy and practice. That's a painstaking and no doubt frustrating process, but its necessary to get the job done. I'd hope my editing history demonstrates the ability to carry out these tasks in a patient and even-tempered way.

8. Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?

   No, as this would be (and be seen to be) prejudging a case without having fully considered it. There is a place for the committee as a whole to provide information updates or general principles at various early stages, and this may be an important communications tool. For example, per my candidate statement I support the Committee announcing a case's initial scope at the time that it is accepted. Of course the evidence may subsequently lead anywhere, but that initial statement of scope would help inform the community of Issues under consideration and what evidence they may wish to provide. This may have been useful in the recent GGTF case, for example, where there was some early community confusion over scope. It became clear during the case, but an early scope statement may have helped. But again I am talking about case information,not opinions of outcomes or views on those involved - these must necessarily depend on evidence and deliberation. Re parties - the committee must have the authority to add any party at any time but should only do so with care, as it may place a significant burden on the named party in terms of stress, evidence collection requirements and peer scrutiny.

10. The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?

    Yes.

12. As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?

    Blocks have to be justifiable, and be for the reasons stated in the block log. Checkuser blocks may well involve private information unverifiable by the wider community, and the community should hopefully trust its check users not to misuse this power. Where there is a reasonable suspicion of misuse, this should be reported to the Committee or to AUSC.

14. The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?

    I've also seen this written in a longer form - "it's not about justice and fairness it's about protecting the encyclopaedia." I agree with that sentiment. I also agree with your comment here that an unjust or unfair system (or sanction) has a deleterious effect on morale. The Committee should strive to act fairly and justly in all matters, in accordance with policy and the Committee's mandate. Arbcom should aim to be just, fair and protect the encyclopedia. But the ultimate role of Arbcom is to resolve disputes in the interests of protecting the encyclopedia, and this takes precedence should it be necessary to differentiate between these aims. Or to put it another way: it is about justice and fairness, but it is not only about them. -- Euryalus ( talk) 06:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply

All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Questions from Carrite

2. If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?

   B+, but I'm with most other non-Arbs in saying this is very hard to answer accurately without a sense of the entirety of what the Committee has done. I determined the grade by combining my impression of case outcomes with my entirely arbitrary recollection of on-wiki opinions expressed over the year. The nature of Arbcom issues mean it will always have detractors, but I feel there have been fewer this year than in earlier times. Perhaps this reflects the greater number of issues resolved by the community, or perhaps it reflects a more effective committee. It's impossible to say.

4. The Arbcom process is slow, generally running nearly 6 weeks from first case request to final decision. What can be done to speed up this process?

   I touched on this in my opening statement, and suggested that processes might be streamlined somewhat if initial case scope was better defined. This is said with the acknowledgement that any set of evidence may lead a case in new and unexpected directions. I should add that I prefer a detailed and well-reasoned case outcome over a speedy one - if the Committee requires extra time to explore every angle and produce the most comprehensive resolution, it should be afforded that opportunity rather than being pressured into a swifter but weaker result. The 6 week period we currently have does not appear unreasonable as a guide to case timelines.

6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?

   Magic wand: I'd increase the number of regular content contributors. Working on articles with other people is not only more rewarding in terms of content, it's more fun. Real world: I'd change how we view unsourced material. When I started editing there were vastly fewer articles and a general willingness to accept any credible-sounding content. But times have changed - accuracy is increasingly important and subtle content vandalism is a growing concern. Wikipedia would be improved if there was stronger community encouragement for always adding sources when you add material. We're getting there, but it's slower than it might be. I also feel we're heading towards a significant shortfall in active admins (as seen in the more complex technical backlogs) and we already have a shortfall in content reviewers (hence the PR and GA queue). If we could change anything, we might consider improving how we treat our medium-term editors, so more people are willing to step up for these "machinery" content and janitorial tasks.

Thank you for your answers. —Tim. /// Carrite ( talk) 10:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Questions from Dennis Brown

2. Without naming names, what skills or qualities do you have that are unique, that might not be present in the current Arbs or candidates? What makes you stand out?

