Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/RegentsPark

In my opinion, Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia and the success of our project is measured by the quality of our content (largely how accurate and complete our information is) each time a user types a search term and peruses the Wikipedia article that pops up. The impact of a decision or action on content should therefore be the prime consideration for any editor who cares about Wikipedia. But content does not appear magically, it is created by a vast network of editors through a process of collaboration and conflict, both of which are important in assuring the accuracy and completeness of the information we provide. Arbitration is not therefore merely a process of discovering who is right or wrong or good or bad or what's fair or unfair, but rather it is an act of intervention in the collaboration and conflict process in a way that helps us perform our content mission better. It is an important role because open issues and conflicts need to be resolved so that the project can move forward but it is also a limited one since consensus is primarily decided by the community (based on our policies and guidelines which, too, are decided through a collaborative consensus building process).

I am, by nature, a deliberative person with a minimalist bent and believe that one should act decisively, but only when necessary. I am not easily upset. When I make a mistake, I'm more than willing to recognize it, to apologize if that is necessary, and to do my best to move things along. Other than a dislike for tendentious editing and the belief that dealing with these sorts of editors is where we're doing a poor job, I don't have an antipathy toward any sort of editor whether they be content producing mavens, agenda driven pov producers (as long as they're not overly tendentious), wikispace focused editors, or just regular editors (and that's where I place myself) trying to add the little they know to Wikipedia. I believe all of these types of editors are necessary elements of our microenvironment and, properly managed, add value to the encyclopedia.

These are the perspectives and qualities that I offer to you when you make your choices amongst the various candidates. Because of the holiday week where I live, I may be a bit slow in responding, but I will try to answer every question put to me.

I've been editing here since late 2007 and became an admin in February 2009. I'm well (really well!) over 18 and will willingly disclose my identity to WMF if elected. I haven't edited under any other names. Thank you.

• RegentsPark (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: RegentsPark 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.

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?

   Off-wiki, I've worked and done reasonably well in an industry known for its decisive (though, admittedly, sometimes dramatically disastrous) decision making. I am older than most editors and have no desire to prove myself to anyone so don't expect me to go around shooting from the hip! I'm a fairly collaborative sort of person who prefers to see the good side of everything but, as a unreconstructed academic, have a healthy respect for sources and believe that sources and weight trump being nice.

   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.

   Let's see. I started out as an active WP:3O participant, a process I quite enjoyed. I've helped out as a mediator in at least one case (can't recall which one). I've closed many many move requests, some quite contentious and some, like the Tree Shaping one, that continue to haunt me. I've been involved in several arbcom cases, sometimes mildly involved as in the Ottava rima case, early forms of the R&I case, tree shaping) sometimes heavily involved (Mattisse and YellowMonkey cases are perhaps the prime examples), and sometimes uninvolved (the recent civility case being the prime example). I also try my best to informally mediate in various situations on the WikiProject India talk pages. --regentspark (comment) 17:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I think this is a false dichotomy since the only answer is to be strict when strictness is necessary and lenient when leniency is necessary. As I say in my statement, if a particular lenient decision is better for our content mission, then I would likely be lenient. If, however, strictness is better, then I would be strict.

   I've thought some more on this and I think I can answer this a bit better - though I can see RSChen's finger hovering over the strong oppose button :). Everything is, naturally, case dependent but, in general, and excepting the case of rabid pov pushers or agenda driven editors, I would prefer to err on the side of leniency. Philosophically, an evolutionary system thrives on diversity and, since this is an evolutionary system, we need to be more rather than less tolerant of outré behaviors, especially when they come with a productive content ethos. (And, yes, I would tend to give a tad more of second chances to a 'vested contributor'.) --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   Simple answer, no. Polices should always be decided by the community through a consensus seeking process. It can be hard and frustrating (as the various RfA proposals and the WP:V change proposals show), but good policy changes are best when they percolate slowly, and definitely not when they're handed down by fiat. That said, by their very nature, arbcom decisions may end up interpreting a policy one way or another and I see no way of preventing that from happening.

   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 fundamental principles that guide us and are therefore worthy of consideration. The problem, of course, is that the pillars are principles, and principles are notoriously hard to pin down so I see them more as having an indirect effect on committee decisions rather than a direct effect.

   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?

   Biographical articles are tricky. On the one hand, we have the encyclopedic goal of completeness but, on the other hand, we have real people or their descendants and families. However, it is not the business of arbcom to decide what does or does not go in an article and so, no, arbcom should not directly address biographical content. Fortunately, in my experience, problematic content often leads to problematic conduct and a conduct only focus is often sufficient in these sorts of articles.

   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.

   The community has not given (and, in my opinion, should not give) arbcom a mandate to rule on content.

   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 used to dispose of cases quickly and are best used in cases when they can directly address the arbitration request in a simple and clear manner. Generally, I'd use motions more often in requests for clarifications, followed by requests for amendments. In full blown cases, I'd be wary of proposing a motion (but see caveat below).

   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?

   The reality is that arbitrators are merely members of the community who have been given the privilege of bringing closure to issues where the community cannot reach consensus so, while I don't want to comment on whether Arbcom does or does not have the "right" to overrule community consensus, it clearly shouldn't. If there is no active case, if, that is, the community has not asked for help, then arbcom should definitely not step in. I don't think there is any specific situation where it is not appropriate to start a motion, it may bring clarity and simplicity even in cases that appear to be complex.

   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.

