Eluchil404

After some thought and consideration, I have decided to put forward my name as a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. I believe that my experience and perspective would be a valuable addition. I have been a registered editor since 2006 and an administrator since 2007, but have never held any other advanced permissions. I currently spend most of my time evaluating deletion discussions and participating at Deletion Review. I do not have a giant number of edits due in part to my desire to read and understand before I comment as well as my preference for saying nothing rather than simply adding a contentless “me too”. If elected I would devote a significant amount of time and energy to the Committee as I have few other commitments that would preclude such a focus. I believe that there is much room for improvement in the areas of speed and accessibility and would work to address them. I will go into more detail on this matter and other issues facing the Committee and the Community as a whole in my answers to the questions which I encourage everyone to read.

Thank you for your consideration, Eluchil404

Mandatory disclosures: I do not now nor have I ever operated any sock accounts legitimate or otherwise. Before I registered I edited Wikipedia from IP addresses. I used several but cannot now go back and remember or find out what they all were. I made one edit from the account of a family member who had left himself logged on to a shared computer. It was a minor edit and such confusion has not happened since, though I have forgotten to log in once or twice. I am over 18 years old and over the age my majority in my jurisdiction and will identify to the Foundation should I be elected.

Eluchil404 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Arbitration Committee Election 2011 candidate: Eluchil404

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

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

General questions

Skills and experience:
a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
As a Wikipedian, I have observed and participated in the community over the last five years. I believe that I understand many of the problems and concerns that users have. Much of my experience is in AfD and other deletion discussions. Though project facing this is front line work where users (both new and experienced) can get very frustrated as they see their writing devalued and ultimately deleted. Crucial talents I have developed are a good eye for consensus and the patience to explain Wikipedia's Byzantine and seemingly arbitrary rules and procedures. Outside of Wikipedia, I have done moderation/dispute resolution at other websites and lived long enough to know the difference between trolling and a good-faith failure to communicate, including knowing that it's not always easy to recognize. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
I do not have extensive experience in formal dispute resolution. I do occasionally browse WP:ANI and am always amazed at the amount of difficulty and disruption around what to the rest of the world are mundane, even minor disputes. On the other hand, when I have taken an issue there to get more eyes on it, those issues were resolved quickly and painlessly, at least for me. I keep an eye on active Arbitration cases but only post a comment if I have something new and different to add, which is comparatively rarely. See, e.g. [1] and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Workshop
Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
As the question itself acknowledges, there is no single answer to this question. In general, by the time a dispute has reached ArbCom simple reminders are insufficient and lengthy bans or other draconian remedies are on the table. On the other hand, users must be evaluated in the light of all their contributions not just one or two outbursts of temper. I would judge myself to be quite close the the current majority of ArbCom when it comes to handing out bans. I would generally oppose bans of longer than 1 year. This has been a traditional limit on ArbCom bans and there is no pressing reason to abandon it. As for desysoping, however, I consider myself quite hawkish compared to the sitting Arbiters. In the absence of an effective community de-admiship procedure, ArbCom is the only body capable of addressing "admin abuse" and misbehavior. We should be more willing to take cases of alleged admin abuse and more willing to desysop in light of proven misbehavior, not only abuse of tools, but edit warring, POV pushing, and anything that would normally result in an ArbCom sanction. Such behavior is incompatible with the trust of the community which is a necessary prerequisite for adminship. People who are desysopped can always appeal to the community via RfA, and if ArbCom is out of step with the community, they will be reinstated. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
ArbCom deals with the specific case or controversy before it and not with policies on the abstract level. While ArbCom may clarify its interpretation of policies and the principles that relate various policies to each other, it should not be in the business of writing policy or really of commending specific areas to the community for policy development. It seems to me that, the Foundation can do that if necessary. On the other hand, ArbCom is the final body in dispute resolution and so its determination as to the meaning of conflicting or unclear policies is effectively final, but new policies should not be spun out of whole cloth no matter how tempting it might be. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
The primary way that ArbCom aids in content disputes is by banning disruptive editors and insuring that there is a civil environment for consensus forming and dispute resolution. However, some disputes are essentially intractable, with no solution that will satisfy all sides. In such cases I believe that ArbCom's past practice of establishing a binding process to make content decisions that are stable for some length of time is a good one. It allows for a (nearly) final resolution without directkly imposing a specific reading. There are many disadvantages to such binding votes but where repeated attempts at consensus building have failed it is better to pick a wording and stick to it than to argue past one another endlessly. ArbCom can break the cycle of argument and allow editors to move on to other areas which may be more amenable to agreement or productive discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom and motions:
a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
Motions are limited to cases "where the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed" per the Arbitration policy. If anything this is still too broad because a case is often the best way to handle a matter where there is no much of a factual dispute but a large disagreement over what constitutes best (or rather acceptable) practice given the situation. Unless there is substantial agreement within the Committee it is usually better to have a full case where each party can make their arguments, than to try and craft a summary motion that will please no one and may not state exactly what the arbiters would say upon reflection. Motions are useful in two primary areas: where there is a clear consensus as to the appropriate action but for whatever reason (desysopping comes to mind) it must be ratified by ArbCom and not simply the Community, secondly, when dealing with the internal affairs of the Committee and its rulings modifications of passed sanctions, whether based on appeals on simply on further reflection can often be handled by motion where.
b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
Motions are rarely appropriate in dealing with new situations and hardly at all when such situations are still in dispute. While ArbCom should not overrule a Community consensus, it is reasonable to conclude that the first 20 people who showed up on ANI in a 2 hour period do not constitute a consensus to which deference is due. In theory the community has the final say, in practice overturning on ArbCom ruling, even one that contradicts a decision by a (small) part of the Community is almost impossible. While I recognize the tension, I don't see any way of resolving it except by exercising careful judgement as to whether a particular community discussion reflects a broader consensus.
As for the last bit of this question. The short answer is "no" and the long answer is "yes, but". Matters on which the community is divided are poor candidates for resolution by motion as I have said above and I would expect that the proper rate of motions on such matters to be less than one every two years (i.e. I don't expect to support any during my term as an Arbiter). On the other hand, such matters are within the competence of ArbCom and of the Committee is in substantial agreement as to how to resolve it, a motion would be a valid expression of ArbCom authority and not subject to challenge on procedural grounds. So, yes but never really a good idea. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 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.
My scan of the 2001 motions Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions#2011 doesn't show any that are manifestly unreasonable or beyond the competency of ArbCom. That doesn't mean they were all wise, necessary, and ultimately fruitful. In particular several deal with modifying editing restrictions in areas that I do not particularly frequent. While I believe that such matters are well suited for resolution via motion, I don't have strong opinions on the propriety of the exact restrictions without a detailed study of the evidence. Nevertheless, several motions were made regarding matters that should have been handled by a full case, and I'll consider those individually below.

