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?
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.
As a former Arbitration clerk, I have participated in various cases; after my resignation, I have also occasionaly offered my uninvolved opinion — for example, during the Fae case and during the more recent issue surrounding the resysopping of Polarscribe. Aside from that, I frequently keep an eye on AN/ANI, from time to time comment on RFCs and, before WP:MEDCAB was shut down, I helped mediate one or two disputes there as well.
Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?
It depends. In general, with productive members of the community, I consider myself fairly lenient and think that, when a plurality of remedies are all suitable to stop the disruption an editor is causing, only the least onerous one should be imposed — this leads me to prefer warnings over sanctions and topic bans over blocks. Of course, there are times when both of these are ineffectual and, so, the only solution consists in wielding the banhammer.
That said, when it is evident from a user's contribution that he is not here to contribute to the creation of a neutral encyclopaedia, but, rather, is here to mess around, spam something or push his own point of view, then I tend to be rather draconian.
ArbCom Practices:
a) ArbCom and policies:
i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
The Arbitration Committee should not be making, amending or repealing policy. ArbCom is not a legislative body and it's up to the community — and the Foundation, in certain cases — to make policy. That said, I believe that the Committee should be allowed to make comments regarding how a given policy is enforced by the community — as it did during the civility enforcement case — or invite the community to come to a consensus regarding a given issue — as it did in the Muhammad case. The point is that the final decision should lie with the community.
ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
The five pillars are quite important as they represent Wikipedia's founding principles and ideals. However, much like constitutions in real life, which are rarely directly applied by courts, I don't think they should be used directly in committee findings — I realise this is an imperfect analogy, considering that ArbCom is not a court of law and the five pillars are not a constitution, but it gives the general idea of my opinion. In my opinion, ArbCom should generally refer to the various relevant policies, which are derived from those pillars.
iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
I believe I am somewhat notorious for my approach to WP:BLP. I believe that this is the area where Wikipedia can do most damage and that, therefore, we should be particularly careful not to sully people's reputations. Most of the people with an article on Wikipedia never asked us to be included and, since we basically decided to impose on them a page on one of the most famous websites in the world and even refuse to accede to their requests to have it deleted — with the rare exception being WP:BIODEL —, we have a moral duty to get it right. Or to make it right, when approached with a valid complaint.
Speaking with my editor hat on, I'd personally strengthen the policy further, to better protect living people from defamation. Speaking as a functionary and as a candidate, however, I can only say that, while I would never use my position to push for change, I'll always try to enforce it strictly.
b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
I believe that ArbCom should not, generally, rule on content. Arbitrators are elected to examine behavioural issues and, so, should confine themselves to that. Of course, certain aspects of a content dispute are behavioural: POV-pushing, source falsification, spamming and so on and, therefore, the Arbitration Committee should review them and, if necessary, impose sanctions. But ArbCom does not provide editorial oversight to the community. And while I don't particularly like the idea of establishing a procedure to reach a binding solution to a longstanding content dispute, I realise that, on rare occasions, it may be a necessary step to stop the ongoing disruption affecting a topic. There various caveats, however; for example, this should be limited to those issues which the community has been unable to solve for a long time, which are causing much drama and, furthermore, these determinations should not be binding indefinitely. I believe that what the committee did in abortion case would be a good example of what I might support.
c) ArbCom and motions:
i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
I consider motions to be primarily useful for emergency, procedural or administrative decisions — nominating checkusers or oversighters, for instance, or clarifying an old case or temporarily desysopping an admin whose account has clearly been compromised — or when the committee has private information that cannot be divulged; disputes among editors should generally be handled as cases. However, when there is no need to gather evidence, because the issue is already clear — the typical example would be an administrator who has glaringly engaged in wheel warring —, it would be superfluous to go through a full case, which would only end up taking time and providing a venue for a bit of mudslinging, even though the choice to handle the issue by motion should not deprive the user in question of the chance of making a statement beforehand and of providing exculpatory evidence, if present.
ii) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
As a rule of thumb, I believe that when there is disagreement regarding the facts of an issue and, so, the Committee needs to gather evidence before making a decision, a motion would be inappropriate. Also, when the community has reached a consensus, the Arbitration Committee should not generally overrule it, be it by motion or by case. And, while there may be instances where the Arbitration Committee may adopt a motion, even though no case is pending — which are mainly the cases where ArbCom is relying on private information or is acting in an emergency —, this should be the exception and not the rule. When that's not the case, ArbCom should not act ex officio, although there is no rule preventing an Arbitrator from bringing, in his capacity as an editor, an issue before the Committee.
iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
Yes. In general, I believe that, on certain occasions, it's appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to keep records which include non-public information. For example, if an editor were banned as a result of non-public information, the committee ought to keep a record, in the event the editor in question should ask a review of his ban. Another example is a serial sock puppeteer, who has created many socks and has demonstrated that he is not going to stop; in this case, to help checkusers to spot his socks, it is reasonable to keep data regarding the IP ranges or user agents he uses.
ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
The only response to the "how long" question is for as long as it's needed; this is something which has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Regarding who should have access to it, it depends: if it's checkuser data we are talking about, then all those who are currently holding the checkuser flag should have access to it; otherwise, only current arbitrators.
iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
I believe that, whenever possible, ArbCom should try to discuss issues publicly. This is not always possible — for instance, when the discussion includes private information — or particularly meaningful — "Salvio, you've forgotten to vote on case X" or "ok, guys: so who's going to draft this case?" —, so certain discussions belong on the mailing list, but, in general, I value transparency.
iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?
Nobody should be sanctioned without being allowed to see all the evidence that has been gathered against him, to contest it and to present new evidence, if he so wishes. However, when privacy concerns are present, said evidence can be disclosed in private and when it cannot be fully disclosed for any other reasons — as is the case, for instance, with many sock puppeteers —, the editor in question should be provided as thorough as possible a summary thereof. The community has a reasonable expectation to have access to all public evidence; it also should be informed that private evidence is present, although, of course, it should not be divulged.
e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
ArbCom precedents are not binding, but they are certainly persuasive and they also provide a good idea of how ArbCom would probably act should a given issue be brought before it — which is an important protection for users, to avoid unpleasant surprises in the event ArbCom were actually seized. So, in general, I favour a conservative approach to precedents, though I also support changing them, when it's reasonable.
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?
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?
Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
Actually, Wikipedia has a problem with civil miscreants in general. It takes time, patience and much wailing and gnashing of teeth to get rid of someone who falsifies sources or pushes his own point of view, when this person does not also swear, edit war or resort to socks... It's easy to see why this happens: everyone can recognise that "fuck off, you moron" is a personal attack, whereas to determine that a user is consistently violating one of our content policies, in this case, WP:NPOV, requires knowledge of the subject matter, time and patience to examine his edits and the ability to spot a pattern therein, if present. It's more difficult, more time-consuming and, quite frankly, more boring, so far fewer editors are willing to do it. In my opinion, however, when an editor stands as candidate for ArbCom, he is signing up to be in that minority.
b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
Wikipedia has a serious problem with factionalism in certain areas, in my opinion; however, since the question concerns tag-teaming — WP:FACTION is a redirect —, I'll say that, in certain cases, yes, Wikipedia also has a problem with editors who conspire in private to game the system. The problem is that this is often difficult to detect and, what's more, to prove — because ArbCom should be careful not to confuse this with the case where users genuinely agree on something. When there is evidence of foul play, however, all editors involved should be sanctioned.
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?
Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
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?
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:
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.
The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.
A: There is very little to say here: the case was simple enough and lasted way too long. I understand why it took so long — incidentally, I was one of the case clerks — and I don't censure the drafting Arbitrator, but the case should have been handled more quickly.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
A: WikiProjects are meant to provide a venue where editors sharing a common interest can discuss how to improve our coverage of a given topic; they are a way to foster both cooperation and collaboration.
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?
A:Unfortunately, yes, although I'd say that Wikipedia has a problem with (certain) "established users". When a person has been editing Wikipedia for a long time, he's bound to have made "friends", who are always ready to defend him, and, especially if he's been editing in a controversial area, "enemies", who seize every opportunity to try and get him blocked. This is not always the case, of course: most established editors are uncontroversial people who edit away in their little corner of Wikipedia, without ever making it to one of the drama boards and so tend not to be noticed; on the other hand, there are others who are particular controversial and who are often brought, kicking and screaming, to AN or ANI; usually, a long, drama-filled threads ensues, only to result in a no-consensus close, because the community is divided. This is one of the reasons why we have an Arbitration Committee: to solve issues when the community is unable to do so. In these cases, ArbCom should be courageous and do what they think an uninvolved observer would consider right, even if it dissatisfies a part of the community, be it reject the allegations or impose a sanction.
Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
A:If I thought I would not be able to perform my duty for a longish period of time (indicatively, two months). I also believe I would probably resign if I felt that I had lost the trust of the community — which does not mean having a couple of people, who disagree with a vote of mine, grumble about me on WT:ACN.
a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
A:It depends. In many cases, it takes two to tango, but that's not always the case — harassment springs to mind. ArbCom should sanction users who have behaved disruptively, in proportion to their degree of disruptiveness, though there are cases where someone else's poor behaviour may be considered an extenuating circumstance — for example, an editor who's usually calm and peaceful who, on one occasion, was uncivil to another, tendentious, user out of frustration should be treated with considerable leniency.
ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
A:First of all, personally, I distinguish between misuse of tools and abuse of tools. When an admin is acting in good faith, but has exercised his administrative discretion in a way which is incompatible with Wikipedia's policies, we have misuse of tools. When an admin is consciously using his tools to gain undue advantages on Wikipedia — for instance, blocking or threatening to block opponents in content disputes —, then we have abuse of tools. In general, an admin who has abusing his tools should be sanctioned — and, depending on the gravity of the violation, a desysopping may be warranted even for a first offence —, whereas an admin misusing his tools should be approached and informed of his errors. Only if there is a pattern of poor decisions and no willingness (or an inability) to improve should the administrator in question be stripped of his tools.
There are various gray areas in the interpretation of policies: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and, so, there are certain gaps or ambiguities in our rules which an admin has to solve relying on his judgement. After all, admins are people who are considered clueful and who are trusted by the community and, for that, they may exercise a certain amount of discretion, subject to limitations outlined by policy. Sometimes, the community may disagree with how an admins has exercised his discretion and, so, it can overrule him; this, however, does not necessarily mean that the admin in question misused his tools, when he made the original decision.
As a rule of thumb, I believe that ArbCom should not act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor, except in the case of an emergency — the classical example of an admin going crazy and starting to randomly delete articles.
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
A:ArbCom has no power over what happens on other sites, ça va sans dire, but, in certain rare cases, what an editor does off-wiki may be used to justify sanctions on-wiki, when these actions have a serious effect on Wikipedia: for example, an editor who uses another site to harass another or a group of editors who use another site to orchestrate a tag-teaming campaign could all be sanctioned on-wiki for something they've done elsewhere.
What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
A:Well, my thoughts can be summarised as follows: "ouch!" I don't think that could happen to me (not because I'm particularly smart, but because I'm something of a Luddite...)
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.
There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.
How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?
A:I am familiar with the issue which has prompted your question and I understand what you mean, but, to be honest, I'm not sure such a distinction (between "community" and "authority") really exists... ArbCom does not and should not generally intervene in cases where the community has been able to successfully address a given issue. The Arbitration Committee has to act when this does not happen, when the community has shown its inability to solve a problem. In these cases, Arbitrators must step up to the plate and, depending on the circumstances of the case, they may have to act, which means that they may have to exercise their authority. Of course, this does not mean that when a problem reaches ArbCom then the community no longer has any say in it: Arbitrators should always engage in a dialogue with the members of the community, paying attention to their input, even being open to changing their mind, if they see that a decision they are supporting is opposed by a representative sample of the community (and not merely by a turbulent minority), but, at the end of the day, sometimes an Arbitrator has to make the tough call the community has been unable to make...
Regarding the second part of your question, I think that rules are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. When they are more trouble than they're worth, when they get in the way of improving the project, when they require we ignore our commonsense, thank God, we can ignore them. I am particularly fond of WP:IAR, because it's what prevents Wikipedia from turning into a bureaucracy; it's what allows us to concentrate on what's actually important: building an encyclopaedia.
What does "Civility" mean to you?
A:It is difficult to provide an exhaustive definition of "civility", because most of the times it's something of an "I know it when I see it" issue. Basically, I consider it a matter of respect: the idea is that behind every username there is always a person, who is entitled to be treated as a person. There are various forms of incivility and only a subset thereof involves the use of four-letter words: a message written using only words which are generally considered polite can be hurtful and offensive and the fact that it contains no naughty words does not it make ok. Again, it's quite easy to spot a bad word and jump on the person who wrote it; it's much more difficult to recognise the other, more insidious, forms of incivility...