   While I believe arbs generally do a good job, I was obviously not pleased with the proceedings in the Malleus case. I'm no fan of Malleus and find the way he sometimes expresses himself distasteful. But, it is important to note that ArbCom is not a court but rather is an 'arbitrator', i.e., a body whose purpose is to settle a dispute. In the Malleus case, a request was made for a clarification on a previous decision by ArbCom. There was no dispute and the wise and proper course for arbitrators was to have clarified the request and move on. That's not what happened and the consequences were a right and proper mess. That's what usually happens when anyone exceeds his or her authority and that's what arbitrators should seek to avoid.On the other hand, I think ArbCom has acted decisively in the Race and Intelligence case. As a New Yorker who has lived in London, let me assure you that there is no Atlantic divide on swearing. A New Yorker can out-abuse a Londoner in a New York minute. But, at least amongst the people I know, everyone, in London as well as in New York, is well aware of where it is appropriate to swear (amongst friends, a bar or pub, on the trading floor) and where it is inappropriate (in business settings, definitely not in writing).

   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?

   While I don't like the idea of non-public being retained, it is hard to make a case for dumping it. Cases drag on for years and often the same people keep popping up, but members of the arbitration committee change and institutional memory needs to be preserved. So, yes, ArbCom should keep non-public information when necessary, though, hopefully, in a secure fashion.

   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?

   As long as is necessary. Necessary is, of course, a nebulous term but it is hard to get any more specific than that.

   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?

   Wikipedia thrives on openness and so, yes, except for private information, clerical reminders and other bureaucratic trappings, and other things being equal, I would rather see ArbCom business handled publicly.

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

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

   No. I see no point in that.

   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?

   Generally, except for private information, users should be allowed to see evidence used against them in Arbitration proceedings and have the right to respond, though not necessarily question, witness statements against them. Arbitration proceedings should be conducted in the open as far as is practical, legal, and ethical. --regentspark (comment) 17:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   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?

   Stare at what? :) But seriously, ArbCom neither sets policy nor does it rule on content so the question of precedent should not arise.

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?

   I don't know enough to answer this question well. But, as a broad principle, WMF should handle legal issues and issues that affect Wikimedia as a whole, while arbcom should focus on issues that relate only to en wikipedia and have no broader ramifications.--regentspark (comment) 17:30, 27 November 2012 (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 should only handle cases when it is asked to do so by the community. There must be something to arbitrate. This is, I think, in the main what ArbCom is already doing.--regentspark (comment) 17:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Yes, we do have a problem dealing with civil POV pushers because our actionable focus tends to be on civility rather than on the POV pushing part. Sort of like the story about the drunk searching for his keys under the streetlamp, we do this because it is easier to recognize incivility rather than on the POV pushing part. Still, though it is a pain in the neck dealing with these editors, I'm not sure if the problem is intractable. In some areas, like race and intelligence, it has been dealt with well by ArbCom. In other cases, for example in various India articles where the problem is endemic, there are committed editors who work hard at managing these POV pushers and several admins who step in as and when necessary. And even civil editors can be tendentious when they have a POV to push. We do have the problem, but it may be a manageable one.

   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?

   Wherever there are groups of people, we're going to have factions so yes, we do have factionalism on Wikipedia. As with everything, factions can be productive in adding content but can be destructive when their goals don't match with ours, particularly the goal of providing balanced, properly weighted information and consensus formation (factions can skew consensus) on both article as well as wiki space. Approaching the problem through conduct alone may not always help because problematic conduct may be diluted across a number of editors. In my opinion, it will be very hard to directly treat factionalism in the remedy of a case (because factions may collaborate off-wiki) but, if there is strong evidence of factionalism presented in an arbcom case, then the proper way to treat this is to either apply discretionary sanctions to the topic area or sanctions on some or all editors involved. Depending on the nature and severity of the problem, naturally. --regentspark (comment) 17:06, 21 November 2012 (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?

   I'm not sure whether we have a retention problem or not, that is an empirical question that depends not only on the arrival and departure rate of editors but also on contribution patterns, where people contribute and where they don't. For example, we definitely don't have a retention problem for editors on matters relating to Doctor Who! What we do have, and what we must fight against, is a tendency to downplay comments and contributions made by IP editors. Wikipedia thrives on diversity, and having as many editors with as many different opinions, editing styles, cultural biases as possible. IP editors, ranging from the ones who come in and add something sensible to the "X loves Y" variety are all part of our pool of potential editors and we should always try to get them to stay. --regentspark (comment) 17:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   The whole civility enforcement thing was poorly handled. Initially, by setting up a hard to achieve sanction (no RfA talk page edits) and then, compounding the mess by proposing a large ban when the community was merely asking for a clarification. Decisions should be clear because confusing decisions are not helpful to anyone, not to the community and certainly not to the editor who is being sanctioned. But, the heart of the matter is that ArbCom forgot that it is a part of the community and that making tough decisions does not mean that arbs can go off and make any decision they personally think is correct. The impetus for the decision must come from the community and that was what was lacking in the motion proposed in the civility enforcement clarification request. Proposals whose genesis is not from the community are a recipe for trouble, and trouble is what we continue to see in the current Elen-JClemens email and leak imbroglio as the fall out from that case.

1. Though I don't disagree with the decision (vague though it is) I also think that the discretionary sanctions on India-Pakistan pages was poorly handled. Arbs should have actively looked for community input but, instead, made up their minds based entirely on the statement of a single admin. --regentspark (comment) 17:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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?

