Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions

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?

   I have dealt with hundreds of disruptive users on wiki, both before and after becoming an admin. I have developed something of a reputation for being someone with a low tolerance for liars and silly disputes. I own and operate a small business in the real world so I am used to working with a group toward a common purpose, and I am also used to unpleasant tasks such as ejecting unruly customers and firing people who are not doing their job. So, I can make the tough calls. I have been an administrator for four years and a functionary for three so I am somewhat familiar with how things work in this arena, although I don't think it is a job anyone can truly understand until they have actually done it.

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 have commented on a few ArbCom cases but have never been an "involved party" in a full case. I also look over

   user RFCs

   . I was also the initiator of the 2011 and 2012 RFCs on pending changes and I worked with the folks that did the follow up RFCs on how to actually implement it. I suppose if I'm going to mention those I should also mention the failed "civility enforcement" RFC I opened last year. That is probably the most complicated and divisive issue we have here, and I can't feel too bad about failing to resolve an issue that the broader community and the committee have also failed to resolve.

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?

   Although I do have a reputation for being harsh towards disruptive users, how one behaves when confronted about it is an important part of determining what an appropriate sanction is. Of course, if a user was able to see and admit to their own flaws it is unlikely the dispute would rise to the point where ArbCom was needed to resolve it. I do try to AGF at all times but I am not blinded by it.

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).

   There are a few users I have been in unpleasant disputes with. If they were the focus of a case I would need to recuse myself. Although I feel I am able to look at most things impartially even the appearance of bias must be avoided in any ArbCom proceeding. The only "real world" scenario I can imagine would be if a dispute somehow involved the town where I live or people I know in real life, which doesn't seem very likely.

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

    If something went completely haywire at my job I could end up working around 70 hours a week for a short while, which would not leave me much time for anything else but sleep. This has happened before but it is usually a short-term issue lasting only a few weeks.

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 can give you both in one case: Phil Sandifer. I agree that what he did is incompatible with being an admin and support the decision to desysop him. I completely disagree with the perma-ban with no permission to even appeal for a full year. Technically, what he did did not even violate the outing policy and he had no reason to expect to be banned for it as others have done the same or worse and the committee has willingly looked the other way. That was probably the worst decision I have seen come out of this incarnation of the committee and it has had more repercussions than are immediately apparent. (I know that sounds super mysterious, but as functionary discussions are private I can't really get into details. It is my hope that if elected I can work from inside the committee to help repair the damage.)

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?

    Theoretically, if the committee takes fewer cases it should be able to get them done faster and better. I doubt even the current arbs would argue that this has actually been the result in all cases. As to criteria for accepting cases, it would have to be a dispute that was within the committee's purview to resolve, and which clearly had failed to be resolved by lesser means.

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

    There was a lot of talk last year about transparency in proceedings. As noted in one of the user-submitted questions below nothing seems to have actually changed I this area. While by it's very nature some of what the committee does must be kept quiet or even totally secret, I believe there are some things that are kept quiet just because it is easier for the committee if they are kept quiet. I want to be very clear, I would never. ever do anything that violated the privacy policy, which I have worked for three years to uphold as a member of the suppression team. But there is much that is not bound by the privacy policy that is kept more or less secret anyway. Changing this would require a cultural change within the committee, which may not be easy to accomplish.

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?

    So far, every proposal I have seen for "governance committees or mechanisms" has been a terrible idea that the community speedily and thoroughly rejected. ArbCom is here to handle the worst of the worst. The broader community has at times seemed to ignore fairly important issues because they were too complicated or difficult to resolve, but I don't think more committees is the solution to that. I have generally found in my behind-the-scenes work that the WMF is quite responsive to legitimate concerns that may cross from something volunteers deal with into something the paid staff should be handling. Broader issues aside, if we are talking just about their relationship with the committee and the functionaries I think they are doing a good job.

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?

    Well, I certainly think they have made some novel re-interpretations of policy a time or two. Content and behavioral disputes are more often than not intertwined with one another by the time they reach the committee. It is the committees job to untangle them and "break the back" of the behavioral problem so that the community can resolve the content dispute. I believe there are exceptions to every rule. Theoretically

    we all believe that

    .

