Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Jc37

Jc37

Hello and Good Day : )

As you can tell by the header, I am jc37, and I have been an editor since February 2006 (and was a reader long before that), and an admin since December of the same year. Mainly I'm throwing my hat into the ring to help out.

Be aware, those of you looking for dramatic change to Wikipedia through Arbcom, I'm not your person. I'm a firm believer in much of the foundation of Wikipedia, so in voting for me, you won't be voting for someone who will "buck the system".

I've been an editor to Wikipedia a long time (though to me it doesn't seem that long), and have "been around" to witness and/or participate in many of the discussions which by consensus have become part of the policy and process that many take for granted as "set in stone". I'm a believer that Wikipedia policy is a living thing, is not "set in stone", and as such can be changed through clear community consensus at any time.

I think campaign promises are pointless, and, if anything does, my contribution history should probably speak well enough to the kind of editor I may be considered to be. I entreat you to go through my contributions and discern for yourself.

And with that in mind, I welcome questions and discussion. (I find that discussion and clarification is a way of life on Wikipedia : )

Thank you for your time and consideration : ) - jc37 20:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account: User:Jc377 - for automated editing (hasn't been used much) - jc37 22:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yes over 18. - jc37 22:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And willing to identify to the WMF per their policy. - jc37 21:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Election 2012 candidate: Jc37

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: In looking over my answers to the questions, they seem to indicate to me that apparently I'm not much of a politician (telling people what I think they want to hear). I tried to sincerely answer as honestly as possible. So please keep that in mind, whatever your opinion of these issues, or of me as a contributor. - jc37 20:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General questions

Skills and experience:
a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
Several years as a Wikipedian. I am also an administrator. I've worked in a quite a few of the "behind-the-scenes" areas of the project. My focus is typically a wont to help out, so I tend to float wherever. So I have experiences with a lot of the parts and pieces that make up Wikipedia.

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've added to quite a few RfC discussions concerning DR, including several concerning Arbcom, such as this.

And I've commented in more than a few cases over the years, though mostly as an uninvolved editor. This workshop page (and comment) is one example. I'm still looking through my contribs for other examples)

In the last year there are three arbcom situations which stick out in my mind: Perth, PR; and CE. If you read over the talk page of the first one, you'll see the surprise by the members of community at the results which led to the desysopping of an admin. With that in mind, and noting the actions there dealt with questions of "how involved is WP:INVOLVED", and the variance as to what is considered wheel warring (And this discussion and other such discussions were also on my mind.) So when I encountered a situation which I felt was a question of WP:INVOLVED, and also a possible question of WP:WHEEL, and recalling what happened at that first case as a result of someone at the admin's noticeboard "helpfully" deciding to take action, I felt that I couldn't in good conscience post to WP:AN, else I would be risking that someone else might "helpfully" decide to take action. Which also meant RFC had a similar problem. So that left me with Arbcom. So with a touch of WP:IAR I presented the situation to them, and they eventually reviewed the situation, and life went on.
Adding clarification per discussion elsewhere.

Why did I start the case?

When I opened the case, it wasn't my first attempt at Arbcom review of the situation. (Which is all I wanted. I repeatedly stated specifically that I was not looking for sanction of the editor.) I had first posted to a different Arbcom subpage. And there, the Arbs suggested to me that I needed to open a case if I wanted the situation reviewed.

And to answer in another way:

I was concerned about asking for the review at AN/I, because, as I noted, I was concerned that since the second phase of the wheel (which isn't "warring" (as interpreted by arbcom, and past concensus) but is still the stage that has the potential to "set up" the next stage - the 3rd turn of the wheel - which has been called wheel warring in the past) had happened, a third stage to the wheel was easily possible to foresee, and due to the perth case where User:Kwamikagami was desysopped (though there were apparently other factors there), I didn't in good conscience want to see that happen to someone else, when all I was looking for was review of the situation (and initially, possible overturning of the action).

Others may (and have) disagree(d), but I sleep just fine with the belief that I spared some well-meaning admin from potential desysopping. NYB may have been right that it would probably be an "over-reaction" to the situation to desysop a "third mover" in this case. But yet, he also opposed (alone) in the perth case, and Arbcom acts as a group, not as individuals, as we have seen.

And a final note: Look at the second remedy in the perth case:
Deacon of Pndapetzim admonished
2) Deacon of Pndapetzim is admonished for use of administrative tools while involved, and for reversing another administrator's legitimate administrative action without first entering into discussion.

D of P was the second mover and was admonished for (among other things): "reversing another administrator's legitimate administrative action without first entering into discussion."

So to look at the situation, I think a person is hard-pressed to say that an unanswered email should be seen as "entering into discussion" before "reversing another administrator's legitimate administrative action". Hence I felt the situation should at least be reviewed.

As for CE, at a later time, someone posted to arbcom concerning something about an editor's topic ban (related to WP:RFA). I posted a comment there about the general current state of RfA, and mentioned I would leave questions of his civility to others to decide. Well, the editor then went on the offensive, presumably just upon seeing the word civility. So while what I said wasn't that different than what others has said who were in direct support of the editor (I was and am fairly neutral as until that time, I don't recall ever interacting with him), I was "treated" to follow-up negative comments by the editor's supporters and other well meaning editors. Note: this is also discussed in Cunard's questions below.

Why do I think this happened?

I think it's a matter of a difference of perspective on how one sees Arbcom.

Consider the different ways one may view the local constable. One could see the constable as a friend, and guide or help in times of need or trouble. Or one could see him as the enemy, someone who is out to get you or to punish you in some way.

I obviously view Arbcom in the former sense, while it would seem that there are those who view it in the latter sense.