   It is hard to answer this question since I'm not an arbitrator, but one change I'd like to see is an addition of a mandatory waiting period before arbs can comment or agree/disagree to take a case. For example, in the India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions case, [1] arbs were making positive comments on the remedy proposed by an admin before the community had a chance to weigh in (only the proposing admin and one other admin had made statements at that point). Community input is an essential part of the arbitration process and mandatory waiting periods would go some way in assuring that.

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:

1. How would you determine if there has been POV-pushing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A: I'm not sure if 'determine' is the right word here and I'd like to say that it's a bit like porn, you know it when you see it! Generally, evidence of POV pushing comes in two ways. First, of course, is the choice of sources (or the complete lack of sources). POV pushers tend to use material from marginal or fringe sources or quotes from primary sources such as interviews, reports and first person narratives. Second, POV pushers tend to be persistent, repeatedly adding the same material either without discussion or along with accusations of bias until, at some point, it becomes apparent that the editor is hurting rather than helping the project. Don't get me wrong. POV editors are a useful part of our community because they challenge us to think about what they are trying to add to the encyclopedia and their net effect is likely better and more tightly written articles. And, sometimes, even if their own sources are terrible, they turn out to be right and the material gets added with better sourcing. --regentspark (comment) 18:40, 20 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: I was a participant in that case so I'm probably biased but I think that, for a simple and straightforward case, it took longer than it should have. But, unless this is what usually happens, I don't see any harm in the slowness in this particular instance. The few editors directly involved in the naming of that article are all very passionate about their positions and, perhaps, having the time and opportunity to vent may not be a bad thing. --regentspark (comment) 22:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A: I see a WikiProject as a collaboration tool. Editors who have an area of interest have a place where they can ask questions, find gaps that need filling, request sources from other editors, organize collaboration drives, provide a source for editor motivation - all sorts of good stuff. On the flip side, moribund wikiprojects can be demotivating, there could be ownership issues that arise, and wikiproject standards may clash with more general standards and policies. I'd be happy to answer a more specific question on this if you like. --regentspark (comment) 22:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: It is hard to imagine this sort of collective information site without its fair share of vested contributors so we can't do away with them without also killing the project. It is, after all, human nature to be want to be recognized for your work and, if we merely marked each edit as anonymous, hardly anyone would hang around here for long. Vested contributors are motivated individuals who have contributed a lot to the project and want some recognition and we should respect that. I see no harm in giving them a little extra leeway to these editors with the emphasis on 'little' and with the recognition that anyone who becomes a liability to the project is best ushered to the door marked exit as quickly as possible. --regentspark (comment) 22:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

   A: Hmm. Kinda hard to talk about resigning when I'm not even on the committee yet :) But, in general, I'd resign from any position if I did something that I later thought was grievously horrible. Hard to imagine what, but that's about the best answer I can give. --regentspark (comment) 21:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: Since every case is unique, I can't really give a specific answer to this question. Let's just say that, in some cases, I'm open to 'two to tango' as an additional variable to consider. Of course, as with every dance, it depends on who is leading and who is following. --regentspark (comment) 21:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: ArbCom is a committee empowered as an arbitrator in disputes so I see no reason for it to act unless a matter is brought in front of it. In fact, ArbCom doesn't really 'act', it merely issues rulings that are implemented and enforced by the community (primarily by admins). If there is need for immediate action (for example, if an immediate block is necessary to prevent harm to the project), then that can and should be done by admins. Generally, an admin is said to have abused the tools if he or she uses them to push content, when involved in a dispute, for some malicious or disruptive purpose, or where it is specifically barred (e.g., wheel warring). Naturally, since every situation cannot be codified, there are gray areas in deciding whether something is admin abuse or not (involvement being especially tricky). --regentspark (comment) 23:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: En Wikipedia ArbCom does not have jurisdiction elsewhere and, normally, I wouldn't expect actions on other sites to affect decisions made here with the exception that actions on other sites that are clearly designed to have an effect here would be fair game. Public evidence on other sites would be valid only if it is clearly tied to the English Wikipedia moniker of a user and is germane to the case at hand. I'm not so sure about private or admin-only evidence because its validity and relevance cannot (presumably) be discussed openly and, assuming that it will be available only informally, it wouldn't necessarily be complete. My inclination would be to consider its use on a case by case basis. --regentspark (comment) 21:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: Frightening. Needless to say, I've enabled two step verification on the email connected to my Wikipedia account. I generally use different passwords on different accounts so assume I'm reasonably secure, but I'm no expert. --regentspark (comment) 23:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

   A: Yes, I do.--regentspark (comment) 21:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built by a community so, clearly, our rules are designed to serve the community. Rules, by their very nature, aren't precise and I don't see how they can be applied unconditionally. Occasionally even something that is fairly 'brightline' like 3RR can sometimes be fuzzy (when an otherwise rules complaint editor gets frustrated over tag teaming, for example). My general inclination is that we should always try to gauge intent, is the user deliberately being disruptive, is he or she aware or unaware of our practices, is there an intent to push fringe or unbalanced content, is there a blp issue, are there extenuating circumstances, those sorts of things, and use that in our decision making process. Rules are important and should guide us in the main, but we shouldn't apply them slavishly. --regentspark (comment) 13:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. What does "Civility" mean to you?