The Motion regarding Jack Merridew Unban.5 This was handled very poorly by the Committee (by Jack/Barong as well but that's hardly the point here). The inability of the Committee to agree on the proper wording and a focus on technical violations that had previously been judged non-sanctionable by independent admins does not make for edifying reading. This is one of several cases that have hardened me against indefinite restrictions. If the problem returns the restrictions can be renewed or extended, but a record of positive contributions over the course of 12 months or more should be enough to clear ones name as it were.

The Motion regarding User:Δ.[2] In hindsight this should have been a full case. It's been several years since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 and a thorough review of both Δ's behavior and that of his detractors is warranted. Motions that simply postpone or ignore the central issues of a dispute are unhelpful because the dispute will continue to fester until it shows up at ArbCom again. Better to bite the bullet the first time and come up with a definitive solution. Not that cases are a panacea, but in Δ's case I think that either a site ban or an editing restriction crafted from scratch, the two most likely outcomes, would put an end to the constant lawyering about whether he has violated his restrictions or not. As an aside, the Δ/Betacommand dispute serves as a good example of how long running disputes become, almost inevitably, factionalized. Everyone has seen it before and they have already formed their opinions. So everything becomes a battle royale on the notice boards even if the precipitating event was quite minor. Consensus is impossible to reach because each faction is committed to their preferred outcome and evaluates evidence in that light. In such cases the fact that ArbCom operates by voting rather than consensus can be a strength. A 7-8 decision reveals deep divisions in the Committee, but it is still, in the end, a decision which will be implemented.

The Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2.[3] This is an example of the proper use of the motion procedure. A prior ArbCom ruling was appealed, relevant statements and evidence were considered and a revised remedy, in this case the lifting of sanctions, was adopted. As short as practicable and hopefully sweet for Future Perfect at Sunrise.