Hence why some use the (to me, odd) euphemism "Being hauled before Arbcom", giving the sense of being hauled before a hanging judge. (Look at the reputation of Judge Roy Bean compared to the recorded facts.)

If there was something I wish we could change about Arbcom, more than anything else, it's the tone of how the individual members are seen and thus subsequently treated.

To (intentionally mis-)paraphrase Pogo Possum, We have met the enemy, and they are us.

Regardless of however this election turns out, I'd like to remind everyone reading this that service to the community by helping out at ARBCOM (whether as a committee member or clerk or whatever) is a largely thankless job, and I would entreat you to giving a thought to saying something nice to those who help - particularly those now not running for a subsequent term - even if it's merely a heartfelt thank you.
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?
Case by case basis. But there is a difference between an indefinite block and a community ban. And community bans should only be placed when the individual has "worn out the community's patience" and so is no longer welcome to be a member of the community.

And desysopping is merely a matter of not having the additional tools and responsibilities of adminship. Removal of the tools is in no way comparable to being blocked, much less being banned. To quote myself from the past: Having the tools is generally no big deal. It's the usage of the tools which can be a big deal, especially when used inappropriately.

And I believe in more than just second chances, in particular in the case of whether as an individual I would support banning an editor. It takes quite clear concerns of damage/disruption to the community project (the encyclopedia) for me to fully endorse a community ban.
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.
Arbcom (as a committee) certainly can ask the community to discuss revising a policy. But Arbcom (as a committee) should not be arbitrarily making policy. That should be left to the community. We shouldn't forget that (at least when it comes to policy) the arbitration committee is generally only an advisory body to/for the community.

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?
WP:5P is a nice overview page and is useful as a navigation tool to lead to other policy pages. Policy pages in general are merely a display of common practice and/or previous consensus for easy reference.

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?
In general, per existing policy/guidelines. BLPs are an important concern, which should not be minimised.

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.
No, per my responses above. Arbcom (as a committee), is only an advisory body when it comes to policy, and by extension, creating other processes. (When Arbcom members join in on such discussions, they are doing so as individual Wikipedians. When Arbcom takes action, it is solely as a group.)

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.
A motion is for when the process of a full case isn't necessary. For example when the situation is generally undisputedly clear enough that the evidence page isn't necessary.

ii) a.) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? b.) If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? c.) 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 is short for The arbitration committee. It is not the Wikipedia supreme court. Arbcom's main role is to arbitrate a dispute. And it does so at community request.

So to answer (old school: if the answer to part of a question is No, then the answer is No): a.) When it is uncalled for. b.) No. c.) No.

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.
No thank you. I believe that the committee members are positively trying to perform service for the community. I've been disappointed periodically in this or that individual result of part of a case over the whole time I've been a Wikipedian, but I honestly don't look at cases as if they are "good or bad". Besides, the great thing about Wikipedia is that no decision is final (WP:CCC). So even if we should see what we think is a "miscarriage of justice", such situations can be re-addressed by the community, through various means, including re-requesting Arbcom to look over the situation.

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. To deal with any potential future situations as institutional memory, since the membership of the committee can and does change.

ii) If the answer to any part of (i) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
Indefinitely (as long as necessary); as secure as possible; Arbcom;

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?
I prefer public transparency in most things at Wikipedia. That said, much of what Arbcom does are things which deal with privacy and personal "reputation", among other things. We should never forget that these are real people behind the usernames. So such things, by their nature, should be kept confidential.

But besides that, and keeping that in mind, as much as possible should be transparent. Arbcom shouldn't have discussions in private merely because it's "convenient".

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?
I don't know what all they did.

My understanding is that Arbcom has the use of a wiki. I'm surprised that they did not make more usage of that (and less of the email list) as a "discussion forum" for themselves. They could have their own version of the WP:VP to discuss things, for example.

Unless there is some other necessary usage I am unaware of, the email list should probably just be for others to contact the committee, and for the committee to contact them in return. (With privacy and confidentiality in mind, of course. Otherwise such communication should happen on Wikipedia for transparency reasons.)

v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
No.

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?
In all, privacy and confidentiality is a concern. But when not a concern, we should try to keep transparent (on-wiki) as much as possible.

e) Past Cases a.) 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? b.) How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
a.) Yes. b.) As advisory.
Division of responsibilities:
a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
Arbcom is the arbitration committee of the English Wikipedia. The WMF has more of a broad focus, concerning all the Wikimedia projects.

b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
Arbcom is to arbitrate in the stead of the community (and somewhat, by tradition, User:Jimbo Wales).

And along those lines, the role of arbcom's individual members has expanded to address privacy and confidential issues - partially because arbitrators, due to the nature of arbitration, are entrusted with such related tools, so they have the tools to help out in that way.
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?
I dunno about "overall problem", but we do have such things going on, especially in certain areas of the project. (See Wikipedia:List of controversial issues.)

It's not Arbcom's duty to declare a "winner" in a content discussion. So any action should be concerning behaviour. (While keeping in mind preventative, not punitive.)

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?
In some places, and at times, yes. There is a common mistaken opinion that "consensus is a vote". So that can motivate editors to band together to create a "unified front" to defend or oppose whatever issue they support or oppose. WP:CANVASS tries to deal with some of this (mass votestacking, for example), but the internet being what it is and modern communication being what it is, we obviously cannot entirely stamp out such collusion to disrupt the consensus process.

I fully support that we should allow neutrally worded, friendly notices to other editors who may have shown interest in the topic under discussion in the past. But abuse of this can be a problem. And typically those who engage in such factionalism, are those who see discussion as a "majority vote". I think the best solution on the long term is to better educate editors about the consensus process.