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

    Generally BLP issues are handled at the editorial or administrative level. This is a bigger issue than a dozen people who already have a lot on their plate can handle. Other than emergency situations or intractable behavioral problems the committee doesn't really have a much of a role in implementing or enforcing any content policies.

24. Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the
    checkuser and oversight
    userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?

    I have have been an oversighter for three years and so far as I know none of my actions has ever been investigated by

    WP:AUSC

    . I would probably be a bit less active in that area as an arb but would still use it if needed. I never applied for CU as I am not really technically-minded but I think as an arb I could at least learn the basic functions of it well enough so that when CU-based evidence is presented to the committee I can feel confident that I actually understand what it means.

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?

    Although I have never revealed my real world identity on-wiki I am not really worried about being outed.

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?

    Depends on the situation. Some users, when banned, just accept it and leave. Others prefer to spend incredible amounts of time and energy attempting circumvent their ban, usually to make some point about how awesome they are and how badly we need them back. So I would think good CU data can be very helpful in establishing if there has been socking and rooting out any "sleepers." However, there is very little reason the committee ever even needs to know a users real-life identity, and even less reason to retain such information after a case is closed.

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?

    Well, checkuser data would be something that the committee is not permitted to share with anyone. All they can share is the finding, not the data itself. I am loath to ever say anything is impossible but I have trouble envisioning another scenario where it would be appropriate to take action against a user without even explaining why.

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?

   (recycling my answer from last year) Generally it should not take three months to resolve a case. By the time a dispute reaches ArbCom it is likely there are already parties who have walked away in disgust, the committee should do what it can to keep issues moving forward but they are only human like the rest of us (no, really, I met several of them earlier this year and they didn't have devil horns or extra fingers or anything) and sometimes real life might get in the way.

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 think WikiProjects, like so many other things here, are a good idea that often doesn't work out as well as it should. the MILHIST project is an example of one that has been very successful. Examples of ones that didn't work out so well are easy to find. In most cases, even if I am interested in a subject I don't bother to officially "join" as it doesn't do any more for the encyclopedia than putting a "I support the troops" sticker on your car does for the actual troops in Afghanistan. Anyone who pulls the "but I'm an expert" or "I'm in the WikiProject and you're not" cards doesn't get what Wikipedia is and how it works.

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?

   (recycling my answer from last year) There are several issues with some types of long term contributors. Some of those issues are: Prolific content contributors who believe their efforts grant them a free pass to be rude and condescending. Users who have spent so much time battling socks that they now suspect (and openly accuse) any and all IP users of socking. Users who attempt to permanently

   WP:OWN

   articles they created or expanded. There are more but these are some of the most common. As to what is to be done about it, neither the community at large nor ArbCom seems to have a clear idea. The rude but prolific contributor is the most problematic of these. Does the damage caused by their nastiness outweigh the benefits of their content work? Does one even have any bearing on the other or should we examine them in isolation? These are issues which the community has thus far failed to resolve. As ArbCom is supposed to reflect what the community wants they have been similarly unable to come to a resolution when such cases have been brought before them. I consider coming up with innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems one of my strong points but this one is a tough nut to crack. If I were to become an Arb and such a case was presented to the committee I would urge my fellow arbs to work towards the type of "backbreaking" solution that ArbCom is there to provide, but exactly what it would be is hard to say.

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?

   (recycling my answer from last year) In most cases that reach the level of arbitration there is more than one user who is exhibiting poor behavior, but there is often one in particualr who stands out as the most disruptive. Sanctions on users should not be based on "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" but should be tailored to effectively resolve the issues that led to dispute. That may mean site banning the worst of the lot and topic banning everybody else, or it may mean topic banning a few users and imposing general sanctions that apply to anyone editing the disputed content. Or it may even mean just admonishing everyone involved and putting the disputed contetn under a 1RR restriction. Often the knowledge of editing restrictions can help involved users see the forest through the trees, and if it does not the escalating blocks they will receive certainly should. Sanctions are tools for calming disruptive editing, not weapons to punish wrongdoers.

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?

