Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Jclemens

Hi, I'm Jclemens, and I'm running for reelection after having served for two years on the committee. If reelected, I will continue actually implementing what I promised in last year's election statement: holding administrators and other long-term users accountable for conducting themselves by the same standards expected of every other user.

Needless to say, there are a number of users who fear this sort of evenhanded enforcement or dislike how I've gone about it for the past two years. If I am re-elected, it will be because enough voters choose to stick with a proven egalitarian who treats everyone fairly, than newcomers with untried promises. All of the unproven candidates would certainly do their best if elected—but with me, you know what you're getting into, and so do I. I'm not a politician—I won't parrot platitudes: the job is thankless, but I'd rather do it than leave it to others who haven't seen the things that I have.

I'm far from perfect, and that will undoubtedly be pointed out in great detail by those who don't like my approach, but what I am is forthright and consistent:

• I won't make promises, like absolute transparency or sweeping reform, that cannot possibly be kept.
• I've had a consistent philosophy of administration, and now arbitration, that has survived actually doing the job.
• The most ambitious plans I have are to actually make Wikipedia into a five-pillars kind of place, with more than lip service given to every one, where newbies are welcomed into the fold and educated, rather than treated as nuisances by vested contributors who have forgotten what it is like to try and comprehend this strange shared website.
• I still do as much content contribution as I can find time to—including half a dozen GA's and a DYK in the past year. Arbitrators are not the encyclopedia's masters, but rather its servants, selected for its most distasteful and responsible role.

As a sitting arbitrator, I am already identified to the WMF, and use User:Jclemens-public as my only alternative account for work on untrusted computers or connections.

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

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2012 candidate: Jclemens Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

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.

Note that my questions in the 2010 and 2011 elections remain available for perusal.

1. Skills and experience:

   a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?

   In addition to last year, and the obvious addition of a year's experience, I also finished my graduate training and now am a licensed medical professional, treating patients every day, which is yet more experience dealing with people from a position of both responsibility and accountability. Likewise, I have been completing a program for promotion to a volunteer fire officer position within my department.

   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 now served in a formal role for four years—two as an administrator, two as an arbitrator, with slightly over two years as an OTRS agent as well. I routinely contribute to policy discussions, but if you want to follow my participation in full cases, look to the past two years' worth.

2. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?

   There are essentially three reasons for ArbCom to take a case:

   • Someone is probably getting desysop'ed,
   • Someone is probably getting banned,
   • The committee finds it necessary to provide non-punitive advice on how similar situations should be handled in the future.

   In other circumstances, ArbCom shouldn't even take the case. I favor a greater proportion of the third sort of cases, so the community and administrator corps can see what we're thinking, but that hasn't happened in the immediate past term.

3. ArbCom Practices:

   a) ArbCom and policies:

   i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.

   No, ArbCom is not a policy making body, it's a policy interpretation body. The community retains the right to make policy, except where WMF (read: legal) considerations dictate policy to the community. In the latter case, the committee may be forced to interpret WMF policy and impose such interpretations on the community, but BLP and Copyvio are the only two areas where this has been relevant. Ultimately, the community's right to self-governance is limited by the WMF, who hold the purse strings for paying for our servers and bandwidth, but they try and avoid dictating terms to the community, trusting us to execute our shared vision to the best of our ability.

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

   The five pillars are a social contract. They are a description of expectations under which all contributors agree to work. We have different names and categories for people who cannot edit within one pillar or another, but refusal to abide by a pillar can be cause for banning. The ongoing health of the encyclopedia is ensured by our pillars—any one being eliminated or slighted causes the project to be off-kilter, and the lack of attention paid to the civility pillar is, in my opinion, the direct cause of our editor and administrator attrition problems.

   iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?

   BLP issues are a challenge for the entire community, not uniquely for ArbCom. As mentioned above, policy guidance in this area comes from WMF, because of the legal aspects of the topic. ArbCom deals within those constraints, and resolves disputes about BLP issues only when the community cannot. Given that things have mostly settled out, I don't see a strong likelihood that

   b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.

   ArbCom has historically referred these questions back to the community and has, in certain circumstances, established procedures for binding decisions to be made that contravene consensus can change in areas where ongoing disruption has made such a settling of the issue necessary to continue work on the encyclopedia.

   c) ArbCom and motions:

   i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.

   Motions are to be used to put the weight of the committee between a statement, sanction, or directive in situations where the majority of the committee believes that the facts are not sufficiently in question to start a case.

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

   ArbCom does not go looking for work. In fact, it's more often that one or more committee members will note an emerging dispute, but no one brings it to the committee for our intervention, than it is for the committee to take note of an incident and insert itself absent such an invitation from the community. The number of disputes that exist simmering, intractable yet not rising to the level of the committee, is probably not known by any one individual. Having said that, the committee receives appeals from community-banned members, the vast majority of which are declined because the community processes were substantially reasonable and fair.

   iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.

   I've commented appropriately in each motion when voting upon it. I'll comment separately on one particular recent motion, but editors can feel free to ask specific questions about specific motions from this year.

   d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:

   i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?

   Yes. History has shown that such information is often needed again in the future, and trusting any of it to tribal memory is inappropriate.

   ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?

   Forever, securely, and all current ArbCom members.

   iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?

   No. Deliberations should remain private, while final rationales for any decision remain made public. If civility toward arbitrators were increased, then deliberation transparency might be increased commensurately, but asking arbitrators to deliberate in public in the current climate is unreasonable.

   iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?