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 haven't seen any graphs on this lately, so I'll just express how it "feels".

Yes, absolutely.

I don't think we have an overall shortage of new editors. We just need to find ways to retain them, while guiding them toward further positive contributions.

Yes. Once upon a time, you couldn't turn around without finding a new enthusiastic editor wanting to help, joining in Wikiproject collaboration, and so on. WikiProjects seem to have fewer and fewer in their "core" participants, with more than a few only having less than 4 (or even none and being mothballed).
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.
No thank you. I believe that the committee members are positively trying to perform service for the community. I've been disappointed periodically in this or that individual result of part of a case over the whole time I've been a Wikipedian, but I honestly don't look at cases as if they are "good or bad". Besides, one of the great things about Wikipedia is that no decision is final (WP:CCC). So even if we should see what we think is a "miscarriage of justice", such situations can be re-addressed by the community, through various means, including re-requesting Arbcom to look over the situation.
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?
I'll have a better idea when seeing more of how things work "behind-the-scenes".

One thing that concerns me are proposals which are designed to add to the bureaucracy of arbcom. It's already a fairly bureaucratic process. I shy away from adding more bureaucracy. And I oppose ever making Arbcom Wikipedia's "supreme court". We have a tradition that (with certain exceptions in the past, like User:Jimbo Wales - who has apparently ceded much of his dispute resolution responsibilities to arbcom) that the community is who "sits in judgement". Mediation is merely there to mediate, and Arbitration is merely there to arbitrate.

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question: #:A:

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. 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.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
A: From what I can tell looking over the case pages, that was a miscommunication. One of the Arbitrators intended to draft, then had a family emergency. In that case, it might have been helpful if someone had been notified to take over the drafting (I didn't see whether that may have been done.) Regardless, this case was "open" a rather long time. In my recollection, having cases which are open for more than 2-3 months was much more prevalent in the past, and arbcom seems to be getting (slowly) better about that.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
A: A way to organise and foster collaboration among editors.
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: If that means "experienced editors" then yes and no. I don't think I would call it a widespread "problem", but I have noticed that there seems to be a mistaken belief by some that (to paraphrase Animal Farm): "While we're all Wikipedians here, some are more equal than others". When in truth, we are all Wikipedians here. period. Some Wikipedians may have been entrusted with additional tools and/or responsibilities, but that doesn't make them any "better than" or "superior to" any other editor.
Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
A: If I find that an unforeseen lengthy wikibreak was necessitated by "Real life" interfering with Wiki-work.
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: Case by case basis. While noting that every editor always has the option of disengaging and/or walking away from the keyboard. (This, setting aside real life concerns, of course.)
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: Case by case basis. And some policies/guidelines have gray areas, some do not. It varies on what we're talking about. There is currently an ongoing RfC on civility, for example, exploring such things concerning civility on Wikipedia. As for "when" it depends (again: case by case basis). There are emergency situations, of course. (Including, when necessary, though semi-rare, emergency desysopping.) But as in most things, it's a question of preventative, not punitive.
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: a.) No. And possibly, it depends. b.) Valid as evidence? Sure. Anything within reason can be offered as evidence. The issue is more the applicability of the evidence to the situation(s) in question.
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: Ouch.
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A: Yes.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And if you would like me to clarify my answers, please feel free to ask. - jc37 22:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Casliber

I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well hmm. I think this is something you and I could have a nice long discussion on : )

But to try to merely answer...

This is something which I think has been discussed in the past. There have been proposals of a "content-related ARBCOM" (to mirror our current arbcom which is behaviour-related) to address content questions. Ask me on a different day and I may support or oppose. It's a tough call, as I do think some content disputes are endlessly never ending, but at the same time, I am rather loathe to see discernment of content leave the community's direct purview.

There's also been Kiril's proposal concerning governance reform concerning the development of policies. (Of which I now have a similar opinion as the above sentence.) I even did a work-up of a possible committee Wikipedia:Governance reform/Policy and guideline review. But I look at it now and I find I would oppose it. After a long time experiencing policy/guideline/etc. discussions, I strongly think that (except where the WMF needs to step in for legal reasons and such), policy creation should stay directly in the hands of the community.

As for how someone is abiding by policy, that sounds like a behaviour issue. but it depends on the policy in question. For example, if the community has determined that someone is repeatedly and/or consistently adding content that is copyvio, or is WP:OR, then that's a behaviour issue (which hopefully is addressed long before coming to arbcom). The key there is again, preventative, not punitive.

(To be very honest, I'm very much wishing I could ask you to specifically clarify the last two sentences of your question. But I've attempted to answer without that clarification : ) - jc37 01:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

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:Setting aside those things which need to be established by the WMF (Legal, etc.) and the foundational principles (like WP:IAR or WP:CON), all "rules" exist "at the pleasure of the community"; in place to help the community and exist until they are changed. After all, they are to represent common practice and prior consensus. Not the other way round.
What does "Civility" mean to you?
A:I have a section at the top of my talk page called "pages worth reading". And listed there, among other things, is WP:EQ, and the golden rule.

And obviously, one can be civil and not necessarily polite. We operate in a collegiate environment, not some fanciful version of the Victorian age.

But to more fully explain, I think the level of politeness in civility goes hand-in-hand with WP:AGF. If collegiate civility were a slide bar between ultimate politeness and ultimate straight-forward bluntness, then when interacting with someone, we should start out closer to the polite side. And if through the discussion (or in wiki-parlance, if their contribs lead in that direction), then, if appropriate, straight-forward bluntness may be more appropriate. But in neither case should we stray from collegiate civility. Civility is the slidebar itself, and should not be one of the poles on the slidebar.

