RegentsPark

Hi. I’m RegentsPark. I’ve been an active editor since early 2008 and an admin since February 2009. I ran (unsuccessfully) for an open seat on ArbCom last year.

I am a strong believer in the content mission of this project. Our place in the world is measured, largely, by the quality of our content, in particular by how accurate and complete is the information we present to the many millions of users who visit this site each year. It is our responsibility to ensure that everything that ends up in our articles is reasonably complete, well researched, well sourced, and carefully crafted. We do this through a process of collaboration and conflict, both of which are important in ensuring the quality of our articles. Collaboration is one of our central tenets and it is the essential glue that makes this a functioning endeavor, but conflict is important too because, often, it raises the information content in our articles to a point far beyond what traditional encyclopedias can provide. Arbitration comes into play when the level of conflict makes collaboration impossible and it becomes necessary to place restrictions on the actions of certain editors or, because absolutely no one here is irreplaceable, when it becomes necessary to weed out those editors who are no longer able to functionally collaborate.

I am, by nature, a deliberative person with a minimalist bent and believe that one should act decisively, but only when necessary. I am not easily upset and try not to act in haste. When I make a mistake, I'm more than willing to recognize it, to apologize if that is necessary, and to do my best to move things along. On Wikipedia, I work on an almost daily basis with a range of editors, varying from prolific content contributors to obvious pov pushers to pedants with esoteric stylistic obsessions. I respect them all because I recognize the passion that they, as do you and I, bring to the project. Whatever our motivations for being here might be, whatever our differences in world view might be, it is that passion that has helped create this unparalleled collection of human knowledge.

These are the perspectives and qualities that I offer to you when you make your choices amongst the various candidates. I am well over 18 years of age and am willing to disclose my real life identity to WMF if elected. I have no other accounts on Wikipedia.--regentspark (comment) 21:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main article: Death by a thousand cuts