   Hi Dennis. As a statement of the obvious, I'd bring my unique perspective on Wikipedia and its dispute resolution processes, garnered from seven years of editing and thousands of hours of reading, interaction and observation. I think that's what everyone brings, and it's the principal virtue of such a large Committee. It'd be rare to find any one talent or skill that was necessary for the Committee but uniquely available only through one individual. More generically I'd bring strong communication skills, a commitment to calm, neutral analysis, an understanding of the editing environment and the centrality of content work, and a willingness to make and stand by difficult decisions. These skills are already present in the current Committee and many of the current candidates, but I hope to have the chance to enhance the Committee's skill set in these areas. If I absolutely had to pick a standout characteristic I'd say an unruffled manner, the ability to set aside emotion and respond calmly, and a determined focus on the task at hand. I trust my editing history backs these claims, but I don't suggest they're unique to me.

2. Assuming you are elected at Arb, what role do you expect to play as part of that committee?

   The heart of Arbcom is case resolution, and that is where I'd put my highest emphasis. The minutiae of case analysis and the importance of effective dispute resolution are some of the principal areas that attracted me to run in this election. Beyond that I'd simply be happy to play a role wherever required, including (for example) in AUSC and in managing the incoming emails - a statement made in the knowledge that some (for example child protection matters) are deeply unpleasant, but still require a swift but considered response. I suspect its not viable to pick and choose what tasks you want to do - I'd just work where work was needed in collaboration with other Committee members.

2. What have you done at Wikipedia that you think makes you particularly suitable for the position of Arb?

   Sorry for the delay in answering. I touched on some of these points in my opening statement, but happy to discuss them further. I would argue I bring a combination of abilities: I believe I'm a good communicator, which is an essential requirement for members of the Committee. As outlined in some of the other questions I pride myself on calm, detailed and (hopefully) thoughtful responses to complex or emotionally charged issues. I have a good understanding of and record in content creation, which is at the heart of what Wikipedia is about and relevant in understanding the context of many disputes. I have strong collaboration skills, developed through article and Wikiproject work. And I have a detailed knowledge of the "machinery" aspects of Wikipedia from six years as an admin and including dispute resolution activities in places such as ANI, 3PO, article discussions and RfCs. Of course these are all skills possessed by other candidates, so I claim no great uniqueness in stating them. But I believe they're all useful to the work of the Committee and they're the basis of my decision to put my name forward.

Question(s) from Worm That Turned

2. Hi, I'm Dave, one of the outgoing arbitrators. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?

   Hi Dave, and sorry to see you leaving the Committee. I've kind of answered this somewhere above but am happy to discuss again. As an admin I've experienced a fair degree of the threats and allegations that come with the role, and have addressed that by maintaining a sense of calm, ignoring any personal abuse and getting on with the job at hand. I pride myself on never having lost my temper or responded badly to abuse or criticism on Wikipedia. If you get upset, step away from the computer for an hour or two, and come back fresh. I appreciate that the abuse faced by Committee members can be vigorous and constant, and that the Committee can deal with matters that create a nasty atmosphere for all involved. That's an unfortunate part of Arbcom, but one every candidate needs to walk into with eyes open. As previously mentioned I work in a job that involves occasional prosecutions, and so have personal experience of abuse, legal threats and general nastiness including from defendants who have waited for me in the street outside work. Regrettably its par for the course. You simply disregard the anger, keep your cool and stick to resolving the issues before you.

Thanks for answering Euryalus - I'm pleasantly surprised to say that's one of the best answers I've had to that question and fills me with confidence. Worm^TT( talk) 13:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Question from Tryptofish

2. What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!

   Hi Tryptofish. I'd be hesitant to offer a view on this detailed proposal without first-hand experience of the Arbcom mailing lists to consider it against. In general, personal experience with legal and regulatory issues makes me wary of policies mandating that certain pieces of content are made public while other extremely closely related ones are not. For example, your first point permits Committee members to quote from their own emails provided they do not directly quote from others. But a Committee member's own email in response to another, would very likely reveal the content of that other member's email even if no direct quote was included. That said, I appreciate the importance of the Committee being seen to operate as transparently as possible. The best I could say in response to your question is if I happened to be elected, I'd gather the experience necessary to give this proposal the analysis it deserves, and come back to you.

Question from Carcharoth

2. Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you would respond to these and similar situations you will probably encounter if elected.

   See below.

2. "Parties to cases post repeatedly to your talk page, and/or e-mail you and/or the mailing list."