The Omnibus motion regarding past discretionary sanctions[4] is another that I would single out as particularly appropriate and useful. It clarified and simplified the work of admins at Arbitration Enforcement, one of the most difficult and thankless tasks on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
Yes. As a practical matter ensuring the deletion of all non-public material is essentially impossible so we must proceed on the assumption that some remains. Also it is desirable to maintain records that can be checked for the purpose of appeals and follow-ups for at least a short while after a decision has been made. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
b) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
I do not have direct knowledge of ArbCom current policies dealing with non-public materials and nothing in this answer should be construed as a promise that I will attempt (let alone succeed) in altering existing policy to suit my preferences. Nevertheless, I am setting out a complete answer to show the attitude and perspective that I will bring to the table on this issue. Routine information should be kept on hand for a short period of time after a disposition of a matter. Say four to six weeks so ti is on hand to address appeals or to inform explanations. After that period it should be deleted. It may be necessary to retain certain classes of data, such as that dealing with long-term-disruption, for longer periods, even years. It is probably best not to keep such data easily available on the ArbWiki, but rather to have a process in place where either any deleted data, or a subset of specifically retained data is available through the Wikimedia office. Upon a formal request of ArbCom it could be retrieved and disseminated as necessary. So archives should be purged, but we should be able to look up Grawp's real name if we need to. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
c) 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?
No. While I am happy to advocate for increasing openness in ArbCom deliberations, I do not believe that closing off any means of communication is helpful for two reasons. First, Arbiters are spread around the world with a variety of preferred means to access Wikipedia. If someone can be contacted by email, or telephone, Skype, etc, but can't read Wikipedia it facilitates timely decision making (which is a higher priority of mine than full access) to contact them by those (private) means. Secondly, Arbiters are human, AFAIK, and may less direct, i.e. blunt, in public rather than private fora. Frank, open communication is necessary for ArbCom to be all that it can be. Decisions should be made on-wiki and more discussion could well take place there, but shutting down the mailing list or limiting its scope to private matters would cause more harm then they would solve. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
d) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
I have not followed this matter obsessively, nor have I read the leaked emails, so I will comment generally. Obviously the security arrangements in place before the leak were insufficient and steps have been taken to combat several vulnerabilities identified. Other than that, they handled the situation as well as could be expected. Not well in an absolute sense but as well as people dealing with a surprising and damaging event usually deal. There was a desire to provide answers and not stonewall but at the same time picking out the facts amid the mistakes and interpretations was difficult. This is typical, even inevitable, which is why professional damage control people usually (1) stonewall and (2) establish a single source of information. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
Probably. While I have always edited Wikipedia anonymously and continue to value the contributions of anonymous and IP editors, I have not taken any particular steps to protect my identity from discovery and I expect to be outed if I become an Arbiter. I have no hidden conflicts of interest beyond what is disclosed on my userpage and am not notable by any stretch of either Wikipedia's guidelines or general usage of the word. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Division of responsibilities:
a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
ArbCom handles matters relating to user conduct on the English Wikipedia. I don't see its remit extending much beyond that. The WMF handles questions of global Wikimedia policy and legal issues effecting any and all projects. The most obvious case of overlap is when ArbCom uncovers potentially illegal behavior and reports it to the WMF, and possibly local law enforcement. Obviously such communications are confidential but I am not aware of any problems in this area, though the recent efforts to improve communication are to be lauded. Another are where both names sometimes come up is in dealing with BLP and other contentious policy areas where a directive has come down from the WMF for implementation by the local community. Since ArbCom doesn't set policy there isn't really any overlap of responsibilities here. The only place where there are real issues is in resource allocation. ArbCom has no budget and can't appeal to the open community for resources that must be validated as secure. Thus the turning to the Foundation to provide them. I don't see and conflicts on a basic level here, just the need for open lines of communication so that everyone has reasonable expectations. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
Since everything is handled by default by the Community at large the division of responsibilities is basically ArbCom does its thing and the Community does everything else, including things ArbCom could do but doesn;t have to because consensus is clear. There are not any areas where I think the Community is acting but really it should defer to ArbCom. The only area where I would like to see ArbCom hand power over to the Community is desysopping. I believe that admins who have lost the trust of the Community should be desysopped and that a mechanism for determining that through Community input rather than an ArbCom case can and should be constructed. I'd be happy with a simple "votes for desysopping/anti-RfA" set-up as I believe that it would attract broad enough participation to counter the most common and obvious types of gaming. On the other hand, I do see that no consensus for such a process exists, so ArbCOm has to step up and fill the gap. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
Hmmm. I am familiar with the term as used on the English Wikipedia, but haven't ever read the Meatball Wiki article with attention before. I'd say the answer is closer to no than to yes. The problem of uneven enforcement of standards has more to do with the differences between individual admins or local groups of users than with specific bending for users who have a long term history of contributions. Not that the latter never happens, its just that where a newbie might have a 50% chance of being blocked for some particular infraction a "vest contributor" has about the same 50% chance of being blocked, they're just more likely to get unblocked by their friends because people notice. So maybe the answer is yes, in a way. But the problem is not so much specific decisions to give editors a pass because of their contributions, but they and their allies ability to utilize the system so that sanctions don't stick. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
WP:FACTION is a redirect to Wikipedia:Tag team which refers to edit-warring via meat-puppetry. It's hard to know how widespread the problem is. It certainly exists and it makes basic safeguards like WP:3RR ineffective, but I have never seen it used effectively in practice. Most attempts at edit warring remain the domain of lone defenders of WP:TRUTHthe truth or hastily canvassed friends who make a poor showing. Also to be distinguished is where groups of editors simply happen to agree. They form a faction in the generic sense, pro-Russia, anit-abortion, whatever, but unless there is evidence of improper canvassing or coordination (as there was in the EEML case) such factions aren't the issue addressed by the linked essay. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
Web-based projects and communities (though the Wikipedia Community exists to further the encyclopedia, it does exist) like Wikipedia typically have high turnover. The key is attracting a continuous stream of new editors to replace those that move on to other interests. As Wikipedia has aged it has become more rule-heavy and more difficult to use compared to the average website. As the Web changes, we also must change to continue to attract readers and editors. While I have not seen significant problems related to falling rates of editor recruitment, I do think that it indicates as less than healthy encyclopedia and that it is an issue that deserve urgent attention by the Community. There is not much ArbCom can do directly, but encouraging a clear and firm enforcement of the policy WP:CIVIL, e.g. by treating violations as serious when they come to its attention in active cases, is a place to start. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda were some of the better handled cases from 2011. They did not take unreasonable amount of time, addressed the core concerns that led to the cases being filed, and were, by and large, correct. My general concern about indefinite remedies applies to Noleander, but it wouldn't have been enough to generate an oppose vote in the case.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, on the other hand, were poorly handled overall by failing one or more of the criteria I laid out. While Tree Shaping was ultimately a good decision it simply took too long. If the drafting Arbiter become unavailable due to a pressing commitment, another Arb should step in. While it does take time to become familiar with a case, we are talking days not weeks or months. MichMacNee also ended up dragging out, but the real problem is the failure to address the underlying issues. The case dragged out in order to consider issues related to Δ/Betacommand but the ultimate remedy relating to him did nothing to change either his behavior or that of his detractors. Instead it gave both sides fuel to continue their dispute. Abortion is another case where the biggest problem is the lack of an expeditious decision. Yes it is a complex case, but that still doesn't excuse a lag of six weeks from the completion of the evidence to the posting of the proposed decision. I do sympathize with overworked and under-appreciated Arbiters who do good work and get mostly abuse in return. Nevertheless, improving the average case time to under 30 days and preventing cases from sitting dormant for months at a time are the most important things that need to be improved. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
I do not believe that the biggest problems are structural, especially given the improvements that ArbCom has made in the last year or so regarding communications and delegating specific responsibilities to publicly named committees. I would seek to understand current procedure and work with more experienced Arbiters to further streamline it while taking on my fair share of duties. As I have said above, my biggest concern is the long lag that effects many case decisions. I would seek to help in this area by actively drafting cases and seeking to prod Arbiters who fell behind the aspirational target dates. This includes offering to help is an assigned Arb is unable to draft a decision and providing suggestions on cases where I am not assigned the lead positions. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question: #:A:

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. 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, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

The first 9 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
A:As I indicated above I view the length of time taken in that case as a shameful example of what is wrong with ArbCom. While pressing outside commitments do happen, there should be a better back-up plan than waiting for the assigned Arbiter to become available again. With 10 or more Arbiters theoretically active at any given time one should be available to step in and proceed with the drafting of the case. The failures here are of communication: if someone has to step aside to deal with pressing business they should share that with the Committee as soon as possible, and of responsibility: just because one or two Arbiters is assigned to be the lead drafter of a case that doesn't mean that the other active Arbs are not responsible for making sure that it is dealt with in a timely manner. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
A:No. Wikiprojects are pages where a self-selected group of editors gather to facilitate co-operation. They can serve as a place to form a consensus on things like layout for relevant articles but they do not own the articles in their scope. If someone objects to using the standard format on an article the fact that the consensus for such a format was formed on a Wikiproject page, as opposed to somewhere else, is irrelevant, instead the question is whether that standard format should apply to this article which is a question for local consensus. Simply marking an article "in scope" of a particular Wikiproject does not mean that there aren't other projects or article specific issues that might effect the best layout.

As a practical matter, usually it is best to defer to the consensus of the relevant Wikiproject, but users who are unaware of, or hostile to, either Wikiprojects in general or a particular Wikiproject can still make their case on a particular articles Talk page and should not be disenfranchised because "The Wikiproject has spoken". Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
A:As a preliminary matter, I would note that WP:CIVIL is a policy and most users who fit into the categories you cite above are sufficiently rude that I would consider them to have violated it, especially after the problem has been explained to them and they persist. But, stipulating that no concrete policy violations have been identified, I would not support a block or a ban of such a user. A collegial environment is important, but as a global project Wikipedia has, as it should, editors from a variety of cultures and backgrounds some of whom will naturally not get along well. Policy establishes the framework for our interactions and simple disagreement, even with a clear majority of editors, is not grounds for a block.

That said, clearly something must be done and several options remain depending on the specific situation. If the difficulties are limited to a particular topic area, a topic-ban might be in order, allowing the problem user to gain experience with positive contributions while letting the disagreements settle-down. Alternately, if "ignoring consensus" takes the form of reverting to his/her preferred version, while carefully staying within the letter of 3RR, as it often does, a revert restriction may be useful. If a willing volunteer steps forward, mentorship may also be an option, though I think that imposed rather than voluntary mentorships rarely work.

In short, this user is a problem that should be addressed, whether by the Community or ArbCom, but blocks are probably not in order unless civility or edit-warring exist at a level that is arguably, though not necessarily a crystal clear, policy violation. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
A:WP:COMPETENCE is an essay that is more often cited than violated. Nevertheless, there are editors who are, for whatever reason, not able to function as productive editors on Wikipedia. The first thing to do is to try to refocus their efforts in a more productive way. Maybe they should contribute in another language other than English, or in a topic area where they don't have such strong feelings. Only after that should editing restrictions, up to and including bans be considered. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
A:ArbCom should not be in the business of second guessing community bans. They should only be repealed if there is evidence that they were based on factually incorrect evidence, or if the banned editor has shown signs of reform. That said, I would not general support bans under the circumstances of question 3, though ultimately it is the Community who decides if its patience has been exhausted and people can certainly earn a ban bu violating only the spirit of policy while sticking to the letter. In the case of WP:COMPETENCE, the issues described therein can merit a ban if no other method of redirecting a users energies has worked. It is unfortunate, and should be pursued reluctantly, but it is certainly sometimes the best solution to a problem. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
A:No. It is entirely possible, though not really common but more on that later, for a single user to engage in disruption, gross incivility, or even edit-warring without any other user violating either the letter or the spirit of policy. Of course, such cases of editors contra mundi rarely come to ArbCom as they can be dealth with by individual admins or Community consensus. In many cases, two editors, or two groups of editors, feed off each other, with each slight or insult leading to another. In such cases, where "two are tangoing" I would still not necessarily balance the remedies. While the context of the dispute is important, each user is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions and it may be that one party to a dispute is arguing in bad faith while the other is not, even if it is the latter who has crossed the line and reverted one extra time.