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

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

General questions

  2. What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
    Off-wiki, I've worked and done reasonably well in an industry known for its decisive (though, admittedly, sometimes dramatically disastrous) decision making. I am older than most editors and have no desire to prove myself to anyone so don't expect me to go around shooting from the hip! I'm a fairly collaborative sort of person who prefers to see the good side of everything and every body but, as a unreconstructed academic, have a healthy respect for sources and believe that sources and weight trump being nice.--regentspark (comment) 21:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
    I started out as an active WP:3O participant, a process I quite enjoyed. I've helped out as a mediator in at least one case (can't recall which one). I've closed many many move requests, some quite contentious and some, like the Tree Shaping one, that continue to haunt me. I've been involved in several arbcom cases, sometimes mildly involved as in the Ottava rima case, early forms of the R&I case, tree shaping) sometimes heavily involved (Mattisse and YellowMonkey cases are perhaps the prime examples). My editing is largely in articles on South Asia, an area that is particularly contentious, and mediation and dispute resolution goes with the territory there.--regentspark (comment) 21:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
    Everything is, naturally, case dependent but, in general, you can expect me to be more lenient with editors who have demonstrably made huge contributions to the encyclopedia and strict with obvious cases of disruption. I generally subscribe to the 80/20 rule in most things, that 80% of our content is produced by 20% of the our active editors. In my opinion, the bar for being strict with someone in that 20% who contribute high content is higher than the bar for being strict with someone who is in 80% that contributes less content. I should clarify that this leniency/strictness distinction applies only to content producers. Disruptive editors whose main focus is esoteric stylistic issues or things like that should, and will not from me anyway, get special treatment. Philosophically, an evolutionary system thrives on diversity and, since this is an evolutionary system, we need to be more rather than less tolerant of outré behaviors when they come with a productive content ethos.--regentspark (comment) 21:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  8. Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
    I can't think of anything off Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, I suppose I'd have to recuse from any Tree Shaping case if one ever shows up. Other than that, I'd need to consider recusal on a case by case basis.--regentspark (comment) 22:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
    None as of now.--regentspark (comment) 22:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
    I think the recent banning decision on Mathsci, an editor I like and respect, was handled well, and with minimum fuss, by the committee. I haven't been following arbitration cases closely so the second part is harder to answer but, clearly, given the brouhaha that followed, the Sandifer case was not well handled. Perhaps because of the lack of transparency before the decision was announced. Gathering evidence, allowing the community to give its opinions and duly considering those opinions are all important in establishing community 'buy in'.--regentspark (comment) 14:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
    In my opinion this is a good trend. ArbCom is a DR mechanism of last resort and should only consider those cases that the community has adequately demonstrated that it cannot, on its own, resolve. I'd prefer to see ArbCom taking up fewer cases and making fewer decisions over time.--regentspark (comment) 14:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
    I think it is a little premature for me to answer this question. I'm not wholly dissatisfied with the way arbcom currently works - I'm not storming the Bastille here :) - but neither do I think it works perfectly. Howver, the devil is, as always, in the details and it is hard to see what those details are from the outside. Doubtless, if elected, I'll see things that need changing and will try to work within the system to convince others that the change is necessary and good.--regentspark (comment) 17:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
    My response to question 8 and to another question by Rschen below pretty much says what I think. ArbCom should play a minimalist role in the project but it, or something similar to it, is a necessary part of the system. I see the role of the foundation mainly as a facilitator with minimal involvement, except for anything that could become a legal issue since none of us are qualified (or, if qualified, empowered) to make judgements on legal issues. --regentspark (comment) 18:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
    Simple answer, no. Polices should always be decided by the community through a consensus seeking process. It can be hard and frustrating (as the various RfA proposals and the WP:V change proposals show), but good policy changes are best when they percolate slowly, and definitely not when they're handed down by fiat. I think it has been true in practice that ArbCom has not set policy. The cases that I've seen and paid attention to have directly addressed behavior or, when dealing with issues that are content related, merely set restrictions or laid out a procedure by which the community can resolve the dispute.--regentspark (comment) 03:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
    Biographical articles are tricky. On the one hand, we have the encyclopedic goal of completeness but, on the other hand, we have real people or their descendants and families. However, it is not the business of arbcom to decide what does or does not go in an article and so, no, arbcom should not directly address biographical content. Fortunately, in my experience, problematic content often leads to problematic conduct and a conduct only focus is often sufficient in these sorts of articles.--regentspark (comment) 14:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
    Yes. Meagerly. --regentspark (comment) 03:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
    Hopefully that won't happen and, hopefully, I'll be able to deal with it if it does.--regentspark (comment) 03:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
    While I don't like the idea of non-public being retained, it is hard to make a case for dumping it. Cases drag on for years and often the same people keep popping up, but members of the arbitration committee change and institutional memory needs to be preserved. So, yes, ArbCom should keep non-public information when necessary, though, hopefully, in a secure fashion.--regentspark (comment) 03:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
    Generally users should be allowed to see evidence used against them in Arbitration proceedings and should have the right to respond, though not necessarily question, witness statements against them. That said, there may be extreme situations where it is not practical, legal, or ethical for arbs to share evidence with the user. Assuming that arbs give a credible explanation for withholding evidence, I'd be ok with arbs taking an action based on evidence not provided to the user. Arbitration proceedings should be conducted in the open as far as is practical, legal, and ethical.--regentspark (comment) 00:16, 17 November 2013 (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:

#((ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=))