   We acted in the best interest of those whose privacy was at risk by not antagonizing the leaker and giving him or her any reason to share details that had not yet been leaked—and, to this point, still have not been leaked. Since those conditions (protecting material believed to be compromised but as of yet unreleased that we believe would harm living persons) still apply, that will be the entirety of my answer on the topic.

   v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?

   How I had self-identified to the committee internally became known as part of the mailing list leak. To date, I have not had any requests for more complete disclosure of my identity.

   vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?

   Anyone can and should see what's on-wiki. Off-wiki evidence is limited to the actual parties, not the community. The Timid Guy appeal was once case from this past year where we paid special attention to maximizing both transparency of the case and decision in general, and the privacy of the information specific to the real life identity of the user in question.

   e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?

   Previous decisions are referenced through reuse of principles, updating them to incorporate the community's updates to policy. That is sufficient, in my mind. Since the community writes policies, then ArbCom's reasoning needs to reference the community's intervening updates to policies.

4. 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?

   WMF provides infrastructure and fundraising. ArbCom settles editor conduct disputes. Nothing springs to mind that should be handled differently.

   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?

   The recent years have seen a large number of community-based sanctions, as the community has found reasonable processes to handle all but the most intractable cases. This is good, but it has also raised the stakes on the cases which ArbCom does take, so they tend to be very contentious.

5. Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.

   a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   Civil POV pushers exist, and should be dealt with by reliance on our sourcing and NPOV policies. The diversity of viewpoints and areas affected by such folks is such that it is impossible for ArbCom to even be aware of every case—this is a situation where the community as a whole must be the first line of response, and back up the editors who raise legitimate concerns.

   b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?

   Groups of editors associating together freely is not a problem--WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior is. When editors have an allegiance to a cause other than that of the encyclopedia itself, and that allegiance causes them to act against the best interest of the encyclopedia, we have a problem.

   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?

   Yes. We need to attract and retain editors interested in polishing other people's work. The need to create articles that don't yet exist has continued to dwindle, but the need to improve existing articles through sourcing, copyediting, and other polishing tasks. Other than by ArbCom's job of banning editors engaged in ongoing inappropriate conduct, however, there's no particular place for the committee in remedying this need.

6. Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   I think that the Timid Guy Ban Appeal case was a success in that found where the committee found common ground and despite some differences in our individual reasonings managed to come to a pretty unified front on the case outcome. The recent Malleus Fautorum clarification/ban motion is obvious to all as a poor outcome, dissatisfying to pretty much everyone.

7. 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?
   • Change voting so that all case and motion decisions are made on the basis of majority of voting committee members, not on the majority of active, unrecused editors. The latter/current situation biases the committee against any action in every case.
   • More of the committee's housekeeping functions should be devolved to the community in an appropriately considered manner. Discussions about BASC adding non-arbitrator community members have already been ongoing, and are a good start, but Wikipedia is too big to be run by a single committee of people. The right answer is probably to continue scrutinizing everything ArbCom does and question whether it really needs to be run or directly overseen by the committee. In many cases, there are plenty of other trusted long-standing community members who can do some of “our” job, to keep the centralization of power in and work burden on the committee to a reasonable level.

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:

For those of you who've come here to ask me about the Malleus Fatuorum incident, I've prepared an FAQ at User:Jclemens/Not a Wikipedian. Follow up questions prompted by that FAQ are welcome below. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

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

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

   A: On the long side. As I recall, the drafting arbitrator did a long look at sourcing for the various names, which I understand took a good bit of time.

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A: To ensure consistent coverage of a topic area. Note that wikiprojects are themselves neutral, and should not exist as a gathering point for POV-pushers.

3. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   A: Yes, inasmuch as some editors who have established relationships on-wiki will defend behaviors in their Wiki-acquaintances that they would find unacceptable in strangers. Such partisanship is often unintended and entirely possibly unrealized, because the editor defending the problem editor has experienced previous positive interactions with the problem editor, and sees the bad through the lens of previous good. The proper response is to ignore such partisanship and based sanctions solely on actual conduct, rather on friends or lack thereof.

4. Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?

   A: If the rest of the committee votes me out, or if the community convinces me that I'm unfit. I'm not here to make friends or be popular, as the last month or so has shown.

5. a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

   A: In most circumstances both parties are at fault to some degree, but not always. The community is really very good at settling out when some users are solely at fault, and those cases rarely reach the committee. Per my previous comments elsewhere, dual misbehavior is best addressed by dual sanctions, rather than cancelling sanctions.

6. ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?

   A: Sure, there's gray areas--we deal in them all the time. Generally, though, gray areas of admin abuse only come to light when an editor who knows how to present evidence frames a complaint showing a pattern of such. Given the momentum of the 2012 committee against getting involved unless a clear and well-presented complaint had been brought to us, I really hadn't considered going looking for admin abuse. It would be nice to have better insight, but with the additional work that would entail... I'm not sure how it would work. Just as an off-the-cuff idea, anyone is free to keep track of administrator misuse or borderline misuse of tools. As far as I'm concerned, every single Wikipedian has standing (law) to bring any administrator abuse to the committee: it's everyone's project. Like with the audit subcommittee, however, there's a corrective as well as a punitive function: the audit subcommittee's job is to make sure that actions taken by functionaries are the best possible: sometimes that means removing the advanced tools, but more often it means counseling folks that a particular action was sub-optimal and shouldn't be repeated. A balance between the two is necessary.

7. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?