   A: Roughly speaking, civility means that we approach each other in a friendly and respectful way. Unfortunately, the mix of cultures and personalities on Wikipedia pretty much ensures that we're never going to figure this thing out very well. I, for example, have been called all sorts of names, accused of being tendentious, of lying, and of surreptitiously modifying talk page comments but, beyond a slight bemusement because none of that was true, haven't been bothered by any of it. Someone else, on the other hand, may take offense at a relatively innocuous "that's nonsense" sort of remark. "Friendly and respectful" clearly translate differently for different people and incivility lies, to some extent, in the mind of the person at the receiving end of it and rises to the problematic level when one editor uses language (language which can be exceedingly polite) with the intent of intimidating another user (to 'win' some other sort of battle). When there is a pattern of such use then we should, as a community, take action against the offending editor. If, on the other hand, there is no pattern of such use, then we should look at the context and use the lesser tools at our disposal (explain why something was offensive and, perhaps, ask the offending editor to voluntarily take a break, apologize, etc.). Context tells us a lot. --regentspark (comment) 03:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   Yes, I am aware of it (though it's not on my watch list). --regentspark (comment) 04:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Oddly enough, I was recently involved in this very situation where a non-admin RfC closure was reversed and the result was a bit of an edit war. Since the current consensus is that non-admin closures are allowed, that's what I enforced. I can dig that up if you're interested. But, assuming you're interested in my personal opinion, imo an admin should not be able to summarily overturn an RfC closed by a non-admin editor in good standing unless there is clear evidence that the closer was also involved or of some other impropriety. There are plenty of editors out there who are equally capable of reading consensus and, anyway, I don't think it a good idea to restrict possible policy reading issues to a small number of editors. --regentspark (comment) 04:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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'd say closer to move reviews though, to be honest, I'm not a fan of that process because all we seem to get is endless rehashing of the same arguments again and again and I have a personal preference toward moving on (as long as the process is not egregious). If there is consensus for an RfC review process, then that process should be designed to focus on whether the close was proper - is there a reasonable argument for the closer's choice of what was the consensus, is the closer truly uninvolved, those sorts of things. --regentspark (comment) 04:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

     I'm a strong believer in openness and transparency. Transparent discussions lead to decisions with better buy in from the community and that buy in is important for the long term health of the encyclopedia. --regentspark (comment) 04:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  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 don't think I can answer this question since, not being on ArbCom, I'm both unable to judge the extent to which the committee holds discussions off-wiki, nor how the procedure can be changed. Hopefully, if enough SilkTork minded editors get elected to ArbCom, that will be an indication that the community agrees with his position and changing procedures will be easier. --regentspark (comment) 23:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   This is a tough one. I don't think a recusal is necessary just because someone sends me abusive emails or because of one-sided run ins (of the sort SilkTork finds uncomfortable). That would set a bad precedent by making it easy for forcing recusals down the road. I would recuse if my involvement were deep enough to make it hard for me to separate my own biases from the case.--regentspark (comment) 04:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   I don't know. I'd probably recuse from any future Treeshaping related cases or a Burma/Myanmar naming case but otherwise I'm a fairly unbiased sort of person. Sorry, but I can't really figure this one out very well!--regentspark (comment) 04:30, 24 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?

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?
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.
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?

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

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.

   Generally, vote count should be discounted when reading consensus. Where would we be if we counter ten fans with no policy based argument as dominating one non-fan with a policy based argument! Unfortunately, many experienced editors have taken strong positions that turns out to be against policy so I'm not sure I buy the experienced vs. non-experienced editor argument. --regentspark (comment) 05:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   The closing admin should, generally speaking, weigh policy based positions that have been brought up in the discussion. If, on coming to close a discussion, a closing admin sees a glaringly obvious policy based point that the participants have overlooked, then, rather than closing the discussion on the basis of that policy based point, the admin should add himself or herself to the discussion (along with the point) and wait for someone else to close it. Every argument raised in a consensus forming situation should be open to discussion and that is only possible if no new arguments are added by the closer. --regentspark (comment) 05:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Desysopping

• EncycloPetey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee on 8 September 2012. His last edit was four hours after the arbitration case was filed 29 August 2012. At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey, arbitrators Hersfold (talk · contribs) and Courcelles (talk · contribs) said they would have supported an admonishment and not a desysop had EncycloPetey acknowledged his errors and pledged not to make those mistakes in the future. But because he was non-responsive for a week, the Arbitration Committee opted to desysop him.
  1. Would you have supported or opposed this motion to desysop? Would you have proposed a different motion?
  2. In his statement, former arbitrator Carcharoth (talk · contribs) mentioned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision#History of the case as a similar case where an admin left in the middle of a case. He wrote, "ArbCom is not a court, but being able to build in delays for single-party arbitration cases should not be impossible (this would not apply to multi-party arbitrations about a volatile and current issue)."

     Do you agree with his position on building in delays for single-party arbitration cases? If yes, describe how would you have built in a delay for EncycloPetey.

  3. A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship?

     The way I see it, ArbCom has considerable leeway in determining what to do when addressing a question or case put to it but little room to do things when there is no case in front of it or 'after the fact'. If, when desysopping an admin, ArbCom specifically listed the conditions under which it would resysop, then it can do so when the conditions are met. If, on the other hand, the desysopping was unconditional (as is usually the case) then only the community can grant a admin privileges and that would be through an RfA. ArbCom has no authority to unilaterally accept requests for admin bits. --regentspark (comment) 16:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility case clarification request

• A request for clarification was filed for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement in October 2012. See this permanent link before the discussion was archived by a clerk.
  1. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, one arbitrator called Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) "a net negative". Do you agree or disagree that Malleus Fatuorum is a net negative?

     I think Malleus needs to figure out how to express himself better in certain situations. I also can see that his language may turn off and intimidate some editors. But, I do note that most of this intemperate language is in Wikispace, not article space where losing editors is less of an issue and where editors should be better able to deal with intemperate language, and I find it very hard to label someone with 84000+ content edits and as many FAs as Malleus has a 'net negative' so I disagree with that statement.