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

  2. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
    I was a participant in that case so I'm probably biased but I think that, for a simple and straightforward case, it took longer than it should have. But I don't see any harm in the slowness in this particular instance. The few editors directly involved in the naming of that article were, or still are, all very passionate about their positions and, perhaps, having the time and opportunity to vent may not be a bad thing. These might be famous last words, but the fact that the article and talk page have been mostly quiet for the 2.5 years since the case is an indication that arbitration worked.--regentspark (comment) 22:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
    I see a WikiProject as a collaboration tool. Editors who have an area of interest have a place where they can ask questions, find gaps that need filling, request sources from other editors, organize collaboration drives, provide a source for editor motivation - all sorts of good stuff. On the flip side, moribund wikiprojects can be demotivating, there could be ownership issues that arise, and wikiproject standards may clash with more general standards and policies. I'd be happy to answer a more specific question on this if you like.--regentspark (comment) 22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    It is hard to imagine this sort of collective information site without its fair share of vested contributors so we can't do away with them without also killing the project. It is, after all, human nature to be want to be recognized for your work and, if we merely marked each edit as anonymous, hardly anyone would hang around here for long. Vested contributors are motivated individuals who have contributed a lot to the project and want some recognition and we should respect that. I see no harm in giving them a little extra leeway to these editors with the emphasis on 'little' and with the recognition that anyone who becomes a liability to the project is best ushered to the door marked exit as quickly as possible.--regentspark (comment) 22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
    Since every case is unique, I can't really give a specific answer to this question. Let's just say that, in some cases, I'm open to 'two to tango' as an additional variable to consider. Of course, as with every dance, it depends on who is leading and who is following.--regentspark (comment) 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
    ArbCom is a committee empowered as an arbitrator in disputes so I see no reason for it to act unless a matter is brought in front of it. In fact, ArbCom doesn't really 'act', it merely issues rulings that are implemented and enforced by the community (primarily by admins). If there is need for immediate action (for example, if an immediate block is necessary to prevent harm to the project), then that can and should be done by admins. Generally, an admin is said to have abused the tools if he or she uses them to push content, when involved in a dispute, for some malicious or disruptive purpose, or where it is specifically barred (e.g., wheel warring). Naturally, since every situation cannot be codified, there are gray areas in deciding whether something is admin abuse or not (involvement being especially tricky).--regentspark (comment) 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As a followup, the question is a bit different than last year - this time, I'm focusing more on when someone else brings a case to ArbCom - when would you vote to do something, as opposed to not doing something? --Rschen7754 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit tricky because it is hard to give a definitive answer without contextual information. The correct answer is that there is no one 'when' and it all depends on the circumstances. Generally, I'd like to see definitive evidence that the community feels there is evidence of admin abuse before I vote to take up a case. Admins, by the very nature of their role here, attract a lot of criticism and there have to be good reasons before they get dragged into arbitration. That said, there could be cases where I might vote to take up a case even when community consensus of admin overreach is unclear. One example, and there could be others, when there is private information that is not and cannot be made available to the community. --regentspark (comment) 22:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
    Complicated. This is something I had to think through because I don't pay attention to Wikipedia Review or the youtube thing that was talked about in the Sandifer case primarily because I'm more interested in content issues than in the social - and drama :) -aspects of Wikipedia. However, these sites exist, and they can be used to harass Wikipedia editors and therefore an 'only on Wikipedia' approach is akin to doing the proverbial ostrich thing. That doesn't work for ostriches and won't work for us. So, yes, in some cases - outing is the example that comes to mind - the remit of Arbcom can and should extend to these bad sites. --regentspark (comment) 14:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. What is your definition of "outing"?
    Is there more than one definition? Disclosing any personal information about an editor, unless the editor has chosen to explicitly disclose that information, is outing. --regentspark (comment) 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
    That's a tough one. From what I've seen, and this is confined mostly to South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) articles which are plagued by pov pushing socks of banned and indef blocked users, check user is invaluable and is often used discretely. I haven't really followed the use of OS tools but would be happy to comment on specific examples that you think worth examining. --regentspark (comment) 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
    (Did you mean "are not" or "can not"?) I am often involved in content disputes . Some of them never go away - search the archives of Talk:Narendra Modi for discussions on the word "controversial" for a good example. Often, the harder to resolve disputes arise because they mirror a dispute that exists in the real world and involves at least one group of editors who are here to push a pov at all costs. The dispute lingers when the pov editors come with sources that back up their claim and when it becomes hard for uninvolved editors (the ones who can resolve the dispute) to judge the relative reliability of sources and the proper weight to ascribe to different views.--regentspark (comment) 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
    I am, by nature, a pragmatist. Conflicts and disputes are the nature of any social organization and they need to be resolved. While it would be great if they are resolved in the "right" way, generally any resolution is better than none. We will always need some sort of final body that puts an end to disputes one way or another, whether it does that rightly or wrongly. So, simple answer, something like ArbCom will always be necessary.--regentspark (comment) 13:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
    Yes. Not a problem.--regentspark (comment) 18:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you. Rschen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mark Arsten