   A: We don't control other sites. In fact, I was roundly rejected for the admin bit at commons when I ran after my initial election to the committee in 2010. I sought commons admin for the sole purpose of being able to see deleted edits made by contributors to en.wiki, which at the time were relevant to a non-public issue (pedophilia advocacy, I believe). So, I still have to take someone else's word for what goes on in Commons that isn't publicly viewable. Having said that, the committee can take action on other WMF sites into consideration when it is applicable, but obviously all we can do is ban users from this site, or support a global ban proposal in the event that one comes up and the Stewards ask us for input. If en.wiki-relevant evidence on another WMF site has been removed from public view by that site's leadership, I cannot foresee any circumstance where we would handle it in public.

8. What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?

   A: Fascinating read, thanks. As of yet, no arbitrator has been attacked in that manner, but there have been multiple other functionaries who have needed to seek legal relief against disgruntled people whom they have helped keep off of Wikipedia, and all editors should be very thankful that they have persisted despite such harassment. In my case, I rely on a particular combination of a) not being all that important of a target, and b) my own security measures. Given that other arbitrators are much more public with their identities than I am, I am also not the softest target amongst the committee. Security for a head of state is very different than security for a random millionaire, because the level of threat targeting differs so profoundly, and while you've made an excellent point for folks running for these positions to consider, I hope that the division of power into so many multiple members keeps our need for security within reasonable limits.

9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?

   A: Of course.

Thank you. Rschen7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question: a) what is your reaction to being blocked? b) to being unblocked? Without violating privacy and all that, what was ArbCom's reaction to c) the outburst, and d) the block/unblock? Finally, e) did you consider resigning after making that statement? I apologize for the pile-on, but I think these are important questions that need to be addressed in such a controversial case; for me the problem was sticking behind the comment when confronted by it. --Rschen7754 07:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) "Well, there goes my pristine block log." But then, my internal monologue is known to be rather quick to note the absurdity of situations even as they're occurring. It's obviously an incredibly inappropriate block: arbitrators are elected to pass judgement and speak our minds in doing so. The fact that User:Floquenbeam saw fit to even put himself forward as a candidate for the 2012 arbitration committee election commission in light of such a block-and-retire defies comment.

b) I was surprised at the timing and the source. I had never become familiar with the admin who unblocked me, and I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice and undo the block. 15 minutes seems par for an egregiously bad block, although it took someone four minutes to get around to unblocking Jimbo last time he was blocked on en.wiki.

c) No one on the committee had said that the way I said what I said was a good idea.

d) One committee member opined for an emergency desysop of Floquenbeam. Several others said it was a bad block, but had since been undone, and no formal motion was ever made on the topic.

e) Yes, I did. The level of vitriol was quite staggering, and User:Jclemens/Not a Wikipedian only goes into what was said directly on my talk page. This election is somewhat of a referendum on what I said--if I am hopelessly pounded into the dust in the upcoming election, then I probably should have resigned already, but distinguishing the larger sentiment from the louder sentiment is sometimes quite difficult.

1. Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.

   There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.

   How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?

   A: Consistency is actually more important than an arbitrary position on the spectrum. That is, editors and administrators need to be able to understand the expectations and where the boundaries are. Coordinating the expectations amongst a host of volunteer administrators and contributors is part of why the committee is elected to sort out intractable disputes that the community is unable to solve. More to the point of your question, the level of "rules" need to be variable: certain things are simply legal issues--like child porn or copyright--where discussion is pointless. Other things, like various aspects of the Manual of Style, are simply matters of preference and consistency, where there is no fundamental harm to the encyclopedia (other than maybe a waste of time...) if we all decided to up and change our methodology throughout the encyclopedia. Confusing the level of rules--and treating the fixed as malleable or malleable as fixed--leads to inappropriate emphasis and distraction from the purpose of the project. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. What does "Civility" mean to you?

   A: Civility is the ability to calmly and courteously debate and discuss with someone whose position you find entirely opposed to that which you hold most dear. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Thank you for answering those questions. In the light of your answer to question 2, would you describe your participation in this exchange as "courteously debating and discussing"? (I know it's a year old, but you were an Arb at the time).

   A: Answered last year, when it was actually a recent event.

1. How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?

   A: The size of the committee is built to handle such inactivity, as is appropriate for a volunteer project. Mid-term elections would be an incredible amount of work, so filling the vacancy at the next annual election seems the best balance between expedience and full staffing of the committee. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee (and I note you were on the Incoming mail team). Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?

   A: I've actually taken much more of a case management/workflow role in the second year of my committee membership, vs. doing incoming mail management. I was also a member of the technical team for a while, but I think we've disbanded that effectively due to lack of ability to do anything outside of WMF-provided framework. I haven't any interest in the initial triage of banned user appeals, and have not made any secret of that. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've read your take on the recent Malleus incident. It seems not to address one issue that arose; or if it does then I'm not really seeing it, sorry. I'd be interested to read your thoughts regarding when if ever it is appropriate for ArbCom to escalate a matter far beyond that which was reported to it. In this particular instance, a request for clarification of a fairly minor point snowballed into a motion to ban that came very close to passing and indeed at one point had sufficient support to pass. However, a more general response to this query is fine by me. - Sitush (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A: Arbcom escalated nothing by moving to ban Malleus Fatuorum. Please reread the part about the timing of the ban motion in relation to the "dishonest fuckers" comment and reassess who escalated what when. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to pile on another "Not a Wikipedian" question, but there are still some things that confuse me. On User:Jclemens/Not a Wikipedian you say:

"I failed to make my point effectively and offended a number of people whom I hadn't intended to offend in the process, so it's clear that I blew it. No better way to put it, really: I tried for something provocative, and ended up with something offensive. ... More subtly, I also did not intend the level of division within the committee caused by the phrasing I chose. That's something that the community as a whole will not see directly, but it's something that was real, and yet another unintended consequence."