How would you determine if there has been POV-pushing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A:Again, most of the times, it's an "I know it when I see it" issue, which is also heavily context-dependent. In general, I'd look for a number of edits which add non-neutral material or which remove material from an article (or group of articles) so that the result is a non-neutral piece — for example a set of edits which consistently remove sourced statements detailing the criticism the article subject has received — or a pattern of edits which consistently emphasise a particular point of view over the others or which consistently place undue weight on minority views. As a rule of thumb, I'd try to examine as many edits as possible to see if a pattern emerges — it's also worth pointing out that, in certain cases, it is possible for a person who knows Wikipedia to engage in POV-pushing without making any edits which, individually considered, appear to be biased.
Questions from Cunard
Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."
Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.
Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
I have just read the discussion — of which I was unaware — and I see that I tend to agree with Monty845. In general, I don't think an admin should be allowed to overturn a non-admin RfC close, unless said closure is patently absurd, so much so that no reasonable person would have closed the RfC in that manner, or the editor is clearly unsuitable — someone who expressed his opinion during the RfC and, then, proceeded to close it. If an admin disagrees with a non-admin's decision, but said decision is reasonable, he should ask the community to review it.
Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Move review, or something else.
Yes, I believe we should have a way to review RfC closures and think that a normal discussion on WP:AN would be the best option. In my opinion, a new process just to deal with these requests is not needed, mainly because they are so few that AN seems to be able to cope with them reasonably well, but also because I would not want to see a new layer of bureaucracy created: we have far too many already.
Arbitrator SilkTork (talk·contribs) wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
I concur though not entirely. While I believe that as many discussions as possible should be held on Wikipedia, except when there is a need for privacy, I also realise that some conversations on a mailing list concern the day-to-day running of ArbCom — the "Salvio, you've not voted on case X" case I mentioned earlier. I don't believe it's useful to ask that these threads be moved on-wiki. Discussions regarding the merits of a case or of a motion, on the other hand, should be held on Wikipedia, provided there are no privacy or other particularly serious concerns.
If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.
I don't really know, since not being an Arbitrator, I'm of course not subscribed to the mailing list, and, so, I pretty much ignore what sort of discussions are held there today. Basically, I don't really know to what extent my opinion differs from current practice. What I can certainly say is that I'm not a revolutionary, so, if elected, I'd try to work with my fellow Arbs, to persuade them to move discussions on-wiki whenever possible... Gutta cavat lapidem, after all.
In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.
See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk regarding this case request.
See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork (talk·contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."
Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.
In most Western legal systems, there is a rule to the effect that a Judge must not only be neutral, but he also must appear to be. Now, I know that ArbCom is not a court of law and an Arbitrator is not a judge, but I believe that this is the standard I should personally apply. So, I would recuse when, in my opinion, an external, reasonable observer might get the impression, from my previous actions or comments, that I am not neutral on a given issue.
Former arbitrator Cool Hand Luke (talk·contribs) has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.
From the top of my head, I can't think of any topic, except probably the murder of Meredith Kercher, which would lead me to automatically recuse; I have not been heavily involved in any WikiProjects, never participated in any Wikimedia chapter and the other issue about which I felt strongly has already been dealt with by ArbCom not too long ago — of course, in this case, I would recuse, should any of the sanctioned editors appeal their sanctions.
If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?
I have a rather strong opinion on the issue — namely that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should not have an article about every person who has ever been mentioned in a newspaper or has ever been involved in a scandal — and, so, I would have voted to delete the article.
I believe that the closing admin exercised his discretion in a reasonable manner when he closed the discussion as delete and, so, I would vote to endorse it.
WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).
(a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?
Honestly, I don't know why deletion discussions are treated differently and, quite frankly, I disagree with this different treatment: all current administrators were vetted by the community and were trusted enough to be granted the tools; for this, they are allowed to user their best judgement — clearly, within the boundaries set by policy — and to exercise their discretion. Of course, the community can always overturn the decision of an admin, but this should only happen if there emerges at least a rough consensus that he acted inappropriately or otherwise unwisely.