  2. What is your opinion of paid editing? What should be the community's response to this practice?
    We should ban paid editors from directly editing articles. In my opinion, when someone is paid explicitly to write about something, that something is likely to be skewed. I'd rather not have on article on the topic than have one that is biased. I understand that enforcing a ban may not be easy but, if it is explicitly banned, dealing with editors who are 'found out' will become relatively straightforward.--regentspark (comment) 00:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

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

  2. An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
    When a case is opened, it does not follow that sanctions are inevitable, I can agree with that in principle. However, purely from a probability perspective, it does seem likely that there will be sanctions. The very fact that arbs have voted to take on a case automatically increases the probability of sanctions. I wouldn't go so far as to use the term "exceedingly unlikely" but would probably settle for "more likely" or even "very likely". --regentspark (comment) 03:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?
    Well, it depends. Imo, if a prolific contributor in a particular area is to be topic banned, I'd personally like to see plenty of evidence of disruption before deciding on a topic ban. If, however, the editor is not a prolific contributor in the area under threat of sanction, then, ceteris paribus, less evidence would be necessary. I'm not sure what you mean by 'minimum amount' since evidence is not really quantifiable.--regentspark (comment) 02:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?
    I'm not sure I can answer this without the specifics of the case. The straight answer is that, generally a decision maker shouldn't ignore evidence that is presented. However, that doesn't mean that all evidence must be automatically taken into account and I can think of a number of reasons why it should not. Without context, this is impossible to answer. Similarly, I'm not sure I can make blanket commitments of any sort. With apologies.--regentspark (comment) 03:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
    I'll give you my response from last year, it still holds. Stare at what? :) But seriously, ArbCom neither sets policy nor does it rule on content so the question of precedent should not arise.--regentspark (comment) 03:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
    Again, my answer from last year still holds. The five pillars are fundamental principles that guide us and are therefore worthy of consideration. The problem, of course, is that the pillars are principles, and principles are notoriously hard to pin down so I see them more as having an indirect effect on committee decisions rather than a direct effect.--regentspark (comment) 13:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
    I've answered a similar question (General Question 11) above. --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
    Wherever there are groups of people, we're going to have factions so yes, we do have factionalism on Wikipedia. As with everything, factions can be productive in adding content but can be destructive when their goals don't match with ours, particularly the goal of providing balanced, properly weighted information and consensus formation (factions can skew consensus) on both article as well as wiki space. Approaching the problem through conduct alone may not always help because problematic conduct may be diluted across a number of editors. In my opinion, it will be very hard to directly treat factionalism in the remedy of a case (because factions may collaborate off-wiki) but, if there is strong evidence of factionalism presented in an arbcom case, then the proper way to treat this is to either apply discretionary sanctions to the topic area or sanctions on some or all editors involved. Depending on the nature and severity of the problem, naturally.--regentspark (comment) 14:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Collect (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Gerda Arendt

Thank you, precious candidate, for volunteering.

