Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/SilkTork

SilkTork

I am a conscientious, fair minded Wikipedian user with some experience in dispute resolution. I am a firm believer in community consensus, and feel that the community is at the heart of Wikipedia's success. What hurts the smooth progress of Wikipedia is any user or group of users (including the Arbitration Committee) who feel they are above or beyond the community, and who wish to assert their own point of view. If everyone abided by community consensus we wouldn't need an Arbitration Committee but reality is that there will always be people who want to do things their way. History has shown that sometimes this can be positive, but - unfortunately - mostly it is negative. ArbCom is here to ensure that the community's views are upheld, and to reduce disruption.

Though I recognise that ArbCom will be a time-consuming task, I am prepared to undertake it because I enjoy and respect this project. I am grateful both for the access to information Wikipedia provides me, and for the fun I have in taking part in building this encyclopedia. My weakness at the moment, and I understand and accept that this is a major problem, is that my Wiki access time can be limited because I have to care for my 2 1/2 year old daughter. What I am able to offer is thoughtful, conscientious and community focused input when I am able, though what I can't offer is that I would be able to offer that 24/7.

I have no alternative accounts, and make myself known on my userpage. I am willing to provide WM or anyone else with full details of who I am.

Added 22nd November: I've been reminded that I created a SilkTook account in December 2008. That was me trying out the account creation tool. The account has not been used.

28 November & 1 December - some copy-editing for clarity.

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

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

General questions

Skills and experience:
a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
I am a calm, patient, and conscientious person who works well in committee situations, being considerate of others, yet decisive when it comes time to make a decision. I like to offer alternative views, and often view things holistically in order to see the relationship between the parts that make up the whole, which sometimes gives a new perspective. I like to do my bit, and to offer suggestions, but am not pushy or assertive - preferring to work with reason and consensus. I have had a varied career off-wiki - I suspect that the experience of working within the collegiate structure of an English department in a large comprehensive school where I was Second in Dept, will transfer most appropriately to working within the Arbitration Committee, though some of my other experiences may also prove useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
I have been involved in various forms of dispute resolution. It was an area I moved into fairly early on because I am a patient person who doesn't tend to get into a flap, and I enjoy resolving conflicts and puzzles. I have worked on Mediation Cabal and Third opinion, though these days just respond to the requests for assistance that get posted on my talkpage. I made some comments in the Tree shaping case this year as I had mediated the dispute a little while before it went to ArbCom. The only case that I can, otherwise, recall being significantly involved in was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse, out of which I became one of the six mentors of Mattisse. The Report that we later wrote indicates the weakness of the mentor system in such cases. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
I am fairly open minded, and like to evaluate on the circumstances rather than any preconceived ideas. I am not so much inclined to either "second chances" nor to "bans", but more to fair evaluations. If someone is persisting in a particular unpopular point of view which is disturbing others, I would be inclined to investigate if that point of view is valid before making any decision. In my experience, there are times when a person is disruptive because they have a valid point that is not being considered, and they do not have the means or experience to present their case in the appropriate manner. Frustration can bring out the worse in all of us, especially if we have been treated unfairly. However, if a person has been treated fairly and appropriately, and they continue to push their point of view, they should be removed from the project in order to allow the work to continue smoothly. Users can get quickly wearied of disruptive users who won't listen to reason. Consensus, reason and compromise are key words here, and if someone isn't prepared to reason, then - regardless of how right they feel they are - they need to be removed. If they were right, the project will get around to their view eventually, and in a less destructive and harmful manner. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
ArbCom mainly deals with disruptive behaviour that needs final arbitration. It was not set up to deal with policy. Policy amendments arise from various activities on Wikipedia, including ArbCom cases, but ArbCom as a body nor its individual members have any more or less input to policy formation than any other Wikipedia user. ArbCom as a body may make a comment on existing policies, in the same manner as any other Wikipedia member. These comments can be taken as coming from an experienced body of people who have been elected because of their understanding of Wikipedia matters, and so are worth listening to, but not as having any authority. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
Behaviour dispute is often related to content dispute, and there is sometimes a blurred line which ArbCom of necessity has to cross in order to resolve some sticky issues. I have long felt it is inappropriate to have a committee decide absolutely on content, as we have community driven policies and guidelines for that, and various forms of content dispute resolution from Third Opinion up to MedCom; however, where there is ongoing disruption, it may be appropriate to have some form of binding decision. If that power should be given to ArbCom or MedCom is something that the community needs to decide, and is not something that ArbCom should assume. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom and motions:
a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
Motions are proposals. If the situation is fairly clear, uncontroversial and uncontested, then a proposal can be made, and voted on. If the opportunity is there, then a motion is a good way to go. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
If an issue is unclear, controversial or contested, then some discussion may be appropriate.