I interpret it to mean that when a block is contested and the community cannot come to a consensus, the editor in question should generally be unblocked; vice versa, when an editor in unblocked and the community cannot come to a consensus, he should generally be reblocked. It's superfluous to add that, as an editor, I disagree — particularly, with regard to unblock discussions.
When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?
I would have supported it, but I would have preferred it if the motion had been worded differently... An amnesty was the best solution, in that case, as all editors involved were acting in good faith, trying to improve Wikipedia and to do what they felt was right — after all, WP:IAR is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and, when it comes to WP:BLPs, admins have historically been granted a wide latitude of discretion. Had I been on ArbCom, I would have supported amnestying all editors involved and inviting the community to start a discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people, but I would have opposed adding the part about commending certain editors and reminding others.
Would you have supported or opposed this motion to desysop? Would you have proposed a different motion?
I would probably have opposed the motion to desysop after a week, but I would have certainly supported it had it been proposed a little later on — indicatively, after a month. Since EncycloPetey had not edited in a week, there was no immediate risk of misuse of tools, ArbCom could have waited a little longer. On the other hand, it's also a bad idea to keep a motion open indefinitely or to close it but then keep constantly an eye on a user's contributions, to see if he returns. That is why I would have waited a little longer, but, in the end, I would have supported desysopping him in absentia.
Do you agree with his position on building in delays for single-party arbitration cases? If yes, describe how would you have built in a delay for EncycloPetey.
In general, I believe that users should be given the chance to fully participate in the review of their conduct, if they desire to — which implies that when the editor in question is ignoring the ongoing discussion, his failure to participate may not be used as an excuse to stall the process —, so, yes, if a person cannot edit Wikipedia for a period of time, and a hypothetical delay in tackling the issue in question is not going to be otherwise prejudicial, he should be granted a "continuance". But when a person intends to avail himself of this possibility, he has to inform the Arbitration Committee of his impossibility to follow the case: silence can be misconstrued. In this case, EncycloPetey did not indicate either in public or in private, as far as I know, that he was having problems and so needed more time, therefore acting in absentia was, in my opinion, reasonable.
A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship?
It depends... There are so many variables, here, that it's impossible to provide a response. For instance, if an admin was desysopped as a result of a single instance of wheel warring, I'd be more willing to consider resysopping him without forcing him to go through a new RfA. If, on the contrary, he repeatedly misused or, worse, abused the tools, then probably I'd prefer to see a new RfA. In general, however, before supporting a motion which resysops a user, I'd consider the opinions expressed by the community: if, from the comments made on the request, I were to perceive a generalised sense of distrust, then I would oppose the request.
(a) One view is that this comment is an honest and justified—though perhaps overly frank and poorly worded—assessment of the situation that was mischaracterized by some members of the community. An opposing view is that this comment is a hurtful, inappropriate comment that kicked an editor when he was down and inflamed the situation. Please share your thoughts about this comment.
(d) Describe your thoughts about what it means to be a Wikipedian. Include discussion about indefinitely blocked editors and banned editors, both those who have contributed positively to the encyclopedia and those who have only vandalized the encyclopedia.
In my opinion, to discuss the ontology of a Wikipedian is rather idle an effort — and, also, a dangerous one, at that, as it provides an easy way to depersonalise someone, simply by classifying him as a non-Wikipedian, sort of a non-person. I prefer to consider everyone who edits or has edited Wikipedia as an individual and to try treating them as such, it does not matter if they are blocked, banned or in good standing.
(a) When there is such a backlash to a proposed decision, how does the backlash factor into your decision?
A certain degree of backlash is to be expected, because ArbCom often has to sanction established users who have "friends" defending them — factionalism is a problem on Wikipedia —, but as I have stated earlier, an Arbitrator should be open to changing his mind, when he sees a representative sample of the community (though not merely a turbulent minority) is opposing a decision he is supporting. It's however tricky to draw a general line in the sand over what is widespread disagreement and what is lobbying in favour of a friend, so this is something which has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
(b) SilkTork (talk·contribs) withdrew his support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum the same day he wrote, "The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want."
If you would have opposed the above two motions, or if you believe a better decision could have been made, what action would you have suggested?