On the other hand, two users who have done essentially the same thing should generally receive the same remedy. I can see a situation where I might oppose a remedy I might favor in isolation because I thought it disproportionate given the other remedies in the case. If everyone deserves a ban in my view, I still might oppose a ban on party A if party B, whom I also think should be banned, is given merely a warning. But that is a matter of internal case dynamics. The appropriate remedy for each user is determined in the context of the case, but there is no assumption of equality. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
A:Cases should be accepted to deal with cases of alleged administrator misconduct even if only limited dispute resolution has been tried. Only ArbCom can provide an effective remedy if admin is adamant that they were in the right and pointless, RfC should not be mandatory. In extreme cases they would be accepted on an immediate basis, but usually I would want to see conversation with the administrator and a discussion at a noticeboard, RfC, or other venue that gives weight, though not necessarily a clear Community consensus, that the actions were problematic. Other cases involve long-term disputes that the Community has been unable to solve. They should only be accepted where it can be demonstrated that alternate avenues have not been successful. Nevertheless, ArbCom should take cases where issues have lasted a long time, even if they are not presented in an ideal way. Problems are generally ongoing, if at a low level, and it is better to address them now, after making the scope clear, than to wait a few months and have them brought back again. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
A:I would support a ban on a user, my preference is for one year bans rather than longer or indefinite ones, if I believed, based on the evidence presented, that they were unable to contribute to Wikipedia within the policies of WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOR, etc. and that no lesser editing restriction would address their behavior. While I don't want to consider a ban in the absence of policy violations, I am willing to look to the spirit as well as the letter of policy. Bans should be a last resort. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A:Yes. I have recently changed my living commitments in such a way that I will have more time to dedicate to ArbCom and Wikipedia as a whole than I have for much of 2010.
What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
A:There are many small problems but only a few big ones. Editor recruitment: we are increasingly an insular, even isolated, community and must continually evolve to attract new users in the "Web 2.0" environment. Community governance: we are large enough that simple consensus works poorly for major decisions and keeping abreast of changes is not always easy. Consider the recent RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability which generated much discussion of what "widely advertised" means. I check WP:AfD almost every day and glance at WP:CENT to see if there is anything new, but obviously others have different expectations of how they are to be informed of proposed policy changes. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from NuclearWarfare

Note to readers and respondents

These questions are partially my own and partially derived from a set of questions Lar asked in the 2009 and the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections.
The Arbitration Committee may not ever be required to directly rule on some of these matters. Nevertheless, I believe that they should impact the Committee's thinking significantly and am interested in the candidates' thoughts. The responses will likely influence significantly my voting guide for this year.
To those who have answered these questions in the past, please feel free to reuse old answers. I would however appreciate a comment about how and why your views have or have not changed in the past few years.
Candidates: I would request that you please make an attempt to answer the core questions at the least. If you have the inclination to answer the additional questions, please go ahead. Depending on your answers, I may ask follow-up questions.

Core questions

Please describe your opinion on the following proposals in relation to Wikipedia's BLP policy: an expanded version of opt-out , "targeted flagging", and a more permanent version of the old pending changes trial. In your answer, please discuss your personal views on the pending changes trial: what you thought of it, whether we should ultimately implement some form of it (and if so, what form?), whether the community failed to come to a decision about it, and what you believe the role of the Arbitration Committee should have been.
I don't like "opt-out". It is too open to gaming by people wanting to hide their well-sourced notoriety and creates a hard to police grey area between too notable enough to delete and never notable enough for an article. Notability is nebulous enough as it is, adding another level would produce a hodgepodge of results, not consistent BLP enforcement. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take the concerns of article subjects seriously. They should be treated with the utmost seriousness and very often require editing intervention. That intervention will not be deletion, however, unless the subject is at least arguable below the standard notability bar. I haven't looked extensively at the targeted flagging proposal it strikes me as quite similar to some permutations of the "pending changes" extension used in the the old trial. I was quite surprised that the trial ended without implementation; I hadn't been involved because I had other priorities and I thought the only question would be what form exactly the en-wiki implementation of pending changes would look like. I am not technically competent with the Mediawiki software nor do I have strong feelings about the exact level of use of pending changes. I'd rather not see it rolled out for all Wikipedia articles but I neither would I leave if it were. I do feel that a form of pending changes, whatever it is called and however it is designed from a back-end perspective, should be implemented on a sub-set, at least, of BLP's. Pre-emptive semiprotection is overkill, but doing nothing is almost as bad. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe an experience you have had with a significant content dispute. If you have had any disputes where you felt that either yourself or another party was either not acting in good faith with respect to the neutrality policy or with regards to source gathering, I would be especially interested to hear about your experience. What do you feel you did incorrectly and how would you have realistically fixed that for future situations?
I would not describe any of the content disputes that I have been involved in as significant. The coverage of a controversy at Elizabeth Moon was one of the more dicey.[5] But certainly everyone was acting in good faith. I have revert nongood faith contributions, that were none the less not obvious vandalism, to Insect and List of Presidents of the United States by time in office, (see [6] and [7]) in both cases I took the matter to ANI and the consensus there was that blocks were appropriate. I have regretted my block of ZenCopain ever since I made it. Even though it was upheld at ANI, I shouldn;t have blocked a non-vandal after reverted him, the threat of disruption was not urgent enough to justify that action.