   I'd urge parties not to be posting evidence or related material on my talkpage - to the extent possible, the case should be developed and discussed in a single on-wiki location. If relevant material is posted to my talkpage, I would move it to the case pages. Parties to the case are able to provide material via email where there are privacy or legal issues that would make on-wiki disclosure difficult. But it seems generally preferable that evidence be provided on-wiki for transparency reasons. If it must be provided by email I'd suggest it should be via the Committee's email functions, and not to me personally - it is essential that the Committee as a whole considers the case on the same evidence and with the same inputs. I would forward any such emails to the appropriate locations, and advise those who sent them to me that I had done so.
   
   Some general points: Repeated out-of-process emails and talkpage posts can eventually border on disruption. But I'd argue it is important to keep in mind that parties to Arbcom cases are often frustrated or annoyed by the issues in dispute, and/or entirely unfamiliar with Committee processes. Polite forbearance is necessary - assist parties in understanding where and how they can add their evidence and comments, and don't unnecessarily jump down their throats if they do it wrong a few times. Equally, don't waver from the core principle above - the entire Committee considers the case and needs to have access to the entire set of inputs via centralised locations like the case page and the Arbcom email lists. Parties to a case shouldn't be encouraged to convince Committee members one at a time, or present arguments and evidence not available to the whole.

4. "Parties to a case make strident and repeated calls for your recusal."

   First, consider the validity of those calls - per ARBPOL, have I had a significant personal involvement in the dispute, or a relevant history with an actual or likely party to the case? Ignore extraneous elements such as the stridency of the call - the only actual question is whether on careful reflection, it has factual justification.
   
   If I am "involved"- Recuse, on the grounds that Arbcom deliberations must be, and be seen to be, impartial.
   
   If I am not "involved" - For example, if my involvement is a) non-existent, b) too remote to affect the case (eg. "you are from southeast Asia, so is an editor named in this dispute, you must recuse") or c) present but routine (ARBPOL specifically notes the difference between "significant personal involvement" and routine interactions as an arbitrator, admin or editor). In these cases: Not recuse but take care to explain my reasons in the interests of transparency and to allow further responses. Also, remind those seeking recusal that ARBPOL provides an "appeal" mechanism - if they disagree with my assessment they may refer the request to the Committee as a whole.
   
   A general point: Arbcom matters routinely generate both strong feelings and good-faith differences of opinion. Editors have the authority to request that an arbitrator recuse, and the right to disagree with the arbitrator's decision not to (and appeal that if they wish). If recusal is rejected, neither the fact nor the stridency of the calls should impact on the assessment of the subsequent case. Or in shorter terms - don't take it personally if someone wants you off the case. And don't let it affect your views of the editor or evidence if the case proceeds.

6. "Poorly assembled ban appeals arrive at the mailing list and will require work to sort out."

   It would be ideal if every request for action was well-assembled and well-argued - the equivalent to ANI posts containing all the necessary diffs. In practice this may not be the case. Appeals that are completely unsupported by relevant material would seem unlikely to succeed - the Committee needs evidence upon which to consider the case, and shouldn't have to assemble someone else's appeal from scratch. But this is not a rigid bureaucracy - if the appeal contains sufficient argument for it to be considered, then minor defects in process or assembly can perhaps be set aside. Or, in shorter form - I'd approach appeals in good faith. If they seem sincere and well-thought out, they deserve examination. Ultimately, they stand or fall on the evidence and arguments provided, even if their assembly is poor.

8. "You sense you are very tired/ill or not fully alert, but voting needs to be done."

   In almost all cases, get some rest and come back fresh in a few hours or the next morning. No one will thank you for rushing a decision and getting it wrong. But also, make sure you put enough time into the Committee's work that real life issues like sickness/tiredness don't needlessly delay case outcomes. Good process management (referred to in an earlier question) includes time for contingencies like these.

Questions 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?

   I'm a supporter of offline activities that encourage greater collaboration and help expand our content base. An example is this, which got a number of new editors involved and working on an under-represented topic. But geography and work commitments conspire against me actually attending - my direct contributions to Wikipedia are entirely on-line, and this is unlikely to change.

4. One of the Arbcom candidates is standing on a pro-pie policy. Whilst you may find that to be a flippant approach, many editors do appreciate pie. What is your favourite kind of pie?