This looks a bit like Monday-morning quarterbacking, but, anyway, I think that, in this case, imposing a site ban on Malleus would have been overkill and that the additional restriction is too byzantine and risks creating more problems than it solves. Had I been an Arbitrator, I would have proposed to tweak the original restriction to allow Malleus to post on the talk pages of individual RfAs, though not to Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship; I would also have authorised uninvolved admins to impose short blocks or ban him from specific RfAs, should he start behaving disruptively.
Courcelles (talk·contribs) wrote on his talk page, "As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying 'you get the admins you get, no opinions from you' but still having them be a member of the community."
Do you agree or disagree with his need to have "an insanely high bar" to ban users from RfA?
I entirely agree.
Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?
Again, this is something which has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. As a general rule, I agree that bans should always be a last resort: to ban someone, I need to see a pattern of disruption so serious that the only viable solution is removing the editor in question from the site — for less serious cases of disruption, less onerous sanctions should be imposed. However, there are a few extreme cases where the conduct of an editor is so incompatible with his continued participation in the project — for instance, an editor who used the internal e-mail system to groom minors or who, during a content dispute, were to contact his opponent's employer to get him in trouble — that he should be banned, regardless of his contributions to Wikipedia.
Note and thank you
I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to #RfC closes, #Transparency, and #Civility case clarification request, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.
Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to point out that there are a couple of questions which I don't think I should answer; basically, I'm referring to the ones which ask me to express an opinion on fellow editors. I don't think it would be fair of me to comment on others here, where they cannot reply.
How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
A:Ideally, in my opinion, an arbitrator who anticipates he will not be able to discharge his functions for an extended period of time should step down. Arbitrators are elected to adjudicate disputes, and, pursuant to the Arbitration policy, they are expected to participate conscientiously in the Committee's activities and deliberations; the role is not a badge of honour, after all. However, assuming an Arbitrator has been absent for an extended lapse of time without stepping down, I believe he should be removed.
Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee. Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?
A:Higher permissions, if possible. I believe that experience I have gained as a member of the Audit SubCommittee (and as a functionary) could be put to good use there.
Question(s) from Risker
With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.
How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?
I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A:It is a fact of life that sometimes a member of a committee, any committee, has to accept a decision he disagrees with... On Wikipedia, the community at large is expected to comply with all decisions made by the Arbitration Committee, and the same is expected of individual Arbitrators, as members of that same community.
Speaking personally, if elected, I am ready to argue in favour of my opinions and to try to persuade my fellow Arbitrators if I believe they are making a bad decision, but if I end up in the minority, I will accept it and will abide by whatever determination the Committee has adopted. To do otherwise would only serve to undermine ArbCom's authority...
Question from SilkTork
As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork✔Tea time 14:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A:I live in Italy, which means that my time zone is either CET (UTC+1) or CEST (UTC+2). In general, it's difficult for me to be available before the early afternoon, due to my job, but I compensate by being a night owl and staying up until late at night.
Question from Bazonka
Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A:I'm currently not involved in any off-line activities; it's not that I don't want to get involved, it's just that, living in Italy, it's difficult to take part in Wikimeets or outreach activities. I don't expect this will change, but I am not aprioristically excluding the possibility of participating, if the occasion arises.
I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.
Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?
A:Well, speaking of "real-life" arbitral tribunals, they too, generally, make a determination regarding liability and, when appropriate, award damages; it's mediators who, on the other hand, try to help the parties to reach a compromise and, generally, do not get to make decisions. Granted, the situation on Wikipedia is rather different, but, mutatis mutandis, in the end, our Arbitration Committee is what its name suggests.
That said, I don't know if it is an arbitration body the community wants — there is a large part of the community which seems suspicious of all forms of authority —, but I know that, in certain cases, that's what it needs. By the time a controversy reaches ArbCom, all attempts by the community to solve it have failed and the various parties to the dispute have become so entrenched in their respective positions that a mediator, a person who tries to get the parties to reach a compromise, would be utterly useless. In these cases, a body which can say "you behaved disruptively and are, therefore, topic banned" and then enforce its decisions is needed.
Now, my personal opinion is that the current Arbitration Committee has been a tad too draconian — in most of the cases heard by the Arbitration Committee, someone has ended up sanctioned —, but this does not mean that we now have a GovCom or a body resembling a court of law. That's especially true when you consider that, most of the time, when ArbCom has to get involved, it means that at least someone has behaved so poorly that sanctions are indeed inevitable. Conversely, ArbCom has historically demonstrated a worrying incapability to police its own members...