I generally avoid the most contentious subjects. In some cases I doubt my own ability to edit with the requisite neutrality, in others I just don't think them worth the trouble, but I have commented on the Ireland naming dispute. As far as I can tell, my particular view is rather a minority one and no one has seen fit to engage me in conversation about it. I don't intend to repeat myself until I grow hoarse, see WP:STICK, but rather will make my points in the discussion, add a vote to any straw poll, and follow developments in case someone else makes an argument that changes the landscape or convinces me to change my position. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my 2010 voting guide, I highlighted several quotes by other editors. Please select two from "On Administration" and state why you agree or disagree with them. Bonus points if you give reasons for your answers
I'll discuss the two from MastCell and Heimstern, since they make broadly similar points. In short I disagree with the thrust of them both, though like MastCell, I hold JzG in the highest respect. I believe that the corrosion of the editing environment by pervasive rudeness, the failure to assume good faith, and the arrogance of entrenched editors is a bigger problem than "civil POV pushing". My view is that all editors has biases, major or minor, revealed or hidden, conscious or unconscious, and that a neutral point of view (as it is defined on Wikipedia) is best assured by encouraging editors from as wide as possible a diversity of backgrounds and opinions to edit, while maintaining a high fidelity to our sources. Misrepresenting sources is last refuge of the POV pusher and should be dealt with harshly, but people for advocate for coverage to reflect points of view other than the received wisdom of the modern, secular West should be encouraged to edit within the guidelines rather than silenced. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that the policy on involved administrators using the admin tools should ever be relaxed to any extent? Does your answer change depending on whether general or discretionary sanctions are in place?
No and no. WP:IAR might come into play in some situations, and I think that it is better to view WP:INVOLVED as a "best practice", the de minimis violation of which does not result in a sanction other than a WP:TROUT rather than a rigid rule which must be invariably followed on pain of losing the bit. That said, I don't view the existence of discretionary sanctions as making any difference. Discretionary sanctions are designed to give uninvolved admins a wider tool kit to stop ongoing disruption, they don't make involved admins, who are preemptively too close to the matter to judge it fairly, any more fit to take actions in an area. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Wikipedia, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?
This is not primarily a matter for the Arbitration Committee, whose remit is generally limited to on-wiki conduct. I'll leave it to the Foundation to describe their own role. As an editor and an admin, I read WP:NLT as saying resolving a dispute through legal action is incompatible with resolving it through the on-wiki dispute resolution process. Thus anyone who brings a lawsuit either naming Wikipedia as a defendant or seeking relief from on-wiki conduct should be block for the duration of the proceedings. I wouldn't necessarily block the defendant in such a case, but would urge them not to import the legal issues onto Wikipedia and would consider a block if they became disruptive or the case was in such a procedural state (such as a counter-suit or appeal) that they could no longer be categorized as an innocent defendant but rather had become an independent instigator of legal action. In short, no one should be blocked just because someone else sued them over Wikipedia, but people who take their disputes to the courts must resolve them there before returning to editing. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions

What is your opinion of specialized content guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Do you think it is a practice that we should encourage with other guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)?
While such guidelines are useful in certain specialized topic areas, I don't think that they should be broadly rolled out across the encyclopedia. A generally reliable non-specialist source, like a newspaper, is not as good as a medical text for the facts about a disease but it is at least as good at showing the popular perception of an illness or controversy and coverage of that perception should be part of our articles as well. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should have a policy for medicine and health in the same manner that we have WP:BLP for living people? What about for corporations?
No. While our coverage of medicine and health is an area like BLP where inaccuracies have the potential to do real damage, I don't see the need for a new policy and would certainly argue that the differences are as important as the similarities with BLP. I don't see corporations as analogous at all really. While the legal issues may be similar to BLP, I think that you can libel a company, but IANAL, the moral concerns are just not the same at all. And so the need for a specific policy is not as great. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy (1, 2). Do you agree or disagree?
I agree that some have viewed ArbCom actions that way, but I think that they are wrong. ArbCom was saying what the policy was, based on the text and its reading of community consensus not simply making policy from whole cloth. The difference is subtle but important. See judicial review. ArbCom does have the authority to create processes to deal with problematic areas of policy or content but not to mandate a new policy itself. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big (e.g. for major policy or software changes). Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it?
In many ways, I do agree. I would suggest moving to a governance model that employs voting rather than consensus in more places and possibly instituting some kind of representative governance, perhaps in specific fields where there is a consensus that a problem exists but not a consensus on how to fix it. ArbCom is not now, and should not become such a board, though they might well be patterned after it. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors enforce the banning policy in a manner perhaps best described by ((BannedMeansBanned)); others take a more lenient approach and only enforce the ban on what they believe to be "bad" editing. What is your opinion on this? Does the reason why an editor was banned have any impact in your analysis?
The differences are inevitable and, perhaps, even somewhat healthy. I take a more lenient approach myself, but certainly respect those who do not. Users who have been banned have generally forfeited the assumption of good faith and there is no reason to trust that their edits were good unless they can be independently checked. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Russavia