I am slightly uncomfortable with statements or questions that assume too great a distinction between the community and ArbCom, as I see ArbCom as being part of the community. As a Wikipedia community we set up positions from which by consensus an uninvolved user in good standing can make decisions in certain circumstances that enables the project to flow. An uninvolved user may close an AfD or RfC, and may review a Good Article. We take turns at doing this. Where ArbCom differs from other positions is that decisions made by ArbCom are binding. But ArbCom is not and should not otherwise be apart from the community. Users can still take turns at occupying the ArbCom position, and such users are still members of the community with no greater or lesser authority as individuals, and can still make mistakes or have moments of brilliance. The question is asking if a small group of users can ignore consensus. No. However, any user or group of users that observes an issue which is inappropriate, but not in line with consensus, can open a discussion on that issue. If the issue is seen as urgent, and is harming the project, then Ignore All Rules may apply, and an action may be needed before discussion. Where it is troublesome is if ArbCom or an individual member in the name of ArbCom, makes such an urgent IAR action, as the point of ArbCom is that actions and decisions are binding. It is precisely because ArbCom's actions and decisions are binding (and need to be), that the areas in which ArbCom operate need to be clear, limited, and agreed by consensus in advance. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
An aspect of Wikipedia that I respect highly is the accessible record keeping. We can trace every edit, every decision and every objection. Such clear, easy to access, record-keeping is of immense value. I also highly value the openness and transparency that such record keeping allows.

While I also value privacy and an individual's right to quiet enjoyment, and would not seek to deliberately or willingly disturb someone's privacy, I do regard that a significant degree of responsibility for remaining private is in the hands of the individual, and there has to be some acknowledgement of risk of privacy being disturbed when anyone enters a public arena such as a communal, collaborative website.

However, when vulnerable people (those who are under-age or with special educational needs, for example), use Wikipedia and we become aware of this, then - of course, we should do what we can to protect them and their privacy.

Yes, ArbCom records should be kept, as other records are kept of actions and decisions on Wikipedia. Yes, reasonable effort should be made to ensure privacy, and if appropriate, private details should be destroyed. In the same way that the rest of Wikipedia operates. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
ArbCom is part of Wikipedia, so the length of time for ArbCom records should be the same as with the rest of Wikipedia. As with the rest of Wikipedia, records should be accessible to all, apart from private details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

c) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
The Workshop page should be for discussing cases by ArbCom members. The page should be visible by all, but only editable by ArbCom (and Clerks). Private matters should be discussed in private, though with a note left on the Workshop page that a private discussion is taking place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

d) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
What is important is that we all learn from our mistakes. Unnecessary private details should not be kept. Necessary private details should be stored securely. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
My real name and identity is given on my user page. I am Steve Pereira, and I live in Rochester, UK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Division of responsibilities:
a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
ArbCom should be dealing with behaviour problems that impact the English encyclopedia and the en.wiki community. WMF should be dealing with problems that impact the website and the organisation. Where these overlap, it would be good to work together. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
ArbCom is part of the community. Closer working relationships and transparency would be of value. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
In any endeavour, there is the point at which the effort is not worth the reward, and to continue the effort is non-productive. It is appropriate to continually assess the effort/reward ratio so that our efforts are best put into the most productive areas. However, in a benefit-cost-ratio there may be a number of complex aspects, including unseen benefits, which need to be taken into account, so a decision may not be as simple as it first appears. However, it does help if whatever decision is made is made openly and with a clear and logical rationale. In short, if a user's contributions are seen to be more harmful than productive, they are unwilling to listen to reason and amend their behaviour, and they have been brought to ArbCom, they should be removed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A clearer answer is probably in the example I gave below of an individual who has done significant good works - many Featured Articles and policy building, but who also has a history of being disruptive and unpleasant. The good needs to be weighed against the bad, along with the willingness of the user to moderate their behaviour. It would be appropriate to make some attempt at keeping productive but problematic users, but also appropriate to remove such users when the damage they do overrides the good, and they are not responding positively to reason. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
It doesn't really matter if it is an individual or a tag team, if a user or groups of users' contributions are seen to be more harmful than productive, they are unwilling to listen to reason and amend their behaviour, and they have been brought to ArbCom, they should be removed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
In answering these questions I have tried to relate them to the role of ArbCom as much as possible. In this one I'm looking at disruptive behaviour that is not appropriately dealt with which can drive away productive editors, so Committee members should remember to look at the wider picture when dealing with cases. There should be appropriate consideration of both the immediate impact the parties in a case have had on other users (including those not actually named in the case), and the long term consequences of not dealing with that impact - the potential demoralisation of fatigued users. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
There were 15 cases amounting to over 200,000 words in 2011. I noted some of the cases, and had a personal interest in two, but did not read them all. Though there is value in using past cases as models of good and bad process when moving forward, each specific case would require different models as appropriate. A generic answer here in the time available would be cursory at best, and not an appropriate use of a candidate's time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
The community has frequently expressed concern about the slowness of arbitration, and the transparency. It is better to be slow and make appropriate decisions, than to be speedy but inaccurate. However, some means of speeding up a process and still being accurate is desirable. Looking in from the outside is not the same as being part of the machine, so proposals I make may not be realistic; however, reducing work-load by limiting the amount of evidence to be read may be a consideration. Limiting who can comment on an open case may be helpful. I would like to consider altering the perspective of the evidence page from anyone randomly submitting evidence, to arbitrators directly soliciting evidence and asking tight questions. The Questions to the parties section on the Workshop page is perhaps not utilised enough, and should be moved to the Evidence page. It may even be that the Workshop page could be made inappropriate for non-arbitrators, and that arbitrators could use that page to discuss the case more openly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question: #:A:

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

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

~~What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?~~
A: The time wasn't the issue, it was that it was a content case inappropriate for ArbCom. I was involved in that case as I mediated the discussion for a lengthy period, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change the question; it's not really fair for you to have to answer that. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2? --Rs chen 7754 22:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three months does seem a long time for that case. I've not read through it all, but it appears to be a fairly straightforward matter of users disagreeing over where a WikiProject template could be placed. Such disputes are not uncommon, and there is a guideline on the use of tags. It seems to me that there was a little bit of wrong and a little bit of right on both sides, and it's a shame that mediation was refused so it had to come to ArbCom. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
A: Not enforce. Any user or group of users can suggest and influence layout. I have a personal preference for consistency if possible, though I am not a slave to it, and if a group of users have thought about a particular layout and are suggesting such a layout for a related group of articles, then it makes sense to listen to that suggestion, and if in disagreement, to approach that body of users to enter into a discussion on improvements rather than to disruptively ignore those suggestions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
A: We are here to build an encyclopedia not to make friends. The priority is the quality of the encyclopedia. However, if a user's behaviour is such that they are disrupting the building of the encyclopedia without just cause, then they need appropriate sanctions. The encyclopedia comes before any individual user. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
A: If a person (topic expert, experienced Wikipedian, unregistered and new IP account, competent or incompetent person) makes an edit that doesn't progress an article, that edit can be removed or amended. It is the quality of the edit that matters, not who made the edit. If a person's edits are constantly being reverted and people are asking them to stop, then they tend to stop being involved in Wikipedia. This is, as far as I am aware, what research has shown. Indeed, we are encouraged to be more supportive of such users in order to prevent the drain in Wikipedia editors. I do follow the supportive approach to a certain extent, though I am more in favour of supporting users who show promise, than those who will suck up time for little or no reward. If a user continues to harm Wikipedia after being given not just warnings, but encouragement and support, then they should be stopped. Potty training can be tiresome, but we should at the very least point users to where the potty is before shooting them for not using it. Of course, if someone continues to piss on our floor after being shown where the potty is and how to use it, then they have to leave. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
A: I hope my answers to those questions have answered this question, if not, let me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
A: Not eliminating, but mitigating, yes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
A: When the community has made a reasonable attempt to solve a genuinely disruptive behaviour problem, and is now asking ArbCom to arbitrate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
A: When an editor has been disruptive for a long period, or massively disruptive for a short period, and has not listened to reason. Mitigation for the way the editor has been treated. If an editor made a good faith edit, and was then severely harrased by a group of users so they responded in like, I would be inclined to be more severe on the instigators of the bad behaviour. I would also support banning a user for sly, deceptive, subtle, bad behaviour as such behaviour can be difficult to deal with yet very corrosive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A: I am a conscientious person. Requests on my talkpage do get attended to (albeit rather slowly in the past few months). I would expect to do a reasonable amount of work throughout my term, though actual levels may vary depending on the demands of real life. I cannot promise high levels of activity for prolonged periods, and I fully understand this may be a serious hindrance to my appointment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
A: I love the Wikipedia community, and I feel that society at large has much to learn from the way we conduct ourselves. We learn, and respond and grow. And our community is built in such a way as to encourage that reflective expansion. We are the world's newest society, and we have taken the best from the real life and online societies from which we individually spring. And when the Encyclopedia Galactica writes about this period in history, it will not just be the birth of Wikipedia that will be mentioned, it will be also be the birth of the Wikipedia community. What are our problems? Perhaps that we don't trust and respect ourselves as much today as we did last year or the year before. How can we turn that around? Perhaps by being more supportive and encouraging. It is hard to do well when someone is looking over your shoulder ready to criticise. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Questions from NuclearWarfare