    If there is a clear abuse of the tools or a legitimate reason to believe an admin account has been compromised it is entirely appropriate for ArbCom to intervene as quickly as possible. A compromised or rogue admin could cause a lot of harm and make a big mess in fairly short order, so the quicker they get their tools yanked, even if it turns out not to ultimately be necessary, the better. As for "conduct unbecoming an admin" that is usually much more debatable than clear abuse of the tools and should not be rushed into, but it is still entirely within the remit of the committee to deal with.

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?

    Let's start with the easy one: IRC. I don't use it, I don't look at it, and I have no desire to start. However, I understand that there are some users who find the help channels on IRC to be useful. And that's all they should be for, getting advice or help with on-wiki problems. In most cases, what happens on IRC is not particularly relevant on-wiki but there may be exceptions. As for the "bad" sites. sigh. They could be serving a legitimate purpose as an outside site that critically examines the workings of this project. It could be very helpful to read such criticism and try to improve how we do things here. However, in an environment where it is common to refer to all of us "Wikipediots" and where doxing/outing is not only permitted but sometimes even encouraged the atmosphere of hostility and menace is so thick that it irrevocably damages the ability of the site to be taken seriously. So far as ArbCom is concerned, I feel that by and large it should do what most people do: ignore them. But then there is the issue of linking to attacks and outings on external sites. It is no secret that I am unhappy with the committees inconsistent message and lack of clear guidance to its functionaries in this matter. This is not an issue that is going to go away anytime soon and the sooner the committee is able to present a consistent, logical approach to it the better. I would also note that the community could take the lead and simply tell the committee what they want from it, although that is probably easier said than done.

14. What is your definition of "outing"?

    This is not something that should be a matter of individual opinion. Outing is attempting to tie a username to real world identity against the wishes of that user, and using information that the user did not present themselves (and this is the important part) on-wiki. They could be perfectly open about it on some other website, it doesn't matter as far as WP is concerned. It is each users own decision how much to reveal about themselves on the project and that should be respected. As an oversighter I have bumped into the odd situation where your natural inclination might be to go ahead and let someone be outed, but we can't have policies that only apply to people we like.

16. What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?

    I know there is a segment of the community that objects to the lack of public logs of oversight actions. The reason as I understand it for this is that when something is suppressed it is usually in the interest of protecting someone from harm so we leave as few clues as possible as to what was removed. However, oversighters are required to provide a reason for each action, and those actions are logged. So there has to be a log for accountability and it has to be hidden from the public in order to protect others, not to protect the suppression team. I think that as a team we generally do a good job at quickly and quietly dealing with far more problems than the general community is even aware of. Checkusers also seem to me to generally do a good job, although through no fault of their own their data is often inconclusive. They spent a great deal of time and effort this year dealing with the giant farm of paid sockpuppets. By the time the press latched onto the story, CUs had already identified hundreds of their accounts and were digging up even more. I don't really know how these tools are used on other projects, my main focus has always been en.wp.

18. Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?

    I've been in a few, who hasn't? The reason they are not resolved are variable. Perhaps there is no way to conclusively prove one party or the other is correct. Perhaps they are simply going at one another instead of actually trying to resolve the dispute like adults. Perhaps they are unaware of

    WP:DR

    . Or, and this is probably the most common scenario, perhaps one or more parties involved is simply unwilling to consider any opinion that differs from their own and would rather argue about it in perpetuity.

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

    The WMF will replace ArbCom with robots programmed with Newyorkbrad's brain waves.

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)?

    They made sure the functionaries team was aware of the proposal. I don't see any problems with my personal compliance with it, they already know exactly who I am and where I live, being both a functionary and a WMF Wikimania scholarship recipient.

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

Also, I'd like to toss in another question:

2. What's your current take on the relationship between ArbCom and functionaries?

   At the moment, not very good. The Sandifer decision has led to the oversight team once again being unsure what it is they are supposed to do in certain circumstances, which is always a bad thing. Rectifying this situation is something that I intend to focus on if I am elected. Most of the functionaries seem to be working more or less solo right now, I struggle to remember a time when the mailing lists were so quiet or when it was so hard to get input from the rest of the team. Communicating with the committee can be quite aggravating as you often must wait quite some time for any sort of reply, and when you do get one it can be unclear as to whether you are getting an "official" reply from the committee, a reply from a certain subset of the committee, or just one individual arbs personal opinion. It wasn't always like this, and it needn't stay like this.