  2. A second arbitrator wrote that "Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made." (He later revised the comment.)

     (a) One view is that this comment is an honest and justified—though perhaps overly frank and poorly worded—assessment of the situation that was mischaracterized by some members of the community. An opposing view is that this comment is a hurtful, inappropriate comment that kicked an editor when he was down and inflamed the situation. Please share your thoughts about this comment.

     The latter. I consider that it showed very poor judgement on the part of jclemens and I am surprised to see him running for an arbcom seat given the fact that a reasonable chunk of the community agrees with me on this. --regentspark (comment) 05:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     (b) Does this comment violate Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?

     I think it is a comment that a sitting arb should not, under any circumstances, make. But, no, I don't see it as a violation of civility or NPA. --regentspark (comment) 05:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     (c) Was the block of this arbitrator for "personal attacks" justified or unjustified under Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?

     No. I don't see the block as justified. Poor judgment should not be a blockable offense. --regentspark (comment) 05:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     (d) Describe your thoughts about what it means to be a Wikipedian. Include discussion about indefinitely blocked editors and banned editors, both those who have contributed positively to the encyclopedia and those who have only vandalized the encyclopedia.

     It's merely a label that people ascribe meaning to across a continuum. At one end of that continuum, a Wikipedian is merely someone who edits on Wikipedia. At the other end, and this is perhaps the sense that jclemens was using it in, a Wikipedian is someone who is emotionally invested in the project, wants to make it a happy place, actively attends meetups, goes to Wikimania and, in the extreme, Wikipedia brings meaning to his or her life. We're all here for different reasons so I accept all these meanings as true and that we're all Wikipedians. Even the socks of banned editors who keep returning to make our lives miserable (or perhaps to add value to the lives of those who like to hunt em down). Even those indef blocked editors who are perhaps reading these pages and waiting for an opportunity to return. --regentspark (comment) 14:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  3. Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum?

     Well, the answer is pretty obvious. I was one of the first editors to comment to SirFozzie that the motion was uncalled for. So, no, I wouldn't have supported the motion. --regentspark (comment) 05:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  4. The motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum and the comments made by some arbitrators sparked much dissent in the community. Some editors considered leaving Wikipedia: Sitush, Black Kite, Floquenbeam, John, Pablo X, RegentsPark, Boing! said Zebedee, Drmies, SpacemanSpiff, ThatPeskyCommoner, Beetstra, and Nortonius.

     (a) When there is such a backlash to a proposed decision, how does the backlash factor into your decision?

     (b) SilkTork (talk · contribs) withdrew his support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum the same day he wrote, "The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want."

     Do you agree or disagree with his opinion?

     First, a correction. I never considered leaving Wikipedia over this incident. As indicated in the diff above, I merely decided to take a wikibreak rather than say something that I would later regret. About the question itself. Hidden consensus is just another term for the false-consensus bias and an arbitrator should not work on assumptions of what other people think because those assumptions are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  5. Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to further restrict Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)'s participation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (2)?
  6. If you would have opposed the above two motions, or if you believe a better decision could have been made, what action would you have suggested?

     I would have opposed the motion and proposed an alternative motion instead. See [2]. --regentspark (comment) 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  7. Courcelles (talk · contribs) wrote on his talk page, "As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying 'you get the admins you get, no opinions from you' but still having them be a member of the community."

     Do you agree or disagree with his need to have "an insanely high bar" to ban users from RfA?

     I wouldn't use the term "insanely" but agree with Courcelles that the bar should be high. Ecosystems thrive on diversity and I'm not keen to see some sort of narrowing of that diversity. I've never understood why people get upset when someone opposes at RfA or asks crazy questions like keepscases does (I enjoy them). As long as RfA behavior is not being used as a weapon or is part of a pattern of other problematic behavior, we should tolerate it. --regentspark (comment) 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  8. Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?

Note and thank you

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

Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

   A: Unfortunately, this is probably something to be expected in a volunteer body. I don't think anything special is necessary - special elections to fill vacant seats are just not feasible. A slightly larger committee perhaps if it is clear that this is perennial problem?--regentspark (comment) 23:20, 23 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. 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'd be better prepared to answer this question if I were on the committee and had a better sense for what being on any of these teams entails, or if i had clerked for it but, I'd say my skills in DR and in talking and listening to people would probably play out better on case management and ban appeals support. I'm not particularly useful at technical stuff. --regentspark (comment) 23:20, 23 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) 08:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Risker and thanks for your question. We're all different and despite these differences we come to some sort of collective judgement. None of us have a claim to owning the 'right' view so, often, this collective judgement will be at odds with my own views. I'm well able to respect that judgement, regardless of my own views, and I'm pretty sure that anyone who has known my Wikipedia self will attest to that. If the committee is heading toward a decision that is contrary to my own strongly held one, I would work hard at getting the committee to change its course - as I did in several cases as an ordinary editor (the Malleus and the YellowMonkey cases, for example).. But, once the decision is made, of course I would support it as I do any other consensus based decision on Wikipedia. (I'm not saying that I would suppress or change my own views but, and I'm a strong believer in this, I generally respect and ungrudgingly accept the outcomes produced by any reasonable well defined process. I find it easy to move on!) --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Adding a bit to my response above) In my view "committee solidarity" simply means that, once a vote is completed and a decision made, everyone moves forward with it with whole heartedly and regardless of the margin of the vote or of their own opinion. It doesn't mean that dissenting views are suppressed, but rather that they are merely moved to the background until a new request appears where they can be looked at anew. The purpose of dispute resolution is to enable the community to move forward, and that won't happen if individual arbs (or admins or editors) are unable to let go. --regentspark (comment) 02:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same question that I posed last of year of SilkTork, also recognizing your change of heart after a lot of folks endured a lot of disruption from grudge-bearing socks. Since this has also been a theme of the entire 2012 year at FAC, and arbs drug their feet on dealing with it, could you please put your answer for this year in the context of the effect on regular editors who have to endure ongoing abuse from socks and returning users who violate CLEANSTART, and whether you think leniency is effective in dealing with such users? Specifically, because of your experience, would you be prone to take faster and more definitive action in future similar cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for the long answer but your question is so much better than the 'strict and lenient' one above!) Hi Sandy (and good to see you here!). This is a really good question and I'm going to try to answer it as well (and as honestly) as I can. The Matisse case still saddens me. Not just because she was a good content editor but also because of the time and effort put in by so many well meaning editors in trying to keep her on the project and because of my own failures in recognizing the extent of her problematic behavior and the effect it was having on the project and other editors. Clearly, the case was handled poorly from the start. Letting her set her own mentoring plan (as SilkTork also points out) was a terrible idea because it merely created the conditions for the messy end. But, we, the many well meaning editors who respected her editorial side but were not fully cognizant of her behavioral side or just tended to downplay it also bore some of the responsibility.