  2. Question 1 of 3: Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm probably completely missing something here, but it looks like an info box is added to the article in that diff and a nav box labeled "metadata" removed. --regentspark (comment) 02:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Do you agree that the infobox was not really "added" but was there before and only uncollapsed, follwing the MOS?
    I guess the metadata box contains the same info as an info box, so yes, I suppose it was already there and merely uncollapsed and moved to the top. Which, yes, does seem to be the preferred option per WP:MOS. Gerda, if there is a deeper issue here that you're trying to bring up, could you please bring it up directly? I'm puzzled. --regentspark (comment) 13:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Thank you! - No, no deeper issue: my issue is that I want arbs who look at facts, not opinion, you seem to be one of them! Next question: imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Gerda. Taken on its own, there is nothing wrong with the Pigsonthewings edit. There was an ongoing discussion at that time on the article talk page and it would have been better if he/she had discussed it first or at least left a note (apologies if I missed it) but even then it's not a serious problem. I wouldn't use this diff in isolation to ban an editor but would look for evidence of a pattern where the editor edits info boxes against consensus.--regentspark (comment) 02:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Thank you. Let's not talk a specific case. What you do (in general) if you notice that a colleague presents a diff that actually improves Wikipedia to support his vote to ban, THAT is the question?
    Apologies. I misread your question (probably because I'd found the relevant arb case!). I would probably point out that the diff was useful, particularly if that were the only reasoning provided by the arb). Other than that, I'm not sure what I would do. As a weak form libertarian, I'm, in most cases, perfectly willing to accept that other people have their own opinions so it wouldn't bother me much unless it were particularly egregious and, whether it is or not is context dependent.--regentspark (comment) 13:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Thank you, I like your accepting the different opinions of others (however I think there are different opinions but no different facts, and if a something improves Wikipedia it's tricky to have different opinions on that). - Last question: imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. a) Assuming you would lean toward banning (too easy otherwise), would you vote for a ban, considering the narrow margin? b) If yes, would you supply reasoning? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, the straightforward answer is that it wouldn't affect my vote either way. I'd merely vote what I think is the right outcome and let the chips fall where they fall. (Probably not what you wanted to hear but that's the honest answer!) --regentspark (comment) 21:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like your answer ;) - passed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Sven Manguard

  2. What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation?
    Motions are used to dispose of cases quickly and are best used in cases when they can directly address the arbitration request in a simple and clear manner. Generally, I'd use motions more often in requests for clarifications, followed by requests for amendments. In full blown cases, I'd be wary of proposing a motion.--regentspark (comment) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
    I see ArbCom as a passive body that acts only when asked to do so by the community or by an editor (excluding its oversight role). I don't see it acting on its own on issues that the community has not asked it to consider. I also don't like the idea, in principle, of ArbCom overriding community consensus but cannot confidently say that there will never be circumstances when it does just that. --regentspark (comment) 03:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Please identify a few motions from 2013 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
  8. The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.
    I've answered this in general question 6 above. --regentspark (comment) 18:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?
    I desultorily followed the whole Phil Sandifer thing so I can't really answer the specific part of this question (did it help or not) but, yes, I believe that arbitrators should be willing to explain their reasoning when asked to do so and then let the chips fall where they do. That's the honest and above-board thing to do. It it ends up adding "fuel to an already large fire" then so be it.--regentspark (comment) 03:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
    Wikipedia thrives on openness and so, yes, except for private information, sensitive dealings, clerical reminders and other bureaucratic trappings, and other things being equal, I would rather see ArbCom business handled publicly.--regentspark (comment) 03:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.
    - If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?
    - If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?
    - All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?
    This is a toughie. Not being an arbcom member, it is hard to judge to what extent the stuff that was not made public was sensitive or private so I can't really judge whether any progress has been made or not. But, going forward, assuming I am elected and assuming this is an issue, I suppose I will lobby the other members to change the way the committee works. What I will not do is to release information that the committee has, as a group, decided to keep private. --regentspark (comment) 03:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Wizardman