Question from Mark Arsten

2. Do you feel that the current Arbcom has been inconsistent in the way it deals with disruption? If so, could you give an example of something that was handled poorly?

   To be perfectly honest I feel as though there are some on the current committee who prefer to just throw out anyone who makes them uncomfortable. I don't know how much I am even allowed to say about it but this has included a private threat to throw me off the oversight team for talking too much about what we do. Not for breaking any policy or for ever, even once, misusing the oversight tool, just talking too much about subjects they would prefer I not talk about. Although this involved my transparent, easily viewable, on-wiki remarks, the whole affair was handled offline and the community was not even asked to give any input. From what I was told at the time, I was not the only member of the functionary team that they were thinking about firing, but it looks like nothing came of any of it. There has been a lot of that sort of thing this past year, a lot of whisper campaigns on the mailing list that I think we would be better off without.

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 in emergency situations, or when members of the committee feel that a situation has an obvious resolution that does not require a full case. As with most things, when they are appropriate is often in the eye of the beholder. If a motion fails and a full case ensues instead, it probably was not an appropriate subject to be handled that way

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?

   In almost all things, the committee is bound to respect any existing consensus, whether it be by motion or by a case decision. This is another area where I feel I differ with some members of the current committee who seem fairly comfortable with re-interpreting policy in private and without asking for any community input. However, in the case of legitimate disputes regarding conduct that somehow have not been presented as cases, it may sometimes be appropriate for the committee to step to try and resolve it.

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.

   I don't follow every single thing the committee does in depth, so I may have missed some things I agreed with and some I did not. I did follow the Keifer/Ironholds case as they are both users I have had previous interactions with. I think the decision in that case was even-handed and correctly identified which issues needed the committee to resolve them. I've already mentioned above my own brush with the committee, which until now the community was unaware of, in my response to Mark Artsen's question above

8. The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.

   What they did right was desysop Phil. Outing, on-wiki or off, is not acceptable behavior from an admin, even if they outed someone who hs in the past taken obvious glee in being on the other side of the same equation. What they did wrong was to perma-ban him and deny his right to appeal for a full year. That was far too heavy-handed for my taste and accomplished little to nothing of value for the project.

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?

    Whether it added fuel to the fire or not, the committee serves at the pleasure of the broader community and are accountable to them in all things. Therefore my opinion is that when a decision is contested they have not only the right but the obligation to explain themselves. I am personally not really used to not being swayed at least a little bit by NYB, and so I did read quite a bit of the debate before deciding that I simply did not agree with that decision no matter how carefully and fully it was explained. But it was explained, and that is important.

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?

    Having worked with the functionary team for three years I have to admit I do see value in having some discussions in private. It frees up participants to say what is on their mind without fear of it being endlessly quoted back at them by some user who is dissatisfied with them about something else and it makes people feel more comfortable with mentioning things that they may suspect or imagine so that others can double-check their logic before they make what may turn out to be an ill-advised public comment. As I have mentioned I do believe that lately there has been a bit too much that has been kept private and how decisions are actually arrived at should be as transparent as possible, but off-wiki discussions do have their place in ArbCom and functionary business.

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?

    While I share this concern, I don't believe this is a situation that can or should be resolved by making new rules or mandating new procedures. A change in the culture of the committee is what is needed. Because it is often so closed, it is difficult to know which parties are even responsible for the current climate and if they will still be around in the new incarnation. So, no I don't have any specific proposals but I would push for more openness.

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?

   I feel that it is likely, but certainly not inevitable. Very few things are.

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?

   This is kind of a loaded question, so I am going to give a deliberately generalized answer. The purpose of topic bans is to stop disruption. If there is no evidence of disruption there is no cause for a topic ban.

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?

   No member of any responsible decision making body should ever ignore pertinent evidence.

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?

   While I do not believe old cases should be considered binding precedents, they can serve as examples as to how previous situations were (or were not) resolved, and some degree of consistency is desirable so that the community understands what the standards of behavior are.

10. The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?

    The five pillars are supposed to be the philosophical underpinnings of this entire project. They have to remain relevant if this project is not going to lose its way.

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?