To put another way, when we communicate, we should recognise that the goal is to communicate to our "audience" (whoever we're communicating with). This is a collaborative environment after all, so communication should be to facilitate that collaboration, not self-gratification, and not to drive people apart. Or to say it more succinctly, communication should be phrased to help understanding and collaboration, not hinder it. (Incidentally, the use of profanity, like any form of communication here, should follow that general rule as well. If you're swearing because it makes you feel good, or to attack others, you should consider stopping. But it can be used to effect for emphasis to help communicate. Again, help, not hinder.)

And this also can be associated with WP:NPA. All too often, in quickly talking (typing) we may say something which we may have intended to apply to someone's choice of action, but which appears phrased to be about the person. Perhaps it's old fashioned, but I've always tried to live in the belief of "love the person, regardless of their actions, even if they make choices you may disagree with." So to me, there is never a reason to make what some may call "ad hominem" (attacks to the person).

So this comes back to what we have represented in our policies/guidelines:when commenting about content, comment about the content. When discussing behaviour, discuss the behaviour, the person's choices. There is no reason to attack the person.

And along with this, we should be careful in "name calling". Even if intended to apply to their actions, name calling can be misconstrued to seem to be "applying a label" to the person. And so when communicating, we should try to be clear on this.

Sorry for the lengthy response, but civility isn't just a simple response. It is as broad or narrow as communication itself.

(Though I suppose I could have done the quick: "I know it when I see it" : ) - jc37 17:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
A:I think it should be a staggered thing over time (and not have everything happen - kerplunk - at once at 3 months). Things like dropping them a notice (talk page and email, at lest); placing them on the inactive list; and potentially eventually removal due to inactivity. (It's up to JW whether he would replace the arbitrator in that situation, though he does have some RfCs and the election as a guide.) Without knowing what goes on behind the scenes, I don't think I could at this time set concrete points of time for the steps. (Past and present sitting arbs, I think, would be the best ones to ask about this.)
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 think that there are more than just me on the team. Looking over these specific tasks which are doled out/volunteered for besides those which all Arbitrators do, makes me think of the classic military volunteer situation. "Who wants to do X?" everyone but you steps back, so you are the volunteer ; )

I am happy to help, so I have no "push" towards any of them, but after others have chosen their preferences, I'll take a look at what's left : )

Questions from Cunard

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

Anchor: #RfC closes

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?
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 was a participant in those discussions, and in fact, I believe NE ent started the RFC thread at my (sorta) suggestion : ) - jc37 08:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency

Anchor: #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.
  If we change the word from privacy to confidentiality, I would agree. I think that it's slightly broader than just straightforward privacy issues. But, otherwise, yes, I think more transparency would very much be a good thing.
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.
  We can assert whatever we wish, but in the end, Arbcom is pretty much on the "honour system" when it comes to this. Due to the nature of confidentiality, we are kinda forced to trust the members to police themselves.
  
  That said, we the community can help by showing to Arbcom a clearer consensus on this. Else it will be difficult for individual members to try to assert that X could be an on-wiki discussion.

Recusals

Anchor: #Recusals

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.
I think it's roughly similar to deciding whether I should close a discussion.

That said, I believe it's tradition that the discretion for recusal is left to each individual member. I think (to a point) that makes sense. Again, we're trusting the arbs on the "honour system", so I think that applies here as well.
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 believe that merely participating in a WikiProject biases someone. In my experience, editors come to a collaboration from innumerable perspectives. The only thing in common is some broad topic that they happen to choose to collaborate on.

Look at it this way, would we consider someone needing to recuse merely because they had edited the same noticeboard or talk page as someone else? No. The editing would need to be looked at based upon the situation. But shared venue isn't enough on its own.

Besides, Arbcom doesn't arbitrate concerning content, but rather behaviour.

Consensus

Anchor: #Consensus

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?
Lol - "thanks" for giving me the opportunity to close a discussion that's already been closed : )

Let's pretend this is DRV: Endorse - This was closed per the weight of the policy arguements in the discussion. Per WP:BLP; per WP:NOTAVOTE. etc. etc.
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?
As I said above, Endorse.
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.
"likely to remain" sounds awful close to a WP:CRYSTAL argument. (Wanna guess which talk page I'm going to be dropping a note at after finishing these questions? : )
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?
Because DRV is essentially set up as a "request to overturn". So "successful" means that the action was overturned. And it requires consensus for it to be successful. This is how all "request" pages work afaik. RfA, RfAr, even XfD. "No consensus" = no action. (There's a "possible" BLP special exception at XfD, but let's keep this simple.)

Compare that to what you're describing. The discussions are asking whether the action was appropriate. If there is no consensus that the action was appropriate, then it is overturned.

The short answer: It depends on the question being asked at the venue in question.

As for the other question, as the treatment isn't different, the question is unanswerable.

(b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?
Again, it depends on the question.
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.
WP:NOTAVOTE, pure and simple.

It comes down to reading the discussion, and weighing everything. Though I should point out that there's a rather big difference between an XfD and an RfC.

In an XfD it's usually just a matter of weighing the discussion and any relevant policy/guidelines/etc.

In an RfC, especially an MoS-related or a policy/guideline-related RfC, a bit more weight is given to opinion than is typically given in an XfD. Due to this and other complicating factors, an RfC can be much more complex to close.
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?
Let's just talk about XfD, for the reasons I just laid out above. In that case, I would hope that the community would convey the policy-based arguements in the discussion. But in the unfortunate event that doesn't happen, an admin has several options, and it just depends on the situation. Everything from closing frivolous noms, WP:SNOW closures, relisting, or even assessing and subsequently applying relevant policy (not unlike CSD assessment), etc.