These statements lead me to wonder:

1. Do you feel you have done enough, quickly enough, to repair the damage you clearly accept your comments caused?

   A: My efforts were focused on not causing any additional disruption, rather than repair, and for a particular reason: The quotes in my FAQ show the level of rhetoric directed against me, and my general rule is that when I'm being compared to a Nazi, a Fascist, an abortionist, and espousing beliefs that have "been responsible for every war and every atrocity in human history", then the level of actual listening is sufficiently low that I'd be better off waiting to try and explain myself.

2. Do you think you will have the support of the rest of the committee if re-elected, given the division you mention (and have you asked them)?

   A: I haven't asked them. The committee is selected by the community as a whole, and has some of the problems of any board of commissioners or a city council: we don't get to pick whom else serves with us. I certainly have my preferences, as do all the rest of the candidates, but when we are picking our peers, we only have our own votes.

3. Thank you. I'm grateful that you invited these follow up questions in your introduction - the responses are invaluable, in my opinion. One final follow up, if I may:

At what point do you feel that "unintended consequences" caused by an elected functionary become sufficient that said functionary should either resign, or be removed from the role, and in the case of ARBCOM, what do you think the procedure for such removal should be, absent resignation?

A: If a functionary were to materially violate their responsibilities, such as breaching confidentiality, then a resignation or removal would certainly be appropriate. "Elected functionary" is really a curious construction, though, as arbitrators are the only ones in that boat--bureaucrats, checkusers, and oversighters are not subject to periodic election, so I've answered in the most general case.

Thanks for your patience. I'm sorry that you didn't find my "construction" easy to follow - I'll reword the question and see if that helps you to answer both parts:

At what point do you feel that "unintended consequences" caused by an elected member of WP:ARBCOM become sufficient that said member should either resign, or be removed from the role, and what do you think the procedure for such removal should be, absent resignation?

A: Resignation is a matter for personal conscience to decide. Removal is a matter for the rest of the committee to decide. The procedures that I've seen used effectively were the resignations of Chase Me for a new conflict of interest when he was hired by WMUK, and the removal of Iridescent after prolonged incommunicativity to open up a seat for the community to replace at the next regularly scheduled election. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you. If you do think of any answers for the parts you didn't address, such as whether you think you would have the support of the rest of the committee, or elaborating on what kind of repair you feel you might do once you think people are listening to you enough, then that would be marvellous, but thank you very much indeed for the answers you have given, I apologise for the cross-examination, and good luck.

1. You are one of the few Arbcom members who has contributed audited content in the past year. Do you feel that this has affected the way that you approach your duties and decisions as an Arb? If so, how has contributing content made you a better member of the committee?

   Well, yes and no. I am one of the odd people--and I wish there were many more of us--who actually take pleasure in polishing up someone else's work. I'd rather take an article from B to GA than start a new one and do it up from scratch to GA, because there's relatively a lot less effort involved in the previous effort than the latter. On the other hand, my continuing efforts to work in content contribution are part of how and why I stay involved in the site. If you look through my contributions, you'll see occasional random articles where I've fixed something out of the blue... because I was using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and I saw a problem that needed fixing, so I did it. I would never devote the time and effort I have to Wikipedia if I didn't use the encyclopedia itself on an ongoing basis. I'm a creator occasionally, a reader quite often, a maintainer reasonably often, and an improver as much time as I can spare... except for the big chunk of my time that goes into ArbCom work. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. When you say in your FAQ, "I want to see a Wikipedia where conflicts of ideas are handle (sic) as conflicts of ideas, without the distraction of name calling", how do you square that in your heart of hearts with your own recent well-documented name-calling?

   If saying "you're not welcome to edit here any longer" is name calling, then ArbCom could not do its work without a personal attack. I get that many people don't like my novel way of explaining my vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum, but if I had thought it was name calling, then I wouldn't have said it.

2. Does your answer to Sitush's question imply an acceptance of the principle of two wrongs make a right?

   Nope. Although your question does seem to imply that removing an editor who would say such a thing would be a second wrong instead of ArbCom's actual job, which is what I believe it to be.

3. What do you think of the stance of those users like myself who have gone on strike pending your removal from Arbcom?

   It's a volunteer project. You have the right to criticize me for expressing my beliefs in any appropriate manner you see fit, and deciding to not volunteer is entirely non-disruptive to the project. I hope you're using whatever time you've withheld from Wikipedia in another effort to make the world a better place--Wikipedia is far from the only one.

4. Given your defence of the extension of the clarification to a ban in that case (see number 2) and your calling another user a non-Wikipedian, something which caused major drama and dissent, would you stand by your statement in your FAQ that you would not recuse from further cases involving that user? I ask as a point of principle rather than wanting to talk more about that particular case.

   I'm not understanding what was unclear about my statement, which you have paraphrased but not entirely summarized here.

5. Do you see Arbcom as being part of the community or as being a sort of ruling elite? How do you see this developing in the future?

   ArbCom has always been part of the community, because we are beholden to the community on an annual or bi-annual basis, something that no other position except for board-member-at-large requires, unless I'm overlooking something.

6. How do you stand on the dimension of retribution versus restorative justice?

   Restorative justice? It's an excellent idea, but in a volunteer society where, for example, you are free to not participate because you don't like something I said, how do we enact it? There is nothing I like to see more than a sincere apology and a desire to work together. Some of my most rewarding relationships on Wikipedia are those I have with editors with whom I've previously disagreed, and yet we have managed to find common ground and work together on things. If you have ideas on how to implement restorative justice, I'm sure I would be far from the only candidate or committee member interested in them.