If the Mattisse case taught me one thing, it was that our vision has to, always, be focused on more than that one editor and that we, again always, need to consider the effect on the project as a whole. In retrospect, in her case the outcome was all but pre-ordained, but we got there at a time and emotional cost that could, and perhaps should, have been avoided. It would have been better for everyone, for Mattisse, for you, for me, and various other editors who invested their time and emotions into that effort if the break had been quicker and cleaner.

To answer your specific question, I don’t like socks and I don’t like abusive editors and, on the off-chance that I’m elected to this committee, I would prefer to deal with them quickly and firmly. I support the idea of clean start but think there should be a high bar on re-entry and a low bar on a forced exit from such editors. For example, I’ve ignored emails from Mattisse asking for my support in her return and I can think of at least one editor who returned from a ‘sort of clean start’ (which seems to be the new norm these days) who should be rapidly shown the door. I think ArbCom is too soft on these sorts of editors.

But your question is a good one because we’re seeing a number of good content contributors come up before ArbCom and will likely see more as the project continues its move from its growth phase to its maturity phase. As a community, we have a tendency to treat long term and prolific content contributors differently. We are, for perfectly understandable reasons, more forgiving of their maverick ways and cut them more slack on behavioral issues than we would other editors. It is much easier to throw the book at single issue editors (as in the race and intelligence cases), or even at a good content but prolifically socking editor like Mattisse, than it is to deal with a a Malleus, a pmanderson or a kwami. We have to accept that because these editors have contributed a lot to the project and continue to do just that. But we also have to accept that that there comes a point where the cost (the time, effort, and emotions) on managing a, for lack of a better term, vested content contributor becomes more than the benefit from keeping him or her on the project. And this is regardless of whether the complaints against these editors are well founded or not, whether the trouble they find themselves in is fair or not. A little like the manager of a Wall Street trader, though perhaps with a little more compassion :), we have to learn to ignore the past contributions of that editor and look instead at where he or she is today. We have to learn to keep in mind that this project is not about an individual editor but is about adding content through a community of editors. We have to recognize that every case brought before ArbCom should be evaluated and decided, in the main, on the basis of what will enable the community to move forward in the most effective way possible. Whether that ends up being right or wrong or fair or unfair or strict or lenient or x or y should merely be a by-product or an afterthought. --regentspark (comment) 13:49, 25 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} 14:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem SilkTork. I live in New York City so my time zone is UTC-4 or 5 depending on the time of the year. I'm generally available late at night or during the mornings US Eastern Time. I travel a lot, often to India but to Europe as well, but NYC is my home. --regentspark (comment) 14:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bazonka and thanks for the question. I'm afraid I'm an online only Wikipedian. I'm not involved in wikimeets, outreach, or training and have shown my face (for a few moments) in exactly one wiki-gathering. I don't anticipate any of this changing whether I am elected an arb or not (but the future, as we know, is uncertain!). --regentspark (comment) 05:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give examples of instances that demonstrate the application of your belief "I believe all of these types of editors are necessary elements of our microenvironment and, properly managed, add value to the encyclopedia.", I ask because I can give examples of instances where, in my perception, you acted contrary to your stated intent. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YK and good to hear from you. Do note that the fact that all these types of editors are necessary elements of our microenvironment does not mean that every example of every type of editor is welcome here. A dedicated, generally neutral, content focused editor who goes off on an MOS crusade is about as much of a problem as a tendentious POV pushing editor and, though both are a part of our environment, I wouldn't hesitate to take action against either of these sorts of editors. Not to put too fine a point to it but, being a part of our micro environment is not the same thing as being a constructive and productive part of it. I'd rather not single out specific editors so I'm not going to be able to give you examples. Sorry. However, I'll be happy to respond to any example or examples that you, if you so wish, can provide. --regentspark (comment) 05:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of instances of administrative actions, yet not one example to support a statement of intent. Not extremely helpful, anyways I wish you the best. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RP, I want to know how much importance you give to the experience of any editors. Also have you ever come across any experienced editor crossing a line (may be breach a wiki policy, especially breaching civility) to prove his point? What have you done in that case? --sarvajna (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RK. Good question! Violating a Wikipedia policy is generally not acceptable from any editor, regardless of their level of experience. For example, a blatant 3RR violation is a blockable offense whether the editor has 100,000 edits or 100 edits. I would actually cut more slack for that sort of violation for an editor with few edits than for an experienced editor since the latter should know better. While I'd rather not give examples, let's just say that I've blocked and unblocked experienced editors on both sides of India/Pakistan issues for violating policies or other sanctions. The second part of your question, the one I suspect you're more interested in, deals with civility violations and that, unfortunately, is harder to answer. Civility, as I explain in a response above, is a nebulous concept and is hard to define. Is an experienced editor who gets terse with another editor in the midst of a discussion being uncivil or is it just a part of the normal give and take in an argument based dialogue? At what point does it cross the line and become unacceptable? These are difficult questions to answer. In real life we judge civility by 'who is saying it', 'to whom they are saying it', 'the intent of the sayer' and, to some extent, 'the effect on the other person'. In the virtual world, the history of the editor (and that's all that we really have) is the only way of answering the first question. For example, I've interacted with you before and would be surprised if you went off on a rampage of incivility or suddenly became tendentious. But, knowing that you're not normally that sort of editor, I'd try to figure out what's causing this change in character (who are you talking to, for example). On the other hand, if we have an editor who is normally brusque that is merely being brusque with an editor with whom he's been brusque before, it is likely just normal behavior. As long as the intent and effect is not to intimidate the other editor, I probably wouldn't consider it actionable. --regentspark (comment) 14:55, 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?