    As in most things, the committee should take its cues from the community. I believe the community has been pretty clear that BLP issues are very important as they can involve real harm to real people. So such issues should be taken very seriously by the committee and persons who serially violate standards in article need to be removed from editing those articles.

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?

    Each user is responsible for their own actions, whether they are part of a faction or not. The committee may recognize that factions exist, and attempt to break up those factions by topic banning the worst actors, but there should not be punitive sanctions against users who are simply part of one faction or another but have not behaved disruptively.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Gerda Arendt

Thank you,

2. Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Looks like a user converted a "metadata" box that was collapsed at the bottom of the page into a more standardized infobox at the top, citing the manual of style in his edit summary.

4. I agree - Second 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) 09:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry Gerda, but I am not going to play this game. Without further context this is a question that it is impossible to give an honest answer to.

6. Game? - Your honest answer could be that you would ask the colleague about their reasoning, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   If there was an active arbitration case I would know who the involved parties were and what problem we were trying to solve by accepting the case. I would therefore presumably have at least a vague idea why another arb thought this diff was relevant evidence. Without any of that information this question is meaningless.

8. Meaningless? Let's see. You might have honestly said that (regardless of case) you would ask the one about reasoning for a rather surprising "evidence", after perhaps having looked at the context but even without. - More general comment: who is the "we" in "we were trying to solve"? In the case I think of, the problem the nominator wanted to solve (unexplained removal of infoboxes, as in this article, for example) was a different problem than what the arbs tried to solve. - Final question: let's now imagine that in a different case as many arbs vote for a ban as against it, it's your turn to ban or not. Would you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   This is why we generally expect arbs to be experienced admins, we are already used to this sort of nonsense. The only thing I can say is that if I were an arb and the only evidence presented was this one single diff and a few vague hints as to why someone might have a problem with it I would vote to reject the case, as I believe any sane arbitrator would, so it would never get to the point of actually discussing a ban. As for your follow up about a "different case" that question is also so incredibly vague as to be impossible to answer. How could I know if I would vote to ban someone or not when the only information you have provided is that the committee is split on the matter? I would be willing to cast a tie-breaking vote but I can't say what that vote would be if I don't even know what the case is about.

Thank you, "tie-breaking vote" is a great term I didn't know, or the question could have been simpler. Learning, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 21 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
   ?

   As I've mentioned in my replies to some of the other questions above, I do think the committee needs to be more transparent than it has been of late. However, it is also important that users know that they can approach the committee about a sensitive matter and be assured that their comments will remain confidential. It looks like this proposal would seek to satisfy both of those concerns, so I would be interested in seeing it go forward.

Question from SirFozzie

2. First off, thanks for running, and now, my question. Do you think being a functionary helps in preparing one to be an Arbitrator? (dealing with teams, disputes, etcetera). And why oh why would you be crazy enough to keep volunteering for a job that everyone hates the people who do? (Ok, the second question is optional, you don't have to answer it :))

   I don't see being a functionary as a prerequisite by any means, but it has given me some insight into how things work behind the scenes, and what kind of discussion should and should not be kept our of the public eye. And I can take people not liking me, I have to be the "designated jerk" at my real world job sometimes to. Actually just this morning I had to explain to someone that not only were they an obnoxious pain in the butt, but they also smelled way too bad and were no longer welcome to avail themselves of my services. I live in a small town and there is basically no chance I won't run into this person somewhere or other in the future. If I can handle that I think I can probably handle people typing angry messages about me. After all, I've been an admin for over four years now and still haven't completely lost my marbles.

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?

   This is another kind of loaded question. Although I agree that the some of the material you mention could have been handled a lot better, I do not feel that it is the arbitration committees role to engage in public relations with specific segments of the community. So, if you are asking me what I would do as an arb specifically in the interest of repairing WP's reputation within the LGBT community, or any other community, the answer is I would do nothing. Arbitration decisions should never, ever be based on making any particular group happy. If you are asking if we, as a community, should do something to make it clear we are not a horde of queer bashing rednecks then I would agree with you entirely. Exactly what that something would be I am not so sure.

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.)?

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?

   I told you last year that I would not answer this completely inappropriate question that has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia, let alone ArbCom. Since that message apparently did not get through, this year I am telling you that I will not answer any question posed by you until such time as you redact this question, not just from this page but from all the candidates question pages.