7. Thank you for your answers. Couple of follow-ups from me; on (1) when you say "if I had thought it was name calling, then I wouldn't have said it"; do you now accept that it was "name-calling" or its equivalent? That's a rather equivocal answer and I would like some clarity on where you now stand on your own conduct during that case. If it was ok to say what you said, and you stand by it, that would explain your answer to number (2), but please clearly state this so we know where we are. If on the other hand you regret how you handled the situation, wouldn't that normally require some kind of apology or at least closure? You say (in (6)) that you approve of restorative justice after all; what better than to model it in your own actions? Finally, can you just clarify your answer on (6) a little; are you saying that Wikipedia as a community (which you say Arbcom and its members are part of in (5)) is not yet ready for restorative justice, even though you yourself think it's a good idea (or do you?) I'm sorry, but your answers just raise more questions for me about your philosophical and temperamental suitability for this job.

   I accept that others believe in good faith that it was name calling. I've already said that the underlying premise--that one really needs to abide by all five pillars to continue to edit here--is sound, but the expression could clearly have been improved.

   As far as restorative justice, feel free to paint me a picture of how that would work. Right now, the committee exists (in large part) as a means to ban those who cannot otherwise be banned by the community due to disagreements that preclude consensus. Banning people is not retributive, to take up the other half of your original point, but protective: by removing disruptive participants from the project, the remainder of the community is free to continue working on the encyclopedia without their disruption. Now, if those same bannees come back with genuine contrition and wanted to work to undo the harms previously done, I'm all for it. I love the idea of a valiant return triple crown. I wish I saw more of that in practice. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Suppose that a user with a clean block-log and good content contributions (let's say 10 FAs) confided to you that they were actually evading a ban made several years ago for seriously disruptive behaviour. Would you tolerate their continued contribution to the project per ignore all rules, as their absence from the project would be clearly detrimental to the wiki, or expose them on the grounds that any tolerance of ban evasion is disruptive because it weakens the strength of community bans ? Claritas § 14:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Absent any truly compelling reason to the contrary, (e.g., WP:CHILDPROTECT) I would find the content work an appropriate basis for the committee to lift the previous sanction. If anyone can work through the FA process--something that I've never managed to do myself--with all its nuanced rules and expectations, and the large number of other contributors who must be successfully wooed (or at least mollified) in order for an article to be promoted, as well as keeping their conduct so circumspect that no one has detected their previous incarnation, that would seem to me to be compelling evidence of their suitability for having the ban lifted. Obviously, it'd be better for the person to have asked first, but I'm answering the situation as you posed it. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Question: What are your plans if you aren't returned to the committee? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A: Wikipedia is big and diverse enough that there are plenty of other things to be done. I don't exactly have a Wiki-Bucket-list, but I think the first thing I'll do is take a week of vacation, and then get on about the following, in no particular order:

   • Increase my OTRS activity, especially in the oversight queue since I hold those tools.
   • Finally kick off a "Midas award" for people who rescue content from deletion discussions and actually get them to DYK, GA, or featured status.
   • Get Game of Thrones (season 1) to FL (and hence a good topic, which would be my first...), and then go about doing the same thing (GA promotions -> Good Topic/FL) for Game of Thrones (season 2).
   • Become active in the things I used to do that I've let essentially cease while I've been an arb, including WP:3O, article rescue, and a few Wikiprojects.
   • Increase my participation with WP:MEDRS somewhat.

   ... and NOT deal with civility enforcement.

Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closes

1. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.

   I am. I have never participated in it because it is newer than my tenure on the committee, and I thought it inappropriate for arbitrators to seek to involve themselves in such processes, knowing that they could eventually be asked to adjudicate disputes regarding associated matters.

2. There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review regarding review of closes of requests for comment.

   Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?

   Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."

   Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.

   Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?

   To be honest, I hadn't even been aware that non-admin RfC closures were a regular thing. In general, the rule on AfDs was that NACs were only for entirely non-controversial outcomes and yes, any admin could overturn any NAC at any time. I question why non-administrators who are actually effective at reading consensus in RfCs aren't already administrators--I understand that the process appears to have gotten even harder since I stopped watching it, but I haven't participated in it in a while. I don't have any strong feelings on this matter, but agree that it sounds like community clarification of the policies would be appropriate.

3. The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?"

   Deletion discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5#Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#NAC, supervote and vote counting for several recent examples.
   
   Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Move review, or something else.

   I actually favor something along the lines of an RFCCOM, equal peers with ArbCom, elected by the community in a similar fashion, with the scope to 1) assume responsibility over any RfC closure by vote of their membership, and 2) Close such RfCs with community authority--that is, these trusted individuals would be the interpreters of policy questions that seem intractable to the community itself because of conflicting issues or whatever. Establishing such a body would enable binding decisions on content (since RfCs can cover content) and policy, which would reduce the focus ArbCom somewhat, since ArbCom's policy-interpretation role is limited to user conduct.

Transparency

• Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
  1. Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.

     Well, I used to think that off-wiki discussions allowed for more candor, for arbitrators to simply exchange ideas as peers, but recent turns of events have made me question whether that is even achievable in the face of serious disagreements over the best course forward for the encyclopedia.

  2. If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.

     I'll defer on this one, since I'm actively reconsidering my views in light of the past month's events.

Recusals

1. In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.

   See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk regarding this case request.

   See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."

   Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.

   Yes, that's the "fouling the ref" problem. I draw recusal requirements very narrowly, and allow for arbitrator judgment to range beyond those limited requirements using common sense.