As for being "tasked", the closer is "tasked" with closing per WP:CON. While WP:IAR may apply in rare situations, typically WP:CON is effective. (In my experience as a long-time closer, the community overall has shown more "clue" than I think we tend to give the community credit for.)

One last thing to keep in mind (especially in the case of RfCs), a local consensus should never outweigh a community-wide, long standing consensus. You and a two pals can't get together and unanimously decide that everyone with an C in their username is automatically a member of arbcom, for example : )
Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?
Well. That was a mess, no question. And (though I don't know all the details, to be sure) Sir Fozzie would seem to have had a fair point about commending.

And along with that, I've never managed to find the policy which suggests that when arbitrating for the community, Arbcom should "commend" anyone. It may be a nice encouragement, but let's let the community hand out Barnstars and the like. I don't think that that should be what Arbcom does. There's a difference between exonerating and commending.

So I'll quote several of the opposers in the linked-to discussion: "No." "Broadly agree with the motion" [and] "I agree with a majority of the statement" [and] "I could support a re-worded statement, but not the one currently being voted on."

(And along those lines, I'm now wondering why an alternative motion wasn't suggested.)

Desysopping

Anchor: #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?
  I don't know. For whatever reason, I wasn't following that case at the time (as it lasted only about a week apparently, that could be how I missed it.) I think I may have read some of it after, but I honestly don't recall.
  
  First, to note what I said about motions above: "A motion is for when the process of a full case isn't necessary. For example when the situation is generally undisputedly clear enough that the evidence page isn't necessary."
  
  But that aside, when I look at Special:Contributions/EncycloPetey, his last edit is the same day the case was requested, which is roughly a week before the motion.
  
  And with as long as a case sometimes takes, I don't understand the rush to take action.
  
  So, at best, I wonder if perhaps there was some other evidence that I am unaware of. I haven't gone through and tried to find his admin actions (and don't intend to do that merely for the purposes of this single question). And I have no idea what may have been known "behind-the-scenes". My brain keeps coming back to preventative, not punitive, and so because I want to WP:AGF, (And because this thought process is a result of merely trying to answer a question and not due to considering whether to start a clarification request) I'll just accept that there must have been something going on that I am unaware of which necessitated this.
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.
  Let's simplify: Arbcom is a weird bureaucratic process which breaks several of our policies (BURO in particular : ) - and so there is a bit of IAR happening there regularly in terms of policy.
  
  So while my first inclination would be: "there is no deadline", in the case of Arbcom, there sorta is. Cases can last months (unfortunately) and the members have lots of tasks, and these beyond the tasks that they take on that are outside of their arbcom membership role. So I can understand the wont of "let's move along".
  
  But how much of a deadline? How quickly do we need to "move along"?
  
  There's a balance to be achieved here, and I think it's worth an RfC : )
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?
  I would hope that this would be noted at the time of the desysopping. If it wasn't, Arbcom should be queried to clarify.

Civility case clarification request

Anchor: #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?
  While I think I understand what AGK was trying to say, I don't believe I would have made that particular 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.
  
  (b) Does this comment violate Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?
  
  (c) Was the block of this arbitrator for "personal attacks" justified or unjustified under Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?
  a-b-c: Read my response to User: Boing! said Zebedee's second question above.
  
  (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.
  A Wikipedian is an individual in the Wikipedia community.
  
  There is a difference between being indefinitely blocked, and being banned. If you are blocked, you are merely prevented from editing. If you are site banned, then it has been decided that you are not wanted as a collaborative member of the community. And so at that point, you are effectively not a member of the community.
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?
  Look at my comments in that case. I asked Arbcom whether the motion met the preventative, not punitive standard as written.
  @Arbcom - To continue with Kirill's concern, how is a 6 month ban in this case preventative and not punitive? The way it's framed, it really sounds punitive, and almost reminds me of a "cool-down block". Wouldn't adding unblock (un-ban?) criteria/requirements be closer to existing policy? And to be clear, this is a request for clarification, not an "attack" in anyway. (It's a shame I should feel I have to clarify that.) - jc37 18:37, 20 October 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?
  Just to answer in a general situation: Outcry is worth listening to, but doesn't necessarily represent a community-wide consensus.
  
  (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?
  See my response directly above.
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)?
  I don't know enough about the situations which led to the initial restriction to answer this.
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?
  See the response directly above.
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 believe your question takes his comment out of context. His point as I read it is that if a particular editor is to be considered a member of the community, then that editor should be able to express whether they trust a particular editor to act administratively for the community. And thus, in his opinion, there is "an insanely high bar" to pass before removing that ability from a community member.
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?
  See: WP:BAN

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) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Wehwalt

I'm referring you to the conversation contained here. In view of the fact that Moni3 proceeded to block PumpkinSky at 0000 on 2 February, I'm asking:

Had you been an arbitrator at the time, and had the matter been before you, and were you not recused, what action, if any, would you have advised taking regarding Moni3 in view of her calling PumpkinSky, before blocking him, an "idiot" and a "dingus"? Please support your answer with references to other "insult-and-block" situations, such as that of Hawkeye7.
Would you have counseled Moni3 regarding the propriety of blocking someone two minutes after a close friend of hers demanded it?
You yourself were a part of this conversation. Did you continue to monitor it after your last contribution? Did you check back later? What are your thoughts about what occurred?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there was a case I am forgetting, the matter that you note from the link above was not taken to arbcom as a case. So therefore an arbitrator is merely acting as another Wikipedian. Arbcom acts as a group (or sometimes representing the group), but not as individuals.