There is a still open RfC at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. As evidenced at this request, there are numerous admins and editors who have serious doubts over the Committee's unblocking of what is suspected, with a high level of good faith and WP:DUCK evidence, to be a banned disruptive sockpuppet. Do you think it is appropriate that after nearly a month and a half:

the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.
I wish that the Committee generally made a more detailed statement when it unblocked users. In this case, I do not know why they have not been more forthcoming, the responses to the request for clarification, while reasonable in themselves were all general and no one addressed the specific unblock at issue. I assume that they have reasons for acting as they did, but certainly understand and to a certain extent share your frustrations that no clear answers have been given. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
No, but lacking a full picture, I don't know how big of an issue this really is. It may be that the parties in question have been busy and that the other Arbs are reluctant to act without an explicit okay from them. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
There has been confusion about how to deal with problems that are seen as invalidating the unblock which should probably be brought to the Committee in the first instance, and generic editing conflicts which should be handled through normal channels. At least, that's how I have read the comments. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?
Without having seen the evidence that lead to the unblock, I don't have a firm feeling about whether it was in error or not. But certainly it should either be defended or recinded in a clear manner. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last question is especially important as there are numerous uninvolved admins and admins who have previously dealt with the user in question, who are too "afraid" of going over the Committee's head, even in the face of evidence; if one assumes ownership of a problem as the current Committee has, then surely the current Committee must also assume ownership of their actual ownership of the problem possibly being part of said problem. If one looks at the answers thus far given at the request from arbiters closely, one can see that there seems to be a theme amongst arbs to suggest that the Community block the editor for other current issues; all the while the Committee avoids answering Community concerns at the actual clarification request. However, the other issues have only strengthened the opinion of sockpuppetry amongst other members of the Community.

Although you are not a currently sitting arb, I would also request a response to the following:

if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
The primary things that I would do are encourage explanations for any unblocks, as full as possible, and insisting that unblocks be undertaken cautiously. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?
Yes, though the proper format and placing of such publication would have to be chosen carefully. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?
Quite important, and yes this does include sitting Arbs. That said, sometimes it is just not possible to publish the results of a checkuser or a private email on wiki. In such cases, we ultimately have to trust the Arbs, but they, as custodians of the Community's trust, must take extreme care to make cautious, correct decisions. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sven Manguard

Looking over ArbCom cases from the past few years, it is clear to me that many times, editors involved in the dispute being heard in a particular case use the Workshop page as a platform to continue their disputes. These Workshop posts tend to take the form of 'finding of facts that the people on the other side of the dispute have committed heinous acts, heavy sanctions for the people on the other side of the dispute, and people on my side of the dispute get off without even a warning' (it's usually less transparent than that, but barely).

Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.
parties, and other interested editors often use Workshop and evidence pages to soapbox rather than present serious proposals to aid the Committee. In many cases, however, it is unintentional. They seriously believe that the "other side" is the problem and that their actions have been justified. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?
I do not consider such behavior problematic unless it is taken to great length or involves personal attacks. ArbCom pages are better places for people to soapbox than articles or article talk pages. Arbiters can be trusted to sort out anything valuable from the mass of chaff that the parties put up. While in some cases close watching of pages by clerks or Arbs is necessary, usually it is better to let everyone contribute what they think is relevant and to accept that sometimes the case pages will be messy or contain frivolous proposals. It is the final decisions, not the individual proposals on the Workshop that reflect the (hopefully) considered opinion of the Committee. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification

Restraining aggrieved parties in emotionally charged scenarios is central to the Committee’s role, and arbitrators are in principle exposed to legal action by those parties in a real-world jurisdiction. It matters little whether an action is launched or merely threatened, and whether it is unreasonable: the costs for an individual arb to forestall a default judgment in a foreign court would be considerable (and I believe it’s not hard to transfer an order to the courts in one’s local jurisdiction). The risk is greater because as volunteers we can’t be expected to provide professional mediation as an intermediary between wiki and real-world judicial processes—mediation that might head off litigation in the first place.

Given the WMF's annual income of some $20M, what is your view on whether the Foundation should:

set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
I can perhaps imagine a situation where such mediation might be appropriate but haven't seen one in the prior cases of the Arbitration Committee. I do not support creating a formal process prior to such a case arising because the mere creation of a plan takes time, if not money, and the existence of such a plan would encourage people to claim that their, in-fact perfectly ordinary, case is an appropriate vehicle for professional mediation. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd love to have the support of the Foundation if I every were to be sued, I don't think this is a good idea. It deepens the pockets of Arbs, making them more attractive targets for a suit and it may increase, IANAL, the risk that the Foundation would be considered a party to a dispute involving matters it has delegated to the individual Wiki. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
Anything where I have taken part in the dispute in an editorial capacity or made a decision in an administrative capacity. This is a fairly small number of areas, but does include the Ireland naming dispute. I will recuse from any dispute where I have doubts about my ability to render an impartial decision or believe that my prior statements give rise to the appearance of impartiality. Again, this is not a long list of areas and they are best evaluated as they come up. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?
I would ask for the specific reasons for the request, if they were not immediately apparent and give the matter serious thought. Even a seemingly frivolous request may be made in good faith and should be given consideration. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?
As above. I would consider the request and the reasons given and recuse, from the case, if I found them compelling. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?
Sitting Arbs should not be a party to a case if at all possible. They may give evidence, certainly, if they have experience in an area, but actually being a party should be rare indeed, since it limits the ability of the other Arbs to communicate privately about a case, as one party has access to the ArbWiki and mailing list. Remedial measures are possible but I can't see the need for an Arbiter to be a party to a case unless they have been engaging in conduct unbecoming a sitting Arbiter. If they are named in an overinclusinve list of parties by a scattershot filing, they should be removed unless they have been intimately involved in the dispute at issue. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
I would seriously consider taking a leave of absence from the Committee and not taking part in any Committee business during the pendancy of the case. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
No. Arbs have useful perspectives which they can add to discussions and (preemptively) a good knowledge of policies and procedures that enables them to formulate and implement sanctions. On the other hand, they should recuse from any case dealing with their work in this area so a balance has to be struck. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
No. ArbCom does not (directly) set policy so there is no conflict between being a sitting Arb and participating as an editor in policy discussions. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
Provocation must be considered in evaluating any case of incivility. While, I do not think that provocation ever transmutes incivility into appropriate behavior, it can certainly mitigate it to below the level of sanctions. One must also consider the context. To be frank, I consider any use of the expletive "fuck" to be uncivil, but as a simple intensifier and not part of a personal attack it is a level of discourse that Wikipedians have stated they find acceptable. I know that in cultural contexts other than my own certain words or behaviors I find shockingly rude are simply facts of life and the ordinary way of expressing things. Thus, a claim of incivility, by itself, is only actionable as part of a broad pattern where the problem has been repeated explained to a user or in conjunction with a direct personal attack. While it is admirable to strive for a heightened level of discourse, nothing is served by jumping on people for expressing themselves naturally and not in what is, for them, a highly constricted mode of expression. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Joe Gazz84

I would like to apologize for the late questions, I've only just gotten the time to write them. If you see a question that you've already answered or one that is similar, please proceed to answer it, you may think of a new way to explain your idea/answer. Please answer all of these questions, they will weigh in heavily when I vote.

Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?
A:Above, I stated that I felt that ArbCom did not have large structural problems but that the delay in finishing many cases was extreme and reducing that should be a top priority. Such slow decisions making benefits neither the parties nor the Community at large. It encourages problems to fester while the case in ungoing and
Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?
A:No. I have discussed this several times above. ArbCom interprets policy but does not create it. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and it's surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?
A:It depends on the specific context. What "rule" did they break and why? Are they repentant or defiant? Etc. It is possible for history to mitigate but in general, good contributions are not a "Get out of jail Free" card. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)
A:My own sense of fairness and understanding of what is reasonable, coupled with thoughtful consideration of the comments of other Arbs and the parties in the particular case. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Q: If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
A:DRV. Which is really an acronym and perhaps not a 'word' but that is part of the point. Wikipedia has its own jargon and complicated processes that I have learned to navigate but which pose a formidable obstacle to newbies. My experience at DRV has taught me the importance of process and also shown me its limits. We are evaluating administrative decisions and sometimes we find mistakes. No one is perfect, but WP:AGF remains the cornerstone of the community. When an article is deleted, its defenders naturally feel angry and frustrated but if they are answered in rationale, polite tones that don't assume a thoroughgoing understanding of Wikipedia's processes they often, though by no means alwys, respond well. Some people just aren;t cut out for a collaborative encyclopedia, but many are who don't show it at first. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JoeGazz ♂ 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Martinevans123

If an editor creates multiple accounts to edit articles in different subject areas, not realising that this is in breach of WP:SOCK, how should he or she be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts should be blocked and linked and the problem explained to the users. They can then decided which account to edit from in the future. That account should be unblocked so they can edit. Disruptive or deceptive socking should be dealt with harshly but there is no reason to punitively ban an editor for a good faith mistake. An initial block to stop the socking and make sure that they agree to abide by the policy on multiple account is preventative, but once they have agreed it should be lifted. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. In this case there was one single user. It seems clear that you believe "multiple acconts" = "socking". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts is "socking" by definition. It is not per se abusive but you specified that the use was in breach of WP:SOCK. If the accounts are freely acknowledged or otherwise not used to mislead or disrupt, there is arguably no breach of WP:SOCK and thus no need for sanctions. The exact level of tolerance for multiple accounts is determined by the community; there is no "right to sock" beyond the limited exceptions they have defined in the WP:SOCK policy. Blocking an account that is engaged in ongoing violations of policy is preventative, not punitive. The block should be lifted as soon as the editor acknowledges the policy violations and agrees not to engage in them going forward. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you were confused by my use of singular they? I understood the hypothetical to be about one user using multiple accounts. Sorry for any confusion. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were quite right. The case concerned a single user. I susoect that when any investigation is done after rather than before a block, it may be sometimes easy for prevention to be mis-interpreted as punishment. But many thanks for your reply. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]