2. Former arbitrator Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.

   What you describe sounds appropriate. Are you asking for a specific set of recusal topics? I'm not at all convinced that that is necessary. There are plenty of on-Wiki ones that are well known, as I tend to be a mergeist in AfD discussions, and have butted heads with, say, User:Tarc such that I've previously publicly said I would never vote on matters involving him. The key thing about such disagreements is that they stem from work on the encyclopedia, not my role as an admin or arb. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

1. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley?

   If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?

   The consensus is clearly keep. Several arguments are made that eviscerate the BLP1E arguments, and the numbers are quite clear that the community has rejected such arguments. Having said that, such an article would have to be watched closely for BLP issues--but that's not an issue for deletion, but protection--and could also reasonably argued to be merged--but that's not really an outcome supported by the AfD discussion you posted.

2. After considering Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley?

   Overturn.

3. WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.

   Do you realize I am the initial and primary author of Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual? The consensus at that AfD was that coverage was ongoing and extended before and beyond the one event, and that she wasn't a low profile individual.

4. The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).

   (a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?

   I hadn't even noticed that before, nor ever given it any thought previously. I work in DRV more than other reversal processes, so the "default to sustain the closing decision" is the corner of Wikipedia I'm most familiar with.

   (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?

   I don't know; that sounds like a great discussion for the community to hash out.

5. When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.

   Policy is descriptive, not normative, so that if the vast majority of users (absent any sockpuppetry or immutable legal constraints) reject a policy argument, it would appear that policy as documented doesn't cover that eventuality. Repeated AfDs where the community rejects one interpretation, including the explicitly written "rules", have led to revision of the written policy. Needless to say there is a fine balance between this, but when you have 2/3rds or more of the community rejecting "the" interpretation of policy, there would appear to be a disconnect.

6. Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?

   More the first, but there is something of a balance involved. If there's a majority to keep a copyvio through some strange twist of people ignoring an AfD, then the closing admin should G12 the article: that's not up for discussion. If, on the other hand, a majority finds that a fair-use rationale is adequate, while a minority argues that NFCC #8 is not met, then the majority should prevail, because that is a part of the copyright policy that depends on community interpretation.

7. Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?

   I would have supported in part and opposed in part. The fourth bullet, "That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources;" is not just wrong, but it's dangerously wrong in that it presumes a false sense of "safety" for sourced BLPs. Sourcing and damage are completely orthogonal: There can be sourced, damaging statements; sourced, innocuous statements; unsourced, damaging statements; and unsourced, innocuous statements. Editors need to use their brains to figure out whether a statement is damaging or not, and react accordingly, regardless of sourcing. I wrote WP:COREBLP to try and articulate this principle.

Note and thank you

I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to #RfC closes and #Transparency, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.

Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.

How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Committee solidarity is a worthwhile goal, but I haven't really seen it in practice lately, and for reasons that you, Risker, are directly aware of, so the question has a good bit of inherent irony. If I am reelected, I will continue to do what I've always done: Acknowledge the decisions of the majority, while not pretending that my own opinion is malleable on the basis of the rest of the committee's actions. The committee does not speak ex cathedra on anything, and is wrong a good bit of the time. Pretending otherwise does no one any favors. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am located in the U.S. Pacific timezone, and am active usually in the afternoon and evening local times, with occasional access at other times of the day. My availability for email access exceeds that for on-wiki access. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. You have recently objected to an email of yours being privately forwarded by another arb to recipients involved in the election (rationalized as a form of "whistleblowing" to get input on what she saw as inappropriate behaviour on your part). However, in spite of your statement here that "the only email sharing I've done is my own", you had earlier publicly posted emails from several senders without first seeking (that you've said) their consent or approval as a means of explaining/bolstering your position on a particular issue; your reasoning, when others objected, read in part "My personal take on email has always been that there is an implied license to forward any email given to the authorized recipients". In light of this:
   1. What are your views on privacy/confidentiality of communications, as applied to all editors?

      Elen's forwarding was a violation of the explicit rules regarding confidentiality. I addressed the emails to a WMF mailing list, designated for committee members to facilitate work, which has an explicit privacy policy to which all members agree before participating. To compare a violation of a specific agreement to general email privacy principles is an apples to oranges comparison.

1. 1. When, if ever, is it appropriate to forward or post messages from a closed mailing list? To discuss such messages on-wiki, whether posted or not? Note that arbcom-l is not the only list to which this question could apply.

      Different mailing lists have different agreements, but in general, mail sent to a closed list stays in that closed list, unless permission has been given by the author for redistribution outside that list.

1. 1. You stated here in relation to this issue that "future committee members will be able to go back and review the arbcom-L traffic". What are your views on current or future ArbCom members reviewing archived list traffic where it is not directly relevant to a case request, given that they were not authorized recipients?

      The list is an arbcom business list. The newly elected arbitrators have a need to know what has gone on before to be effective in the performance of their duties, and archives are specifically maintained for that explicit purpose. After the previous leak, the retention rules were adjusted to eliminate the retention of messages beyond a reasonable use horizon.

2. You have recently been the subject of at least two community-led "no confidence" motions, one of which received two-thirds support.
   1. Are arbs accountable to the community (outside of elections), the rest of the committee, neither, or both? Under what circumstances and using what mechanism should an arb be "impeachable", in your opinion?

      The feedback routes and removal procedures for arbitrators are clear. The fact that an arbitrator who admitted improperly disclosing confidenrital material and then made misleading statement in the ensuing investigation, still remains on the committee demonstrates that there is perhaps too strong a protection against removal for cause.

1. 1. Should arbs informally (ie. not in a committee motion) censure other arbs on-wiki, off-wiki, both, or neither? What advantages/disadvantages do you see to each approach that guide your response?