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.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 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.

   If you are looking for evidence that I am an active content builder who brings articles up to the highest levels I am not going to have much a trophy rack to show off to you. However, if you are looking for evidence of being able to work as part of a larger team and more or less get along with it I would point to my four years as an active admin who regularly participates in community discussions and my three years as a member of the functionary team. Even before I became an admin I tended to work at the other end of the spectrum, bringing new or neglected articles up to minimum standards expected for inclusion in the encyclopedia. So, I have some DYKs I can take credit for, I helped the article on the

   Eagle lady maintain GA status a while back, and I helped shape Portage Glacier Highway

   into a GA, but I didn't take any "official" credit for it achieving GA status. Wikipedia needs users who are willing to put in the effort to bring B or C class articles up to GA or FA status, but it also needs users who can take a one-line sub stub and find at least one source for it, expand it to at least on paragraph, maybe find a free image to slap on it. That is more the type of content work I have done. .

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?

   As an active admin for 4+ years I have already been subject to most of the things you list, although I realize I should expect it it to get much more intense should I be elected. Anyone who wants to make a fair criticism of any action I have taken is welcome to do so and in most cases will get a reply from me. Anyone who wants to engage in nasty attacks or threatening emails can expect to just get ignored. I have also found that when someone maybe has a point but are so mad at you personally that you can't see to engage in a constructive dialogue it is a good idea to try and find someone else to take over the conversation for you. Knowing when to simply disengage with someone has been a tough lesson for me to learn, but I feel like I have pretty much learned it at this point. As to real-life issues, unless they want to come all the way to Alaska to get in my face there isn't much that such trolls could do to me. I find it very easy to hang up the phone when there is a jerk on the other end of it.

Question from User:HectorMoffet

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

This decline has been documented extensively:

• In our own "Editor Trends Study"
• In popular media ("Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore")
• In scholarly literature ("How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline")

This raises several questions:

2. Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?

   As most topics that really are notable are now covered it seems less "sexy" to maintain and improve what we already have or to create articles on more marginal subjects. So there is nothing really that shocking about it, but I do see problems at places such as AFD, where there are now many discussions that have only one or two participants, somewhat less than is desirable for purposes of finding a consensus. And we do sometimes see vandalism or other inappropriate edits to less-watched articles that is not detected and removed for weeks or months. So, I don't think the sky is falling, but there is a bit of a problem.

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

   Some users who have been here a while can be a little too impatient with new users. When one runs into a clueless newbie I have found the best practice these days is to direct them to the

   teahouse

   , which I believe to be one of the most successful programs we've had in recent memory. There is also the issue of civility. We all know there is a problem with vague guidelines and uneven application of our civility policy. Ultimately this is something that only the broader community can resolve. How to accomplish that, I can't say.

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

   The Foundation has tried to help by introducing new features. Some of these, like echo, have proven to work reasonably well. Others, like the visual editor, are not so great. But they are trying, and have indicated they will keep doing so. I'd like to see more co-operation and less confrontation between the community and the Foundation. I've met some of the folks who do this work and they are not ogres, as far as I can tell they do not even live under a bridge or eat babies or anything. So talking to them is probably better than attacking them

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

   The only way I can see that editor retention is an ArbCom issue is when a case involves misuse of admin tools or bullying of any other sort. In either case the committee should deal with such persons fairly but firmly, and do whatever is necessary to insure that the bullying or misuse of tools does not recur.