Note to readers and respondents

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

Core questions

Please describe your opinion on the following proposals in relation to Wikipedia's BLP policy: an expanded version of opt-out , "targeted flagging", and a more permanent version of the old pending changes trial. In your answer, please discuss your personal views on the pending changes trial: what you thought of it, whether we should ultimately implement some form of it (and if so, what form?), whether the community failed to come to a decision about it, and what you believe the role of the Arbitration Committee should have been.
ArbCom's responsibilities are laid out here. If the community wishes to extend those responsibilities to any of the areas you mention, then it would be appropriate to open a discussion on the matter. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe an experience you have had with a significant content dispute. If you have had any disputes where you felt that either yourself or another party was either not acting in good faith with respect to the neutrality policy or with regards to source gathering, I would be especially interested to hear about your experience. What do you feel you did incorrectly and how would you have realistically fixed that for future situations?
My experience with content disputes is almost exclusively in helping to resolve them, though your question is, I think, about my being a party to a content dispute. A recent significant dispute I was involved in as a party and acted "incorrectly", was Talk:The Beatles/Archive 25#the or The?, which went as far as being an ArbCom Request. There was no progress in the discussion. I called for consensus, and took as favourable those comments in support of an option I agreed with, and so actioned that option. The consensus, however, wasn't clear, and so my action wasn't accepted. I was involved in the discussion and so it was inappropriate for me to action such a close call; the better solution would have been to find an uninvolved third party mad enough to try and close such a trivial yet long running content saga. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my 2010 voting guide, I highlighted several quotes by other editors. Please select two from "On Administration" and state why you agree or disagree with them. Bonus points if you give reasons for your answers
I have just read User:Heimstern/ArbCom. I've not looked at past ArbCom decisions to see if the views hold up to examination, though they are worth discussing. Behaviour is usually related to content, so ArbCom decisions in cases are sometimes going to be related to content - if user A who is disruptive but adds positive content to article X, is banned, while user B who is well behaved but adds negative content is allowed to stay and edit article X negatively, the encyclopaedia loses out. I have heard variations of this view, and can see both sides of it. One, we are here to build an encyclopaedia, and while it helps to be civil to each other, the priority is the encyclopaedia. Two, that incivility can get in the way of collaboration which is at the heart of building the encyclopaedia. Each incident needs to be looked at individually, and it would be inappropriate to say that the encyclopaedia trumps conduct or conduct trumps the encyclopaedia. I tend to think along the lines of the effort-reward criteria. If user A's disruption is greater than user A's contribution then it is to the benefit of the project as a whole if user A is removed. If user B's contributions are negative, then they need to be encouraged to contribute positively. If they don't respond to appropriate encouragement, then they also need to be removed. While the Foundation is keen to retain users, we all know that it is not the amount of editors that matter, but their quality. Users who are disruptive should be removed along with users who continue to add negative content and refuse to listen to reason. We should only keep users who are a net benefit to the project. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that the policy on involved administrators using the admin tools should ever be relaxed to any extent? Does your answer change depending on whether general or discretionary sanctions are in place?
The most difficult bias to deal with is the hidden bias - the bias that we are not aware of ourselves. Being biased is not an evil - it is a part of the human condition. What is inappropriate, however, is not accepting that one is biased or might be. What is also inappropriate is feeling that only oneself can deal with an incident. If an incident is urgent, and no-one appears to be responding, then give someone a nudge, rather than do the action oneself, just to be sure. Exceptions would be blatant vandalism or serious BLP issues. And it is always down to an individual's judgement if they should do an action that might be criticised if they see it is in the best interest of the project - though they should alert someone as soon as possible to what they have done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Wikipedia, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?
The policy is written in such a way to distance Wikipedia from the person taking out a legal action. It is, essentially, a private matter between two individuals. The policy advises that the person taking out the action voluntarily withdraws themself, and allows for an admin to block the person, but I'm not sure where or how the Wikipedia community or the Foundation can get otherwise involved. It might be inappropriate for the Foundation to make an open offer to legally represent any Wikipedia user in a legal action as it's possible that the user may have acted illegally. We should be acting within the law. However, if there was a legal action against a user that threatened the operation of Wikipedia in some manner, or was pushing at the boundaries of our understanding of what we can legally do, such as use of images of paintings owned by an art gallery, then it would be appropriate (and expected) that the Foundation would look into the matter. Should the user who is being sued be encouraged to stop editing? Depending on the circumstances, that might make sense. Would ArbCom need to get involved? If there were a wheelwar over blocking the user being sued, then I can see that an ArbCom case/motion might be requested. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions

What is your opinion of specialized content guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Do you think it is a practice that we should encourage with other guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)?
I am in favour of the principle of guidelines - they steer us individually and as a group toward a mutual goal, reducing wasted time, effort and duplication. As with anything in life, though, there needs to be a balance. Too many guidelines can becoming stifling - the broader the field the more people are likely to want to cross it, and the more people will cross it successfully; offering a tightrope that splits off into multiple levels is too difficult and confusing.