   
   People who argue this is not actually a pie are suffering from systemic bias. There are equivalents in other cultures - this is the traditional Mongolian version, steamed not fried (the fried version is more popular but less tasty). Partake with rice and salad.

Questions from Fæ

2. I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?

   Thanks for the question, and apologies for the lengthy response. I'm a male with a minority ethnic heritage. Forgive me, but I believe my sexual orientation is my business.
   
   The above notwithstanding, I'd like to be considered for the Committee on the basis of my own-wiki record rather than unverifiable claims I could make about my personal background. Every editor brings a degree of bias to their contributions, born of a million personal, geographic, social and economic influences. I'm not aware that my edits or approaches have been influenced by gender or personal history, but recognise this is in the eye of the beholder.
   
   On-wiki I've worked hard to create a collegiate and diverse editing environment. I have encouraged input from others and supported good-faith contributions from any source. In seven years on Wikipedia I don't believe I've intentionally insulted or belittled any good-faith editor. I've certainly never done so via profanity, sexualised language or swearing. I've never commented on any editor's gender, sexuality or ethnicity, nor attributed their edits to these factors. We need all the content contributors we can get, with an editing environment that supports that goal.
   
   If I had to list relevant values I hope to bring to the Committee I'd say:
   - Treating edits and editors on their merits;
   - Encouraging a neutral and collegiate editing environment;
   - Recognising and addressing systemic bias; and
   - Promoting tolerance of other's views in the interests of the encyclopedia.
   
   I hope that answers the question, but please let me know if more detail is required. In passing I would hope these values would encompass many Wikipedians - I certainly don't claim a monopoly on any of them in this election or anywhere else.

Question from Bishonen

2. Hi, Euryalos. I'm interested in how candidates will be able to handle themselves when the knives start flying and I seem to have trouble finding any examples wrt you. In a response to one of Rschen7754's questions above, I noticed you offered a talkpage discussion from 2008 as an example of "extended debate on some contested Australian political subjects" that you took part in. [1] Yes, it was contested, and you acted in an exemplary manner, but, well, it was also fairly mild, and very long ago. Indeed it was before you got admin tools. I notice you said you used to spend some time on that sort of thing. Er, have you stopped debating? Do you have any more recent examples of being involved in difficult discussions and dealing with POV-pushers, as editor and as admin? I favour arbitrators who're fearless and independent — polite and tactful is fine, but not enough on its own IMO — and with you I'm finding it quite hard to tell about those qualities. Can you save me the in-depth research by pointing me to somewhere I can see examples of them? Bishonen | talk 00:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC). reply

   Hi, and thanks for the question. I haven't stopped debating, I've just stopped editing so many Australian political articles. Over time my content contributions moved from political and social issues towards 17th and 18th century MILHIST and SHIPS. These are less emotion-driven topics and the issue is more systemic bias than editor POV. But my editing habits changed to follow my interests, rather than a desire to avoid conflict. "Fearless and independent" is a worthy standard to aim for. I'd hope my editing history shows at least the lower bar of "calm, communicative and doesn't back down."
   
   On the question:
   - A couple of additional examples: this old one, which was about addressing POV-pushing while being accused of financial corruption, and this newer one which followed this contested ANI close. Plus the usual admin-related responses to people who are angry about article deletions, the regular abusive vandals and threats via email from members of the IAC, all of which are matters in common with numerous other candidates.
   
   - A supporting point: this discussion is one-sided but I've added it also to show what I believe is an appropriate level of care in addressing POV issues - you make sure you're properly informed (in this instance taking the trouble to read the actual book upon which the opposing opinion was based); you present your case in detail, and you implement your views.
   
   - Lastly I'd refer to this answer. Of course claims about real life experiences are unverifiable, but my job involves legal actions against individuals and it is often my job to resolve (or tolerate) the anger and unhappiness this causes in others. You can't address a defendant's anger by backing down - your only option is calmness, patience and a willingness to go the extra mile to explain. Self-evidently, that's also a good approach for members of the Committee.
   
   In short, there are certainly other candidates in this election with a longer history in on-wiki conflict, good or bad. However I believe my editing history, and the points above, demonstrate the temperament and resolution required for the role.