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

  2. As an arbitrator, what would you do? In other words, would you primarily work on cases, subcommittees, another arbitrator responsibility?
    The public face of arbcom is its cases so that's where I envisage spending most of my time, at least initially. But all work takes on a life of its own and I expect there will be many other things, administrative for example, that needs to be done and I'll chip in wherever I can. Down the road, ... , all I can say is that I don't do things in halves :) All this, assuming I'm elected, of course!--regentspark (comment) 16:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tryptofish

  2. What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?
    Hi Tryptofish. This is an interesting but rather complicated issue that you've brought up. Weighing privacy versus accountability is not easy for many reasons and there is no easy answer to how to do it. Philosophically, I agree with the motives underlying your proposal - that the committee should be accountable and, therefore, should be willing to release any information that does not need to be kept private. The current wording, which sort of implies that everything will be kept private, is clearly inadequate. But there are several considerations that need to be thought about before I would commit to a new wording. Will an open email policy stifle discussion amongst the arbs if everything has the potential to be made public? Will someone emailing arbcom hesitate to do so if he/she has no guarantee of privacy? Your wording may adequately those issues (the simple majority and the "privacy unless accountability" clauses) but this does need more thought than I can give at present.--regentspark (comment) 21:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sceptre

  2. Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in Sexology, the massive embarrassment of the Manning dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?
    Interesting question Sceptre though I'm not sure I can answer it. Gender and sexual orientation are an important part of a person's identity and I don't think we're properly sensitive to that. Our policies and procedures, for example, treat a renaming of an article on Lord Byron in much the same way as that of Manning with references to common name and notability but the two debates are very different in terms of their impact on real people. I guess we need to think through gender and sexual orientation issues carefully but I suspect that's more of a community thing than an ArbCom thing. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:SirFozzie

  2. First off, thank you for volunteering. You ran last year, finishing strongly, but just outside the candidates that were appointed. What were the lessons learned from the previous attempt, and how does it make you a better candidate this time around. (and personally, good luck, the same thing happened to me one year, the next year I got in :))
    Obviously, since I am running again, I learned nothing :) More seriously, I don't think there is any difference between who I was last year and who I am this year so I am neither a better candidate nor a worse one. I actually enjoy the process itself - the questions bring a sense of what issues people are thinking about and I like being forced to reason my way through things I normally wouldn't bother with. I guess, for me, the play's the thing and that's why I'm here again. --regentspark (comment) 15:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

  2. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?
    Hi Piotrus. In the interests of preserving my sanity :), I'm linking to my response to your questions last year. The general tenor of that response still applies. --regentspark (comment) 18:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)
  6. to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to...?)
  8. The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?
  10. a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
  12. I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.
    I believe my ethnicity, nationality and age are fairly clear from my editing. Regardless, I don't see any of them as making a material difference to what I do here so, while I have no objection to doing so, don't see why I should. I make no assumptions about other editors and hopefully they don't about me. I will say that I am well over 18. --regentspark (comment) 18:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:MONGO

  2. Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.
    Thanks for your question Mongo. I have no interest in taking articles to Featured or Good article status. Nor do I seek DYK credits. or badges (barnstars, for example) of any sort. My content contributions are largely collaborative - as the proportion of my edits to article talk pages will illustrate - and I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and help improve articles, but formal achievements are not my thing. --regentspark (comment) 17:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Worm That Turned

  2. Firstly, please accept my apologies for adding to the list of questions! I'm one of the less controversial arbitrators but even I have had my writing twisted, my honesty questioned, my personality derided. I've been the target of unpleasant emails and real life actions. Other arbitrators have been subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?
    Good question Worm. I guess I won't really know until it happens but I think I can handle the slings and arrows that accompany ArbCom work. I'm not young. In the most, I've worked in a very high stress industry and, as a result, don't take most things personally. If someone came to my home and threatened me, that would be an issue, but unpleasant emails, honest questioned, those sort of things are unlikely to be a problem. --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:HectorMoffet

Number of Active Editors has been in decline since 2007. See also updated stats and graph

The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007.