WP:MEDRS appears to me to be unquestionably the right thing to do for that subject because of the potential impact for harm that incorrectly sourced data could have. The case for natural sciences and history is less obvious, though provided the guidelines are well written and have consensus they will be useful. Natural sciences appears to be a well structured guideline based on MEDRS, while history is yet to be developed. Provided there is no conflict with the central guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, I support such guidelines and will look to consult them myself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should have a policy for medicine and health in the same manner that we have WP:BLP for living people? What about for corporations?
As there is the possibility of distress or harm arising from our medicine and health articles then it makes sense for us to focus attention on such articles.

While I am not convinced that our articles on living corporations are likely to do the same sort of harm as those on living individuals, the principles of reducing negative impact would also apply. While we would hope that all Wikipedia articles are accurate, truthful and responsible, the reality is that we cannot monitor everything so we need to set priorities - living people and medicine are prime, and it would seem that organisations may belong in a secondary category, possibly along with ethnic groups, governments and nations. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy (1, 2). Do you agree or disagree?
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big (e.g. for major policy or software changes). Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it?
Some editors enforce the banning policy in a manner perhaps best described by {{BannedMeansBanned}}; others take a more lenient approach and only enforce the ban on what they believe to be "bad" editing. What is your opinion on this? Does the reason why an editor was banned have any impact in your analysis?

Questions from Sven Manguard

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

Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.
A I haven't looked back on ArbCom cases to agree or disagree on the "many", though from the ArbCom cases I have looked at or been involved with over the years, I would agree that there can be a battleground feeling to the process, so would I agree with the principle of your point. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?
A Disputes on Wikipedia are stunningly emotional affairs. Knowledge matters. How knowledge is perceived or projected matters intensely in a number of areas, particularly topics related to politics, religion and nationality. By the time a case comes to ArbCom the people involved may be very emotionally involved and upset, and may not be thinking straight. Firm guidance is needed to ensure that only pertinent details are included in a case. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Russavia

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

the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.
of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?

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

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

if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?
how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?

Thank you for the above questions. I have not been involved in that RfC so I am unable to comment on questions related to it. Regarding your last, more open, question, I think it is very helpful in general for people to learn from their mistakes. It is how the human race makes progress. This applies as much to Wikipedia as to does to inventing the wheel or developing space flight. It's a given. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification

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

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

set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what legal action anyone can bring against an account being banned that has violated a website's terms of use. Can you outline a scenario, and link to relevant sources that would support the possibility of legal action in such a scenario? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SandyGeorgia: ArbCom and mentor enabling of disruptive editors

With the vantage of hindsight, could you please discuss your role in the mentorship of User:Mattisse and your views on the handling of the matter by the arbs, what you believe might have been done differently or better if anything, your views on the effectiveness of the mentorship and the arbcase and on mentorship as a sanction in general when the community's patience is exhausted, and what you might do differently today in a similar scenario? In short, how was your role helpful in this situation? Specific diffs to actions you took would be instructive: I'm aware that you are one of the few mentors who was willing to block and extend blocks when disruption continued, but I still have concerns about arbs and mentors enabling disruptive editors; specifically, why did you pull out when it became apparent that the plan wasn't working (if that is why you pulled out), and do you believe the arbs "shot the messengers" and stifled evidence in the arbcase, which unnecessarily extended the case and the disruption? What are your views on Mattisse's long-standing and continued sockpuppetry relative to other editors who enable the behaviors? I will be putting up a voter guide this year, your candidacy is my only undecided vote, and your view from the vantage point of a year-and-half later will factor into my decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question Sandy. I referenced the Mattisse mentoring in my answer to question 1(b) above, and suggested there that I felt that the mentoring was unsuccessful; it is worth expanding on that brief comment. We did informally discuss together at the time the best approach to Mattisse and the questionable value of mentoring her, as you had already done that informally, and, though she had a great deal of respect for you, it hadn't worked. I took on board your uncertainties, but I felt it was worth trying, as there seemed little else on offer, other than removing Mattisse from the project. The positive-negative balance comes into play in situations like this. Mattisse was a prolific and valued contributor, but created significant problems with her emotional behaviour. Without help she was more of a negative than a positive. Could she be assisted so that the negative was removed? Possibly. Worth a try perhaps. And mentoring was a viable solution. Mentoring when done early on with a willing and responsive individual can be useful in gently guiding someone down the right paths. I think that when supervising has a tight and clearly defined role with a willing user there may be a role for it. However, the Mattisse experience, I feel, demonstrates that mentoring an individual who has demonstrated protracted behaviour problems, and/or is unwilling to be mentored, is so likely to fail that the effort-reward scale is weighted so far toward effort that the reward needs to be exceptional, and such a situation may be rare indeed. I would be very dubious about following such a route again. Faced with such a case today, I feel a long break for the user concerned would be the better option. At the time I felt that as Mattisse had not been directly disruptive to articles, she should not be banned, but what really matters, I think, is not a user's intentions or actions, but the impact of those actions. If the negative impact can be resolved by means other than banning, let's explore it, but if not, let's remove the cause of the impact. At the time part of what we looked at was that Mattisse was sinned against as well as sinner, and that mitigated in her favour. However, what we should have considered more closely was the amount of times Mattisse put herself deliberately in a position to irritate others to react to her.