      Discussing how things went well or badly is in the nature of the job and off-wiki discussions. Off wiki discussion gives arbs the freedom to speak candidly, without fear their words will be used against them... unless that confidentiality is violated. Censure is a formal method for a body to express disapproval with a member that does not rise to the level of expulsion.

1. 1. Under what circumstances (other than obvious compromise) could an arb be blocked or otherwise sanctioned for edits or statements on an AC-related page?

      I believe that arbitrators should be accountable to other arbitrators for their actions on ArbCom pages.

1. In a controversial email to arbcom-l, you stated that you "don't want to serve on a committee half-full of people who obstruct appropriate discipline".
   1. What will your reaction be if both you and those you planned to be "actively campaigning against" are elected? Given the disapproval with your actions expressed by certain members, do you feel you can still work effectively with them?

      The only candidate who met that criteria is Elen. If she is elected despite her admission of violating list confidentiality, it will really fall to the 2013 arbitrators to deal with her--if she and I were both reelected, I would be recused on matters relating to her misconduct.

1. 1. More broadly, given your strong views on certain issues, do you intend to abide by committee decisions even where you disagree with them? What about community-determined norms and expectations?

      Why is this even a question? I've been on the committe for two years now, disagreeing in part with almost every decision, and never once have I had a problem being outvoted. I'm curious: do some folks not understand how one can be stridently outspoken, and yet willing to work within a consensus model? My entire Wikipedia existence has been characterized by willingness to work with others despite me espousing a strong viewpoint and consensus not upholding it. C.f. my recent participation in the Muhammad Images or "Verifiability, not Truth" discussions.

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never met another dedicated Wikipedian--one who has made any number of substantial edits, created any audited content, or held a position as an administrator or higher--in person to the best of my knowledge. I have used Skype to confer with individuals and groups of arbitrators, and IRC and email to communicate with other Wikipedians, but that is the extent of my off-wiki connection to other Wikipedians. I've been interested in going to local meetups or Wikimania, but have never managed to get to any of them--I'm a busy kind of guy, and I tend to sneak Wikipedia time in whenever I'm not doing something else. In the Wikimania case, I was simply not able to take off from my clinical rotations.

This has the disadvantage, or advantage, that I see Wikipedians just like any other user does. I'm not there in person to make good impressions or bad, nor is my impression of a user's on-wiki conduct ever biased by more personable (or unfavorable) exchanges we may have had in person. As I understand it, I am substantially unique among ArbCom in this respect. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the decision blocking User:Will Beback, arbcom ask the community for guidance on the Conflict of Interest guideline and the issue of paid editing. You started an RfC in line with this request and then campaigned for the guidance to be, roughly, "an editor's paid status is irrelevant," at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI#View_by_Jclemens

• a) Do you still feel that an editor's paid status is irrelevant?
  • Yes. Pay can be a POV motivation, but need not always be so--consider grant-supported Wikimedians in residence: some of the sillier COI proposals would have banned them from editing Wikipedia! NPOV and pay can be orthogonal, even though all four groups are not the same size: NPOV paid editors (Wikimedians in residence), POV paid editors (unethical PR flaks), NPOV non-paid editors (most casual Wikipedians), and POV non-paid editors (POV pushers, True Believers, whatever you want to call them) all exist. Pay is not the problem; POV is.
• b) Is that your current interpretation of Wikipedia's rules?
  • I haven't seen any change or actively participated in any discussions since that RfC. Since I'm not a paid editor and no paid editing matter was before the committee, I haven't followed it all that closely, but I do not believe our policies have changed recently.
• c) Don't you think that an arb campaigning in that RfC, after the arbcom's request for guidance, was improper?
  • Not at all. Arbs neither get a bigger voice in policy decisions, nor lose the one they already had before their election. If you'll look carefully at that and other policy RfCs, you can see multiple arbitrators opining on different sides of pretty much every policy debate Wikipedia has.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?

The arbitration committee really is inaptly named. It's not GOVCOM because 1) it doesn't want to be, 2) it takes "not GOVCOM" very seriously, and 3) the community wouldn't let us anyways. It also isn't dispute resolution, and hasn't been for a long, long time. What happens is that all other dispute resolution venues have been tried, and then ArbCom happens. Some arbs have a sufficiently high view of their own ability and/or a sufficient low view of the community's own efforts at dispute resolution that they see their job as yet another dispute resolution body. Thus, we get ArbCom rulings that take people who've done the same thing over and over and over again--and I'm thinking Betacommand at least as much as Malleus Fatuorum here--and say "please stop that". Really? We wasted a case and the associated effort, on top of that of all the previous warnings, admonitions, and sub-ArbCom processes to say "please don't do it again, and we really mean it this time"?

No, the most important public job of ArbCom is to settle conduct (not content, conduct) disputes by banning the people who cannot be banned by the community because the editors who are disrupting the project have enough partisans on their side to preclude any community ban motion from finding consensus. The community sets policies, within the framework of the pillars, and then we are the ones hired to implement them in an impartial way, and take the abuse from the banned editor's friends, because the community values the right to criticize authority more than it does in treating the process or the people with respect. Mind you, I don't necessarily think that's bad, but it does tend to select for arbitrators who are too timid to do that job right, or folks like me who err on the other side of being too tone deaf to real criticism after we've been hated on for so long.