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 touched on this subjct above, in my answer to Rschen's #6 question. I think the idea of a non-WMF website that serves as a watchdog of Wikipedia is a good idea. I find the actual execution of that idea to be terribly flawed. So long as a significant number of these critics are people who think that Wikipedia's utter failure is not only inevitable but desirable it is hard to trust the motivations of any criticism that comes from them. The occaisional bits of legitimate, helpful criticism that comes from them are awash in a sea of vitriol and personal grudges. People who were rightfully banned for inexcusable behavior here are community leaders there. Doxing/outing of WP users is seen as acceptable and sometimes even encouraged. So I see that site as a failure that is best ignored until they get their house in order. What the committee should do in most cases is just what everyone else should do, ignore it. What to do when drama generated there spills over on to WP is another story. A large part of my dissatisfaction with the current committee stems from their inconsistent message to their functionaries as to what is expected of us when links to offsite harassment are posted on wiki. Resolving this ambiguity would be a high priority for me if elected. At least one current arb has stated they are already working on this problem, so I would look to work with them and whoever else was interested. We (and yes I am unfortunately including myself here) have often mismanaged these situations and caused massive Streisand effects that gave these malcontents way more attention than their petty attacks deserve. We need to find a middle road where we deal with the harrassment but don't wave a big banner that says "bad stuff at WO, everyone go take a look!" That's exactly what they want, so we should endeavor not to give it to them. One day, perhaps that community will mature to the point where they are focussed on legitimate criticism only as opposed to name calling, outing, and proxying for banned users. Let's hope we can hasten that day.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:23, 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.

   These specific issues were already addressed in previous questions and I have already provided a comprehensive 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).

   I don't think they should be struck without first being challenged, as with any other unsupported statement in a dispute. If, after having their statement challenged, a user is still not able to provide any evidence they should be asked to strike it themselves. If they refuse it may be appropriate for a clerk to strike the statement. I think how big of a deal to make about it depends on the nature of the accusation.

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?

   Is this what you meant to ask? This is an awfully presumptuous question as phrased. I am going to answer on the assumption that you did not mean to include the word "why" but instead meant to ask if I believe enough is being done. I do believe that this is one of the largest problems we have. But I do not believe ArbCom is going to be able to solve it on their own. The community at large has to be the source of any serious change in the way civility is approached on this project. Up to this point, the community has seemed divided and uncertain, and so the committee has been as well. This is probably the most complicated and emotional long-term issue facing this community and it will not be resolved quickly or easily, if at all.

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 don't agree with the premise of this question, that there is an unfair double standard that needs something done about it. Using your real name is a choice, nobody has ever been forced to do it.

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?

    Arbitration cases often have several dozen paragraphs of input from as many users before the case is even accepted. So while I am sure it would make everyone feel better if every single comment ever made in a case got a specific reply from a sitting arb, it really is not a reasonable expectation or a good use of the committees limited resources. If a specific user is making a unique point that others have not it should be addressed. If there are many users making basically the same argument a generalized reply to all of them should be sufficient.

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?

   Last year I had the great pleasure of being awarded a travel scholarship to attend Wikimania in Washington D.C. It was a really positive experience for me and I very much enjoyed meeting fellow Wikipedians face-to-face, attending their presentations, and working with them one-on-one. However, that is pretty much it as far as real-world contact for me. I am relatively certain there are no other regularly active users within a hundred miles of where I live, and there is no chapter in my part of the world so there aren't any meetups I can attend easily.

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?

1. I have already taken the time to answer sixty three previous questions and the election has already been in progress for some time, so I don't think it is a worthwhile use of my time to try and decrypt these somewhat muddy and disorganized queries.

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. !

Question from John Cline

2. When considering whether or not to accept a case; how much deference, if any, would you give to a consensus of participants commenting that Arbcom should not accept the case, over your own opinion, perhaps strongly held, that an Arbcom case ought be commenced?

   Consensus is Wikipedia's basic model for decision making. It is the bedrock of of how things are done here and should pretty much never be ignored. However, it is possible that when a dispute has escalated to the point where it is before the committee that there may be a local consensus not to accept the case because many participants in the dispute have cited badly themselves and do not wish to be sanctioned. So it would depend on the exact situation.

Questions 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? Is humour now an outdated concept at Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Generally, tabloids and youtube videos are not appropriate for articles but it is supposed to be one of our

   core policies

   that our rules are not set in stone and are subject to exemptions if the circumstances warrant it. I've spoken about the civility policy in some of my previous replies. It has a place but I believe it is up to the community, not ArbCom, to determine how they want it interpreted. Wikipedia is unfortunately not as light-hearted as it once was. Humor is subjective, so in an environment with so many people of different ages and backgrounds what is considered funny and what is not is highly variable. If we ever officially say humor is verboten anywhere on WP that will be the end of my involvement.

Thank you, I quite agree. You'll get one of my votes for your edit summary alone. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]