Questions: 1) Would you close an RfC that was happening as part of a formal mediation but wasn't to be closed by the mediator/s when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that resulted in said RfM and RfC? 2) Assuming this has happened inappropriately, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 04:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A:This question is specific enough to lead me to believe that you have a particular event in mind — with which I am unfamiliar — and generic enough that it's actually impossible to provide a meaningful answer. So, regarding the first part of your answer, I'll say that it was probably a bad idea; it could have been worse (i.e. misuse/abuse of tools), but that would depend on the context. Regarding the second, on the other hand, you assume a. that the actions were inappropriate and b. that they were so inappropriate that they warranted a sanction; this part of the question is quite leading and I'd rather not answer.
I thought about taking part in that survey, but after reading it, I'm not sure it would be particularly useful. In my opinion, the questionnaire only considers cases of incivility involving four-letter words and ignores the other kinds of incivility — for instance, one of the most offensive things I've ever read on Wikipedia is the phrase Wikipedia is not therapy, used to dismiss somebody's request or block appeal; and yet it's not included. Worse, it's apparently considered acceptable, seeing that it's used on admin noticeboards without anyone objecting... For that, I believe that the survey would only provide a distorted image of what (in)civility really is and have, therefore, decided to refrain from participating.
when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
As a general rule, I'd support imposing a limited ban when the editor in question has been disruptive in a circumscribed area, but is otherwise a productive member of the community; conversely, I'd support imposing a full ban when the imposition of a limited should prove ineffective or when the disruption were particularly widespread or serious. As I've already said, whenever possible, I tend to prefer limited bans to full-blown ones.
on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
In general, I agree with your mini-essay. I admit that, when deciding whether to impose a block or not, I tend to concentrate more on the first question than on the second one, because, while it's a very good idea in theory, it's sometimes difficult to determine, in practice, the real effect of a user's conduct on others, beyond the more obvious cases: for instance, an editor who leaves indicating why he's doing that or one who does after being hounded. But, apart from that, I believe that the essay provides good guidance for admins who have to decide whether to impose a sanction on a user and what sanction to impose.
to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
Probably, banishment. Though I'm wary about comparing a technical measure which prevents a user from editing a website to a decision which has a very serious negative effect on all aspects of a person's life.
do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
No. Incarcerated people may not leave the place where they are held, whereas banned people are free to roam the interwebs to their heart's content, provided they do not edit Wikipedia... The only similarity I can find between the two concepts is that both are sanctions.
do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate) is something to applaud or criticize?
Well, there is something wrong in a country which gaols so many people... This would be the perfect subject for a long tirade, but I'll just say that this is both a social and a legal problem — it's much easier to criminalise a given deviant behaviour instead of analising its true causes and trying to remedy them, which is, sadly, what we do in Italy as well, if you're interested (here, we have far fewer people behind bars, but that's only because our legal system is incredibly inefficient...)
Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.
A:No, I disagree. Four-letter words should generally be avoided, because they contribute to the deterioration of the editing atmosphere, a downward standardisation: we are trying to write an encyclopaedia and we should interact with each other accordingly. That said, people get frustrated from time to time and jumping on another editor because he used "fuck" in a discussion, which means he must be a horrible, horrible person, is misguided, especially if the other party's behaviour is not taken into consideration. But, no, use of four-letter words in discussions is not perfectly acceptable.
Thanks for your measured response, I tend to agree with you. If editors seem to be "frustrated" on a fairly regular basis, maybe they should be encouraged, or even mentored, into adopting a more positive and helpful approach/demeanour? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that, when a person is uncivil on a regular basis, he should be talked to and encouraged to change his approach towards his fellow editors; I don't think mentoring would work, but he should definitely be made aware that his behaviour is inappropriate. After discussing the issue with him, if this yields no results, a request for comment would be a good way to do it.
In cases where there is a serious and long pattern of incivility, personally, I'd also support a block, but unilateral civility blocks tend to be controversial and so should, generally, be discussed by the community beforehand.
Thanks. I would agree with you there. I think you are a candidate worthy of one of my votes. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]