A significant part of the problem with the mentoring was that the role was not structured by ArbCom, but was allowed to be created by Mattisse herself. I have said above that I feel ArbCom should be more proactive in cases - asking pointed questions, and requesting evidence rather than waiting for it to be delivered. In this case, ArbCom should have taken responsibility for drawing up any mentoring plan rather than leave it to Mattisse. I found difficulty in operating the plan as Mattisse saw the mentoring as there to protect her more than to steer her away from trouble, and I take some responsibility for that, as I had proposed there should be a "buffer zone" of mentors to act as a go-between between Mattisse and others in order to reduce misunderstandings and potential conflict. Mattisse did not take well to being guided away from problem areas, and seemed at times to see the mentors as her body guards so felt betrayed when her "body guards" chastised her. She reacted badly when I blocked her, and would send me numerous strong e-mails. As I was quite fond of her, these were not easy to take, but I felt I had to honour all sides of the agreement, and so continued to block her. When it was clear to me that Mattisse was not responding to the plan, I withdrew and felt that the plan should be dissolved and ArbCom informed. Her later sockpuppeting confirmed that she was a problematic person. Wikipedia has survived well enough without her, and life for those who came within her contact has no doubt been quieter! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the considered, complete and thoughtful response (I particularly agree that the failure of the arbs to structure the mentoring plan, instead letting Mattisse run the plan, resulted directly in the escalation of problems for all involved). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
A: I tend not to get involved in disputes regarding beer related subjects. I am a beer writer and an admin on the RateBeer website, so I am a little too involved in that topic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?
A: I would examine the reasons. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?
A: I would examine the reasons. Depending on how far the case has developed and how much I have already been involved I may consult with the other Committee members. If there is a valid reason for me to recuse yet I have been significantly involved in a case there may be a discussion as to the best course of action. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?
A: Committee members are part of Wikipedia community and so are subject to the same sanctions. One would hope that a member would observe some restraint in involvement in everyday matters so as to avoid the potential of being named in a dispute; however, if a member does get named, then being treated the same as everyone is to be expected. There may be a perception of a potential COI in the Committee ruling on a member, though how one would perceive the Committee's attitude might depend on how one views ArbCom as a whole - some people may feel that the Committee might be more lenient toward "one of their own", others may feel the Committee might be harsher under the principle that there is an expectation of higher standards from an ArbCom member. Whoever is being discussed, the same principles of openness and fairness must be applied, and the outcome should be focused on the continued smooth running of the encyclopaedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
A: I assume this to mean if I was a named party. The same principles would apply regardless of who is named. That member would not take part in the case as a Committee member. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
A: One would hope that a Committee member would refrain from getting involved as a party in disputes and would conduct themselves with care. Should that extend to not assisting in resolution? Hmmm. I think there is a time management issue here, and priority should be given to resolving the matters that come to ArbCom; however, if a member was very active and energetic and was able to spread themselves around without a problem, then I think that's fine. I'd like to see a member continue involvement in the rest of the encyclopaedia in order to "stay in touch". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
A: As above, I'd like to see a member continue involvement in the rest of the encyclopaedia in order to "stay in touch". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
A: I dislike incivility - I feel it wastes time and energy and drives people away from the project. However, I do understand the rush of blood to the head. We are not machines, and some of this knowledge that we are trying to present in as accurate and balanced a way as possible, actually means something to people. If User X makes mistakes with an article which may relate to User Y's faith or ethnicity or country or on which User Y has spent considerable time building to an acknowledged decent condition, and then User X refuses to listen to reason, a certain amount of emotion is understandable. This, however, can and does spiral out of control, so while I would take the circumstances into account, all incivility needs to be actively discouraged. It helps if there is an active system in place for dealing with disputes early on. A WikiProject is just starting up, which may look into this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Joe Gazz84