So yes, ArbCom is a political body, as can be seen from the political machinations that resulted from my allegedly-too-political post. But political doesn't necessarily mean governing. I like the fact that ArbCom's scope is limited, and really think another, entirely separate body should be created to settle CONTENT disputes, which are right now allowed to fester unresolved until there's enough CONDUCT involved to open an ArbCom case. There's gotta be a better way to do that. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the recent issue involving leaked messages on the mailing list, is there anything you wish you had done differently? --Mors Martell (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I expressed myself appropriately, and the fact that multiple other arbitrators overreacted so badly that one violated the confidentiality of the list and a couple more made up a rationale afterwards to justify the leak really isn't anything I ever had any control over. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: 1) Do you think it's appropriate for an admin to close an RfC/RfM when said admin had previously participated in an AN/I report discussion, supporting the resulting indef-block for a highly vocal party to the mediation from which the RfC originated? 2) Assuming that a) this has in fact happened, and b) you indeed think it's inappropriate, what then would you suggest as a remedy? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: This sounds like you have a very specific scenario in mind, so it would be, in general, better to hear the specific scenario. But 1) it depends on how the indef block was called for: if the admin was originally a neutral admin who came in to settle and enforce a decision vs. a participant who just happened to have an admin bit, the answer is very different. The general remedies for INVOLVED closes is that the close is rolled back and closed by an impartial admin. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or more of a request: I'd appreciate it if you'd take part in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire, or if you decline, say here why you consider this questionnaire not to be worth your time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: if the community can't even manage to ban an editor who calls another a "dishonest fucker" after a history of repeated civility violations, then there's really no point in talking about civility nuances. When a comment that every single good faith editor should agree is beyond the pale from an editor who has been repeatedly admonished for civility breaches results in no action from the arbitration committee, then there's a clear failing of the arbitration committee to effectively sanction poor user conduct, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:

   1) editor has a positive contribution record, 2) editor's problems are limited to one area, and 3) evidence suggests that the editor will abide by the restriction and continue to contribute positively outside the problematic area.

2. on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?

   I think that every arbitrator should have both an understanding of game theory and an unassailable commitment to the long-term health of the project. So many people get caught up in the minutiae of particulars, when the really important question each arbitrator should ask is not "What is the most X outcome" (where X == fair, just, equitable, supported, consensus, or something else) but "What outcome best supports the health of the encyclopedia?" They're not always at odds with each other, but my experience is that arbitrators and the community are often focused on the wrong question.

3. to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)

   We really can't. It's like private property where anyone is invited, until they're disinvited, and then if they come back after being disinvited they're trespassing.

4. do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?

   Nope. We don't restrict anyone's freedoms when we forbid their ongoing contribution. I wish all the Wikipedia bannees since time began the best in their future productive endeavors. There are some who should actually be in jail for real-world harassment, but they are a sparse few compared to those who are just simply not suited to the interaction expectations, and that large group of bannees are the ones to whom I wish the best in their other endeavors: being unsuited to Wikipedia interactions doesn't make someone a bad person.

5. do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?

   I think we're too far afield of the election's questions and giving a complete answer to this one would take far too much time.

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.

   A: Not in the least. Profanity online is absent the non-verbal contexts, let alone the cultural contexts, where two editors can be reasonably certain that their message will be understood in the sense in which it was intended. Profanity in discussions isn't a bad idea because it's profanity per se, profanity in discussions is a bad idea because it's ineffective communication. Furthermore, what "same level" are we aspiring towards? I would prefer that all discussions center on how to best produce an encyclopedia, not on mutual denigration.

Many thanks for your answer, with which I wholly concur. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Earlier this year, after you had posted an untruthful slur about me, related to case you officiated on, I suggested that your retract and apologise. You appeared to offer me the choice between an apology or a "retrial" of my case. Can you explain this apparently bizarre behaviour? Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
   

Nope. I can't possibly explain what never happened. And the election closed nearly a day ago, didn't it? So why are you asking now? Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough because I believed you might answer. You said

You're asking for two things: an apology and a redo of part the case. Which is more important to you? Pick one, and only one, if you want to continue the conversation. Jclemens (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am mystified why you would not withdraw and apologize for an accusation that you had made up out of thin air, or at best on a technical misunderstanding, any reasonable person would do this at the drop of a hat. It might also be a useful lesson to us all that what I remembered about this incident was not the details of what you initially did wrong, nor indeed the consequence of it, if any, but this amazingly arrogant and outlandish "pick one" statement. I would still be interested if you do have any justification for this, though I cannot see one. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I set a condition you didn't like (picking one item and declaring it to be most important) in order to continue a conversation. You didn't like the choice, but that's really no excuse for pretending that my question in any way offered you a retrial. Each of those statements held a poison pill that I presume you correctly discerned: if you said the apology was more important than reopening your sanctions, I would have given the apology and you would have shown yourself to be a liar if you'd continued pressing for your sanctions to be revised. If you'd said that the sanctions were the most important outcome, I would have gladly proposed an assuredly-soon-to-fail motion to reopen your sanctions. Either way, your attempt to use your being offended at a single comment of mine as a lever to invalidate the duly enacted sanctions against you was not going to succeed. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't offended, nor am I offended (nor impressed) now that you reveal the duplicity behind your faux offer. Neither an empty apology nor an empty proposal for a reopening of the case would have any value to either of us. This sort of games playing is worse than those who continue to hold their positions after they have been conclusively shown to be wrong. And while I did not divine your exact motivations, it was apparent that you thought yourself in some way extremely clever in offering some variant of Morton's fork, apparently unaware that such actions stink to high heaven to us less Machiavellian mortals. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think I also made it perfectly clear that I was seeking to avoid having additional falsehoods baked into the matrix of the Wiki, as has happened in the past, where failing to challenge them robustly has meant they are taken as true. Where you got the idea that I was, by this act, trying to "invalidate the duly enacted sanctions" other than your own fevered imagination is, and doubtless will remain, a mystery. Rich Farmbrough, 16:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]