So anyway to answer your last question: By appearances, it was quite a mess. And it surprised and saddened me. - jc37 06:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First follow-up by Wehwalt

I refer you to the words "had the matter been before you", that is, had a case been filed. I also refer you to my words "what action, if any, would you have advised taking". I am attempting to gain some sense of how you would act as an arbitrator by seeing how you would apply arbitration principles to a factual situation. I ask you to answer the questions I posed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What case, what circumstances, what is being requested, what other information might Arbcom have concerning this? Or in other words, these things are on a case-by-case basis. And attempting to answer a hypothetical for this is, I think, inappropriate. - jc37 19:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second follow-up by Wehwalt: Had the circumstances of PumpkinSky's block, with an admin who had immediately before insulted him as in the thread referenced above, been brought to ArbCom. I've also asked you to discuss your own awareness of what went on then, as you were a part of that conversation. I see no ambiguity. I suggest you answer based on the words I have used, and your understanding of the situation, of which you were a part, and without further quibbling. If you prefer, "Had Moni3's block, and her immediately-preceding insults of PumpkinSky, which were in the conversation when you were active in it, before she blocked him, come to the attention of the ArbitrationCommittee, what should it have done and why? What would have been your counsel as an arbitrator to your colleagues?"--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]; I'd be grateful for a full and frank response to my question. I would hate to have people conclude unnecessarily that you've been evasive or nonresponsive.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored my questions here. You have evaded answering them and so the thread is needed to show this for interested voters, and in the continued hope of receiving an answer.Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from Risker

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) 08:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the processes (RfAr, etc.) for responding to community requests are on-wiki (such as the "proposed decision" page), I think it's fairly clear to the community whether a particular arbitrator has supported or opposed a particular section.

As for "solidarity", it doesn't sound much different than, as an admin, acting to follow community consensus regardless of whether you agree with it. You follow the community consensus. With the caveat that obviously any editor is free to disengage and choose to not act. After all, just as "there is always another admin", there is always another arbitrator. - jc37 08:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Ched

Less than 3 hours after I began formatting and fleshing out my questions (here), you came to my talk page and stated your intentions "... in case [I]intend to ask those questions"; which indeed I did. So rather than have you refer me to your response to 1.b, and have you "decline to further respond", I'll do my best to format them in a fashion that perhaps you'll feel comfortable answering.

To clarify, the "decline" comment was more in reference to something else in a previous version of your questions. But I think we've already discussed that on your talk page. - jc37 23:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I) I'm still trying to comprehend the entirety of your response on this subject above, but:

Since the page protection issues on User Penyulap's and multiple filings for Arbitration intervention or clarification, have your views or understanding of either WP:INVOLVED, or WP:PROTECT changed? And if so, how?

I ask this specifically with regard to the section Wikipedia:Protect#Blocked users, and rather than a "link" such as you provided in Cunard's section on civility for question #8, I'm interested in your own personal interpretation of policy rather than testing your ability to link to it.
A.) The point of asking someone else to review a situation is to get others' insight. The question was whether the particular policies applied to the given situation. Was Bishonen INVOLVED? and following that, were Bishonen's actions appropriate? And in relation to that, should the reversal be undone? I wasn't certain, but things at the very least looked "odd" to me. So as is my wont, I asked others to review. They (eventually) did, and so it goes. - jc37 23:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

II) With respect to your participation in this RfA

I have seen it said in various arbitration pages that "extraordinary accusations require extraordinary evidence". To what extent do you feel an arbitrator should be required to review all diffs posted in the evidence phase of a case?
A.) There's a balance apparently. As I said in response to something else above, there's apparently only so many hours in a day (or so I hear : ) - so Arbcom tends to ask that requesters limit their number of diffs.
That said, that's always made me slightly uncomfortable. On one hand, I can see not posting excess examples, but on the other, sometimes the many examples are needed.

It should be little surprise to those who have interacted with me that I spend a fair amount of time in edit histories. Especially due to RfA. I personally consider that a part of the due dilligence there. Especially if I haven't interacted with the candidate much (or ever).

Anyway, to try to more directly answer, I don't think it should be required, but I think reading through the diffs should be encouraged.
Should an arbitrator look beyond solely what is posted, and do any research on their own by digging into page history and following further links?
A.) Just like any editor, arbitrators are free to look through edit histories/page histories. But again, it shouldn't be required.
What is your interpretation of the difference between an alternate account and a sock?
A.) Depends on what semantically is being asked.
An alternate account is a sock, but not necessarily an inappropriate one. Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses is fairly clear on this, I think.
What do you personally feel the proper procedure should be when a user returns from WP:RTV or attempts a WP:CLEANSTART?
A.) My understanding of WP:RTV has changed over time, partially because it seems (to me at least) that consensus of what it is (or of recognising what common practice may have been) has appeared to change over time. This was somewhat discussed earlier this year in the middle of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_23#Proposed_practice_for_desysopping. (Search for my comments and what the bureaucrats said in response.) See also the thread I started related to this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_93#RTV_vs._Clean_slate.

So with that in mind, presuming that that consensus (and bureaucrat common practice) still stands, then it would seem that there is a bit of difference between the two.

As for "proper procedure", since RTV (according to WP:RTV) means that the user is "...leaving Wikipedia forever..." (bolded on the page), there is no "process" (per se) for the user's return. That said, (quoting from WP:RTV again): "If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed."

See also: Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing#What_vanishing_is_not.

As for the return procedure concerning a clean start, see the section under Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses entitled: Clean start under a new name.