Hi Begoon, that is an interesting question. Consensus is our primary decision making process and the role of ArbCom is to step in where the community is unable to reach consensus through our normal procedures. Therefore, yes, ArbCom primarily exists for arbitration and it should generally work within the framework of the questions put to it. Other things being equal, I would prefer to see arbitrators take a narrow view of questions put to it rather than a broader one. But, do note my other things being equal caveat because sometimes expanding the scope makes for better decisions that last longer and cause less pain. So, I guess the simple answer is that some situations may call for a 'judgement' though most should be arbitration oriented. Overly narrow, and we have a weak and ineffective process. Too broad, and we have a process that circumvents consensus and governs rather than arbitrates. Balance is everything.

Whether our current arbitration mechanism has reached a point where it sits more in judgement and less in arbitration is an empirical question that I'm not qualified to answer. I, as I'm sure is the case with most editors, tend to follow mainly those cases where I have some prior interest or on cases that seem interesting (usually when I'm bemused by all the fuss!). Speaking (writing?) purely subjectively, and along with all the biases that come from following only a few cases, I think we're currently trending toward more a more active Arb process but doing so within the boundaries of reasonableness. In all probability, this is just the normal process expected of any system with a subjective steady state and I'm not overly concerned, for now anyway. --regentspark (comment) 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Follow up question and response moved here.

1. Question: Would you close a formal mediation RfC when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that eventually resulted in said RfM and RfC? Assuming that this has happened, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A: Hi GabeMc. I assume that you have a specific RfC in mind when asking this question and I would need to know the specifics of the case to answer it meaningfully. For example, at the least I'd need to know what sort of comment the editor had made along with the !vote at ANI, whether additional information was available at the RfC that was not available during the ANI discussion, whether there were some new behavioral issues in the intervening three month period, and how long the RfC had been open. By itself, the mere fact that someone !voted one way or another at ANI is insufficient to determine whether they were involved enough to close the RfC. There may be numerous reasons why the closer may actually be the best person to close it. If there was greater evidence of involvement, for example if the closer had also been the one who initiated the prior ANI discussion (or even implemented a block - though, based on your question, I'm assuming the 'especially vocal party' was not blocked as the result of the ANI discussion) or commented extensively in the discussion with the aim of pushing for the block, then it would be far easier to say that the closer should not have closed it. Short answer, it all really depends on whether the closer merely !voted based on evidence presented in the ANI discussion or whether he/she had an active interest in seeing the vocal editor blocked. --regentspark (comment) 04:43, 3 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:
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?
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...?)
4. do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
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?

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hi Piotrus and thanks for the questions. As I say in my statement, administrative decisions at every level should be looked at with whether the outcome will help or hurt the encyclopedia. Therefore, when choosing between a full site, a limited ban, or nothing, the question to ask is what the relative impact of each action is on the project. While it is hard to be specific because every situation is different, I'm willing (to go out on a limb here!) and put forward some considerations that will affect the choice. Please add a Ceteris paribus to each consideration because nothing can be handled in isolation. Does the editor contribute in a narrow area or is he or she a broad content editor? If a narrow area content editor with a POV agenda is the problem, then, other things being equal, a site ban is more appropriate. In my experience, disruptive narrow content editors don't go away easily and end up consuming more than their fair share of administrative resources. Does the editor primarily haunt wikispace or content space? We do need editors who think about policies, guidelines, and other project level issues, but, when a wikispace focused editor becomes a problem, we have to ask ourselves whether it is worth the effort to keep them on. Is the editor a broad content editor with issues confined primarily to one content area, one obsession with something not directly related to content (diacritics, em-dashes, policing policies) or problems with one group of editors? In that case, a limited ban is a better bet with the hope that the editor can continue to contribute content in other areas. In such cases, I'd prefer to see a content reason for the limited ban. How will a limited ban work? A limited ban needs to be clearly expressed and simple to enforce for it to be effective and if a ban is ambiguous or requires a lot of administrative overhead then it may be better to reframe the choice as one between "do nothing" or a full ban.