This decline has been documented extensively:

This raises several questions:

  2. Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?
    hi hectormoffet. An interesting and important question that I will answer, though not immediately. I'm traveling with surprisingly lousy internet access but that should get better by the 27th. I will provide an answer then. regentspark (comment) 15:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Perhaps it is a bit of both. In one sense, the easy work, the low fruit so to speak, has largely been done - (no Doctor Who dale left untouched :). But, that doesn't mean that the bulk of Wikipedia's work is finished and I can think of hundreds of topics where we have little information, no information, or just plain incorrect information. Working on the retention of editors, particularly the good ones - those who are willing to do the painstaking work that builds good, well referenced articles - is important. --regentspark (comment) 06:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?
    Not sure about this but I will say that we need to think about what the term "retention" means. Does it mean a focus on numbers alone? Are there editor quality issues that need to be considered as well? What type of editor do we want to retain? --regentspark (comment) 06:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?
  8. Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?
    Arbcom is not designed to be an activist organization so I don't see this as an ArbCom issue in and of itself. Indirectly, of course, Arbcom actions will have an impact but I would prefer to see the community set the lead along the lines of my response to your second question above. --regentspark (comment) 06:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

  2. Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?
    I don't really pay attention to these sites so I'm not sure whether Wikipediocracy is an unmitigated blight, an ordinary blight, or just another benign social network. However, as I say above (in RSChen7754's question 6), there are times when ArbCom needs to consider postings there as evidence, particularly in the case of outing. Editor confidentiality is an important principle on Wikipedia and I don't see why we should allow obvious infringements of that confidentiality merely because they were made elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 10:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from iantresman

  2. How important do you think is transparency and accountability for Admins and Arbitrators, bearing in mind that: (a) Checkuser and Oversight have no public logs, even though we could say who accesses these features (without necessarily giving compromising information)? (b) ArbCom has its own off-site discussion area.
    I believe you'll get a sense for my thinking on these issues above. See my responses to general question 4, Sven Manguard question 7, and Sven Manguard question 6. Perhaps others as well. --regentspark (comment) 18:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I see lots of ArbCom cases where editors contribute unsubstantiated acusations without provided diffs, and often provide diffs that don't backup the allegations. Do you think ArbCom should do anything about it? (ie. strike though allegations without diffs).
    Clearly, an accusation without evidence is not really an accusation. The the extent that the accusation involves on=wiki activity, the default form of evidence is a diff and should be provided. If no evidence is available, then I'd just ignore the accusation and not even treat it as supporting evidence. --regentspark (comment) 18:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Incivility on Wikipedia is rife. Sometimes it is ambiguous and subjective. But where it is clear, why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?
    I'm not sure I agree with your statement that "incivility on Wikipedia is rife". Harsh words, rough or tough language perhaps, but most of that is normal give and take that we should expect when the matter under discussion is contentious. Our editors are often passionate about their areas of interest but, unfortunately, passion also brings contention. Killing contentious behavior in a wholesale way would, however, be counter productive because contention is what forces us to seek better sources and do more research to discover what the NPOV wording is and where the balance in an article lies. When incivility meanders into personal attacks or harassment of some sort, then it becomes actionable and, if the community cannot handle it on its own, that's when ArbCom comes into the picture. When the incivility becomes intolerable, unrepentant, or unproductive, then bans are the only way out.--regentspark (comment) 18:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Editors whose username lets them be identified easily in real life, are frequently subjected to "oppositional research" by anonymous editors who can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY. Do you think this double standard is fair, and should anything be done?
    I'm not sure I understand this question. Allowing IP editors to edit is, in my opinion, a cornerstone principle of Wikipedia. That's where our army of editors come from. I'm not sure how it is a double standard either - we're not going to go around investigating the real life identity of an IP, for example. Best to choose user names that don't give a clue to your identity and treat outing - whether it be by an IP or by a named editor - in the same way to the extent possible. --regentspark (comment) 18:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I see lots of ArbCom cases where Arbitrators appear to ignore the comments of the editors involved. Do you think that basic courtesies should require Arbitrators to make more than just an indirect statement, and actually address the points being made?
    I generally agree with the statement that arbcom should address the points being made, the reasonable ones anyway. In fact, I think an arb should never be in a hurry to pass judgement or accept a case and should wait till enough evidence has arrived. It's not just a question of paying attention to the comments of the editors involved but also one of giving enough time for editors - involved as well as uninvolved ones - to comment. --regentspark (comment) 18:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Bazonka