Question from SilkTork

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} 14:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It varies, I don't really have a "regular editing time". That said, I just did a quick look over my contribs, and it looks like I am away (often pretending to do that sleep thing) roughly between 5:00 and 15:00 UTC, and 10:00 and 20:00 UTC (and times in between). - jc37 21:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt

First I apologize for not having placed concerns here before, but under discussion, - I am new to the process. I have a single question left. I believe in a line Geometry guy wrote (to be found on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232 22:32, 28 February 2012) and framed it on my user: "Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not." How do you feel about applying the principles that we use for BLPs (Biographies of living persons) also to editors: "a high degree of sensitivity", "attributed to a reliable, published source", "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Bazonka

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) 23:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not. And though I do not rule such things out in the future, since I have not, I don't think that merely being on Arbcom will necessarily change that. - jc37 23:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Begoon

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?

Yes, I think we should have arbitrators, and yes, I think they should act as a committee, and not as individuals. That said, I don't think that precludes other ways to do this.

For example, in the past, I liked the idea of rather than there being a number of seats on the committee, that instead there was a minimum number of seats in each case. (Let's call that minimum number of seats, a "quorum".) so in any case, if there was a quorum of X, then the number of potential arbs in any case would be from X to the total number of arbitrators.

Another way to handle the committee is I don't think every case requires having oversight or checkuser. Though of course, some do. So no reason that every member need have those user-rights. So imagine if, combined with the quorum concept that we have an "arbitrator" user-right. They are editors that the community has entrusted with particular tools and responsibility of arbitratorship. And that means that we could have as many arbitrators as we need to keep cases moving along. And in cases where CU and/or OS is necessary, then those editors who have those additional user-rights would help out there.

I just don't think we need to limit this to just a couple people. I think having a broader pool of people to draw from would be a good thing (and would also help give arbitrators "down time" to help with burnout, as well as the with those who suddenly need to go on wikibreak for whatever reasons).

Anyway, I'm not pushing for all of this, needless to say, but since you're asking about ideas, these are two I think are worth discussing.

But something I do' think should end is voting in an election for arbcom members. This clearly breaks a fundamental principle on Wikipedia of consensus. We didn't always do this, and I think that this should be discontinued. I also think that requests for arbitratorship should at least follow some of the norms of RFA. There are some things I've seen so far in this process that I can't imagine would be allowed at RfA.

If there is anything you would like me to clarify, please let me know. - jc37 01:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from GabeMc

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)} 00:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: My initial thought was: "Links/diffs please". My apologies, but I just don't feel like there is enough context to answer your question.
Rephrased questions from GabeMc

The trouble here is, the vague question is difficult to answer, but if I make it too specific, others may view it as too harsh to the person I'm referring to. I'll try to rephrase below. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scenario: There is an open formal mediation between several parties. During the course of said mediation one of the more vocal members to the dispute was indef-blocked at AN/I for disruption both related to the content dispute and unrelated. An admin actively participated and !voted to support the indef-block. Question: Should that same admin, who was significantly involved in the AN/I report which lead to a block of the vocal party to the mediation later close that mediation. If not why not? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A:Well with only this information I suppose I would say: My understanding is that merely discussing at AN/I, in general does not make one "involved" per WP:INVOLVED. - jc37 22:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think !voting in support of an indef-block falls within "merely discussing at AN/I"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer a question with a question: how would supporting or opposing an indef block of an editor (a behaviour-related issue), have anything to do with assessing the consensus of a content-related mediation discussion? I'm attempting to answer based merely upon the information you have given. In actual practice, of course, I would likely be checking page histories etc., to try to get a better idea of what is going on. - jc37 23:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Bishonen

Hi, Jc37. I have two questions, both of them in relation to a RFA you filed two months ago, I'm interested in learning 1) if you feel differently now about the appropriateness of filing that RFA and 2), if you feel differently now about your original protection of a userpage, which was the basis of the RFAR. It seems to me that your own current views of these actions have become more important now that you're yourself a candidate for arbcom, and may indeed be interesting for voters. Please note that I'm not allowed to respond in turn to your answers ("threaded discussion" will be moved to talk, as has already happened with some very cogent follow-up aquestions on this page), so in case I feel any need to ask you to clarify, I'll do so on the talkpage.