   These are some of the things to consider when deciding what action to take (or whether to take any action or not). The caveat to all this is that it is far easier to say "consider the effect on the project" than it is to figure out what that effect is. For example, and this is my personal conclusion, Wikipedia will thrive when we encourage diversity in editing styles as well as in points of view on content and will choke if we use administrative action to impose uniformity in styles and points of view. Restrictions of any sort are, by definition, diversity reducers and we should use them sparingly rather than willingly because it is hard to estimate the impact that curbing one sort of behavior will have on the project in the long term. Sometimes, not applying a restriction can be a diversity reducer as well. For example, let's say we have a prodigious but rude content editor who has the potential to create 1000 units of content (I made that up) over the next 30 days but also drive away 10 other editors who have the collective potential to create 900 units of content in the same 30 days. From a purely content perspective, we should let the rude content editor stay. But, driving away 10 editors comes with a diversity reduction cost and a long term impact that is hard to measure. I generally follow a "less is more" philosophy in life but, as the last example illustrates, that doesn't always work. The job of every editor who cares about Wikipedia is to balance all these considerations and caveats and to, in each case, arrive at a judgement as to what course of action (or inaction) is best for the project.

   I largely agree with your essay (and with the Volunteer Marek's description of the stick game). The way I see it, Wikipedia is a virtual community and the concept of fairness that the legal system in the real world cannot be perfectly carried over here. Rather, we need to evaluate whether an individual is helping or hindering our mission and what the cost of keeping that person is to the project. I'm not eager to push this as an analogy but we're more like a corporation in the sense we have a set of organizational goals and we can, and should, make the choice as to who we should employ to achieve those goals. So, while we don't make hiring decisions, and unlike in a corporation there is no cost to us for keeping on harmless or unproductive employees, it is perfectly legitimate for us to make firing decisions when we feel that a particular individual is hindering our mission. Carrying this analogy further, just like getting fired in the real world (at least to the extent that the US is representative of the real world) only says that the person was not a good fit for that organization or that type of work, that's all that we're saying when we site ban an editor. And, just like people who get fired in the real world (mostly) move on, so should site banned editors.

   Your questions about incarceration are puzzling as well as interesting. At one level, there is little, if anything, to compare between a site ban and incarceration and, to answer your question about which legal concept we should compare a full ban to, it is more akin to "termination of employment" with or without cause (depending on the circumstances). However, as your second question reminds me, we, in the United States, incarcerate too many people and there are systematic biases in the way we incarcerate them. The only analogy I can draw with site bans is if we systematically exclude certain types of editors from the project, not because they are harmful to our mission but because we just don't like that sort of person, then we sort of resemble the way the US sends people to jail. --regentspark (comment) 15:17, 7 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: I don't think we can make a blanket statement either way. I.e., we can't say that profanity is always acceptable and neither can we say it is always unacceptable without examining the context in which the profanity is uttered. Generally, I would suggest that we don't actively police this sort of language unless somebody, preferably, but not necessarily, the person at the receiving end, objects. Then we should look at who are the editors involved in the exchange (long term editors should generally be inured against this sort of language whereas a newbie editor might be intimidated by its use), what the purpose of the profanity is (was it, for example, used to intimidate an editor), whether it is in article or wikispace (we can cut a little more slack on wikispace), and whether there are other longer term issues involving one or both editors (a pattern of using profanity to push one's point of view or to belittle a particular editor would, for example, be problematic). --regentspark (comment) 23:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That sounds very fair. It seems to me a little sad that a new editor, even an ip editor too shy to create an account, might come here and make an edit and be told to "fuck off" (or any kind of abusive words to that same general effect), and then never be seen again. And "woe betide" editors who choose to identify themselves as US high-school students - they seem to be real targets for some experienced editors, for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia and the success of our project is measured by the quality of our content (largely how accurate and complete our information is) each time a user types a search term and peruses the Wikipedia article that pops up. The impact of a decision or action on content should therefore be the prime consideration for any editor who cares about Wikipedia. But content does not appear magically, it is created by a vast network of editors through a process of collaboration and conflict, both of which are important in assuring the accuracy and completeness of the information we provide. Arbitration is not therefore merely a process of discovering who is right or wrong or good or bad or fair or unfair, but rather it is an act of intervention in the collaboration and conflict process in a way that helps us perform our content mission better.

I am, by nature, a deliberative person with a minimalist bent and believe that one should act decisively, but only when necessary. Though I now inhabit a genteel environment, I've survived for many years in a white collar field known to be a harsh place with abusive language, public dressing downs, and the constant threat of getting fired. I am not easily upset. When I make a mistake, I'm more than willing to recognize it, to apologize if that is necessary, and to do my best to move things along. Other than a dislike for tendentious editing and the belief that dealing with these sorts of editors is where we're doing a poor job, I don't have an antipathy toward any sort of editor whether they be content producing mavens, agenda driven pov producers (as long as they're not overly tendentious), wikispace focused editors, or just regular editors (and that's where I place myself) trying to add the little they know to Wikipedia. I believe all of these types of editors are necessary elements of our microenvironment and, properly managed, add value to the encyclopedia.

These are the perspectives and qualities that I offer to you when you make your choice amongst the various candidates. Because of the holiday week where I live, I may be a bit slow in responding, but I will try to answer every question put to me.

I've been editing here since late 2007 and became an admin in February 2009. I'm well (really well!) over 18 and will willingly disclose my identity to WMF if elected. I haven't edited under any other names. Thank you.