  2. Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?
    I don't anticipate any difference in keeping my privacy. I like the editing aspect of Wikipedia and, though I briefly showed up at one Wikimeet, prefer keeping my virtual world separate from my real life. --regentspark (comment) 04:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from user:Ykantor

  2. Should "Petit crimes" be sanctioned? and how ?
The present situation is described as User:Wikid77#Wiki opinions continued says: "some acting as "inter-wikicity gangs" with limited civility (speaking euphemistically)...Mob rule: Large areas of wikis are run by mobocracy voting. Numerous edit wars and conflicts exist in some highly popular groups of articles, especially in recent events or news articles. In those conflicts, typically 99% of debates are decided by mob rule, not mediated reason...Future open: From what I've seen, the Wiki concept could be extended to greatly improve reliability, but allow anonymous editing of articles outside a screening phase, warning users to refer to the fact-checked revision as screened for accuracy (this eventually happened in German Wikipedia"
At the moment there is no treatment of those little crimes. i.e. deleting while cheating, lying, arguing for a view with no support at all against a well supported opposite view, war of attrition tactics, deleting a supported sentence, etc. The result is distorted articles and some fed up editors who discontinue to edit. I can provide examples, if asked for.
In my view, each of these small scale problems does not worth a sanction , but the there should be a counting mechanism, such as a user who has accumulated a certain amount of them, should be sanctioned. What is your view?

2

  1. Does Our NPOV policy mean that an editor is violating the policy if he only contributes to one side?
The issue is discussed her: [1].
In my opinion, the view that every post should be neutral leads to a built in absurd. Suppose that the best Wikipedia editor is editing a group of biased articles. He is doing a great job and the articles become neutral. The editor should be sanctioned because every single edit (as well as the pattern of edits) is biased toward the other side. !
  1. Hi Ykantor, interesting question. This really calls for a long response because there are so many ifs, thens and buts involved but here is a brief version. In essence, our NPOV policy requires that editors edit in an unbiased fashion and ensure that they are adding all significant views on a topic. What this means is that any editor who clearly edits in a biased fashion and consistently demonstrates an unwillingness to allow significant views that don't fit with his or her POV is violating our NPOV policy. The problem, of course, is recognizing whether that unwillingness exists and, for that, we need to look for patterns in their editing history to see if their biases are systematic and to see if there is a specific agenda to skew content.--regentspark (comment) 16:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Martinevans123

  2. Should articles ever use The Daily Mail as a reference source? Should articles ever use YouTube videos as external links? Is there still any place for a "WP:civility" policy, or does it depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes? Should we be allowed to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation using Bitcoins? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the Daily Mail, let's just say that if it is the only source for a claim, then we should ask ourselves whether the claim is worth including in an article. There are circumstances when a youtube video can be used as an external link - Gangnam Style is the one that pops immediately into mind. Yes, there is a place for WP:Civility but it doesn't depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes, nor does it depend on the use of certain verboten words. Uncivil behavior is contextual (what is being said, where it is being said, who it is being directed at, and why it was said) and not dependent on a well defined set of rules. If the Wikimedia Foundation has figured out how to use Bitcoins, then sure, donations in that "currency" would, I'm sure, be welcomed. --regentspark (comment) 22:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categories