Q 1. Your use of RFAR. In October 2012, you filed an RFAR you entitled "Protection reversion". It only addressed one particular action, the unprotection of a user talkpage, and only listed two involved parties: you and me. (You had protected the page and I had unprotected it.) You have defended this RFAR against much criticism since then, as I'm obviously not the only person who found it unproductive. In fact, I have not yet seen anybody on the site express that they could see the point of it. (Compare for instance several voter guides.) In explanation of the criticized filing, you have said several times that the reason for it was that you wanted to get the policies WP:INVOLVED and WP:PROTECT clarified. When Ched asked higher up on this page about your present view of these policies, after the RFAR (Ched's question I) you said among other things (though indeed without anywhere in there answering the question as put) that the relation between the policies and my unprotection "at the very least looked 'odd' to me. So as is my wont, I asked others to review."[1] Is it really your "wont" to take things like that to arbitration? Would you do it again? You may recollect that several of the arbitrators appeared politely surprised that you asked arbcom in particular to review such a matter as clarification of policies (a fortiori, of policies that were already "pretty clear to everyone else" as Risker said of the aspect of WP:PROTECT that worried you.) I'll post quotes of arbs expressing this surprise if you ask for them, as my question is already long enough. Why didn't you ask for "review" on a more appropriate level, such as a discussion or RfC on the talkpages of the policies in question? Bishonen | talk 01:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
P.S. Addition later the same day, before any reply by Jc37: I just noticed above that you have added a "clarification per discussion elsewhere" to your allusive and mysterious original reply to General Question 1 B (where you only alluded to the RFAR in question as "PR", as if it was some well-known policy). I'm sorry I failed to notice your addition before. It's not very clarifying, though. If you had briefly summarized or linked to the "discussion elsewhere", it might have helped. But anyway, in that addition you give a reason for taking the unprotection to RFAR: ""I had first posted to a different Arbcom subpage. And there, the Arbs suggested to me that I needed to open a case if I wanted the situation reviewed." That is a self-serving description, as the reader will easily see by looking for themselves at the relevant thread on the "different arbcom subcage" you allude to. I will supply the link since you didn't: RFAR/Enforcement#Wheelwarring. Yes, Sir Fozzie said there that Requests for enforcement was the wrong venue and RFAR would be the right one, for the request you were making. But no arb (or other user) agreed with your definition of wheel-warring, or told you your request was sensible, or worth taking to RFAR. The actual suggestion Sir Fozzie himself made was that you start an RFC to get the definition of wheel-warring changed, since you were obviously opposed to the current policy. You got plenty of other suggestions for what to do, and indeed plenty of "review" right there, for instance advice to reread the protection policy (Risker) or to drop your grievance (Nikkimaria and Floquenbeam). I'm surprised that you felt at all encouraged, by reading that discussion, to go on to RFAR. Plus, you have a mind of your own, don't you? Do you think RFAR was the proper place, now that you hope to become an arb yourself? I was surprised and sorry when you did file the RFAR. (Remember my comment?) Not sorry for me — it was no skin off my nose — but for your seeming determination to dig yourself into an ever deepening hole. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Q 2. Your protection of a userpage. OK: you had protected Penyulap's talkpage and I had unprotected it. Before you proceeded to requesting arbitration, you had posted a request for enforcement (an unusual choice of venue), where you stated that "I am not explaining/clarifying [my] protection (though I can, should arbcom wish) because the initial protection itself is immaterial." But I can't see that you have ever explained it, you know. Many people including arbitrators have asked you to tell them what the protection was for, because you seem to be pretty much alone in thinking the reason for it "immaterial". The questions began even before my unprotection, here, and your response there is quite unresponsive: "the talk page will remain protected, per the reasons already given". (But none had been given.) People continued to ask for an explanation of your protection on my talkpage[2] [3] and then on the RFAR you brought[4][5]; but you have never vouchsafed one. Several arbitrators told you, when voting to decline the RFAR, that they couldn't understand why you protected the page in the first place, or why you wouldn't unprotect it on request; you had no comment to make. I will now also ask the same question. Why did you protect User talk:Penyulap, and why did you insist on keeping it protected, even to the point of taking the unprotecting admin (me, yes) to RFAR in order to get the protection reversed? Surely you had a reason? Surely you must have thought that that page being fully protected was in some way better for the encyclopedia than its being unprotected? In what way? Bishonen | talk 01:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You know, while I suppose I could respond to these questions, I just don't think it's productive to rehash the past, even to clarify what, in my opinion, appears to me to be more than a bit of cherry picking, seeming misrepresentations, and what I presume to at least be misunderstandings, in the "questions" above. Nor do I think it needs to be noted that the talk page in question was later protected by another admin (who also happens to be a currently sitting arb), who you then also confronted about their protection of the page.

However, to spare you sending me an email asking me to do something on-wiki (respond to these questions in this case), I decided that rather than merely leave them blank, I should leave a note of some kind.

So my response to the above is merely to quote the top of the page: "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.".

If this means I have lost your "vote" in this "election" due to not responding to some questions, I suppose I'm comfortable with that. - jc37 08:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

Civility enforcement questionnaire

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} 18:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotrus. I helped out with the questions page. So, due to that, I originally had not intended to fill them out. But sure. I started a subpage, and will work on editing it. - jc37 08:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I'll be looking forward to your comments there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions

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:
When the user has exhausted the community's patience, etc. per WP:BAN. Someone asked me about banning above, but as I felt like I was just restating what was already on that page, I just linked to it. As far as my view of banning is concerned, something I think is commonly conflated is banning and blocking. Banning is not, and should never be seen as "more potent blocking". They are two different things, and should be treated as such and discussed as such.
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 have seen the "net negative" and "net positive" comments periodically in discussions (and may possibly have used them in the distant past myself, though not that I recall). and I've done a lot of thinking about these concepts myself. I currently think that that is not how we should address blocking. If someone should be blocked per "preventative, not punitive", then other contributions are irrelevant, the person should be blocked. But, as I noted above, blocking is not banning, which is a wholly different discussion.
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...?)
I seem to recall comparing banning to being banned from playing league games in baseball, or some other activity. We are performing a task here, in this case, building a reference work.
do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
No. First of all, as I noted, there is a difference between site banning and blocking. Second, as important as I feel this project is, in the end, this is a website consisting of a reference work. No one is "incarcerated" by being prevented from editing here (either through blocking or banning). I know this may come as a shock to some, but there really is more to life than Wikipedia : )
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?
As I noted above, I do not see arbcom as any type of "court" or judicial system.

But that aside, to merely answer your question, I think it is a sad thing to see so many people in prison. It's a shame that people sometimes make the choices they do. (And this includes some choices that are made in the making of some laws. There are sites that call these "funny", but I don't think that a person prosecuted for violating them would find them as funny: [[6]])

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Martinevans123

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'm sorry, but no, I do not agree. We are all Wikipedians here. So by definition, we all are already on the "same level". As for my thoughts on profanity, see User:Boing! said Zebedee's second question above, and/or User:Jc37/CERFC#Profanity.

Many thanks. Yes, your answer to Boing! is a very full one. I am not convinced that swearing "can indeed be used to effect for emphasis to help communicate", even when the intention is to communicate. Or at least, I think it's very risky, not least in its effect on observers. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]