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

Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?
A: If you let me know specifically what part of my answer was not clear I'll be happy to expand. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?
A: The short answer is no. The Committee members are part of the Wikipedia community and as such individual members may suggest and take part in policy formation, and may bring specific ArbCom knowledge and experience to such discussions, but as a body, ArbCom is there to make binding decisions on disruptive behaviour, not to create policy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and it's surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?
A: Not discount or let off, no. However every case needs to be considered on the unique and individual circumstances - a person with a long history of disruption and who has added little of value to the project is likely to be treated more harshly than someone who has previously had good behaviour and has been of significant value to the project. A more awkward case would be an individual who has done significant good works - many Featured Articles and policy building, but who also has a history of being disruptive and unpleasant. The good needs to be weighed against the bad, along with the willingness of the user to moderate their behaviour. It would be appropriate to make some attempt at keeping productive but problematic users, but also appropriate to remove such users when the damage they do overrides the good, and they are not responding positively to reason. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)
A: Limits will vary with circumstances, both in terms of fatigue and knowledge. We can push our limits with appropriate preparation and experience, though it is appropriate to know when we are out-stretching ourselves and admit as much. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
A: Educational. I learn about human nature and human knowledge, and I learn about myself. I love learning. I love Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question from Martinevans123

If an editor creates multiple accounts to edit articles in different subject areas, not realising that this is in breach of WP:SOCK, how should he or she be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's allowable - see WP:Multiple Accounts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there no limit to the number of accounts one editor may hold, provided the edits made (only to ordinary articles) never overlap? Do you think such an editor should be blocked indefinitely without any requests for explanation at all? Martinevans123 (talk)

There are a number of qualifiers needed in order to answer your question. We do have the policies Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Username policy, as well as related guidelines and essays, such as WP:SPA, as listed in Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#See_also, which provide information. In general, the community is uncomfortable with people holding several accounts, though there are no rules specifying a limit. We don't say: you can have five accounts, but if you have six we'll block you; account use will come into play. If someone is constructively and positively using 100 accounts to make 100 Featured Articles, and they are not using these accounts inappropriately, there's no rule against it. But if someone is using one account to vandalise Wikipedia, we take action. Do we encourage someone to have multiple accounts? No, we don't, as we like accountability, and accountability gets difficult when tracking multiple accounts - especially if they are not declared. However, I think in order to answer your question properly you would need to become more specific. Do you have a particular situation in mind? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and for the very useful information. I may have a particular situation in mind, but I don't wish to get bogged down in specifc cases. Your response gives me a very good idea of your stance. And there is no question of vandalism here, just of multiple accounts all making useful edits to non-project space articles. Would you expect such an editor to be immediately blocked indefinitely with no explanation of any kind asked for? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]