Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Keilana

Hello all! I’m Keilana, and I’ve been a Wikipedian since April of 2007. I’ve been an admin since November 2007, and I’ve been involved in many different content and administrative areas in my time here. I’ve written some featured content, including 6 FAs and 2 FLs. I’ve also done a lot of anti-vandalism and dispute resolution work, including serving on the Mediation Committee. Despite the fact that I don’t edit ArbCom pages much (if at all), I’m a keen observer of what goes on there. I’ve had all of the Committee pages watchlisted for years and keep a very close eye on everything, including arbitration enforcement. I was also one of the three closers for the Muhammad Images RfC, which was mandated by ArbCom.

I know there may be some concerns about my activity, given that I was absent from the project for about 2 years. This was at a hard, busy time in my life, with some unique circumstances I don’t expect to be replicated in any way, at least not anytime in the next two years. My editing has settled into a pattern that sees me online for at least an hour or two every day, often more, and I’m consistently making several hundred edits a month.

I do think I have something to offer the Committee. I’ve been very involved in collaborative content creation, including writing 3 FAs collaboratively and starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. I think an understanding of the content creation and auditing processes is essential to ArbCom, as well as the dispute resolution methods that are necessary to keep the mainspace functioning, and I have experience in both of those arenas.

I’m over 18 and eminently willing to identify to the Foundation and comply with the other requirements for access to non-free data. I don’t have any other accounts under my control. I may have edited as an IP before creating an account (don’t remember, that was a long time ago), and I had created User:Keilana’s Sock but lost the password and have since blocked it. Other variants on my username (User:Keilana2, User:Keilana444, User:Keilanadecker, and User:Keilanahater) are unrelated to me. I have no other accounts; if elected I will create an alternate account for public editing. [Edit: I was formerly known as User:Neranei and had a name change in December 2007; it has been recreated to prevent impersonation. I don't have control over it; it has a scrambled password.)

Thank you very much for your consideration, and I look forward to your questions.

• Keilana (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: Keilana 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?

   Well, first and foremost, I've been around for a long time, so I've seen a lot of cases go in front of the Committee and understand the ins and outs of on-wiki cases. I think I've been following arbitration closely since 2008. I also have experience in DR, including MedCab and MedCom, and a couple of the disputes I've worked with have ended up in arbitration, if I remember correctly. Another thing I think I can bring to the table is my really thick skin. As an admin, especially with my experience in vandal-fighting, I've gotten a lot of angry vitriol thrown my way and I've learned to just brush it off. I've also been called out when I screw up, and I've learned to not take it personally and use it instead as a way to improve my work here. I've also learned to distinguish between the two. I have a fair amount of content-writing experience, including starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. I've written 6 FAs, 3 of which were in collaboration with other users, meaning that I've worked with a wide spectrum of people. FAC has taught me so much about working well with other people and being both kind and diplomatic and the content-writing process definitely keeps me grounded.

   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.

   DR has been one of my heavier areas of involvement over the years. I've been on MedCom since early 2008, though I took a break for awhile while I was on a break from Wikipedia in general. I was also a member of MedCab before that. I have never been named as a party to a case, though I think I have commented on a couple in a small way. Earlier this year, I was one of the 3 closers for the ArbCom-mandated Muhammad images RfC.

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 it depends on the case. Bans and desysoppings are definitely necessary in certain cases, but too harsh in others. I'd probably be smack dab in the middle - I haven't hesitated to support bans before but there have been some specific proposals that I've been highly opposed to. It comes down to the terms and history of the case. I do believe in second chances, but only to a point. If someone banned as a young teenager can come back a few years later and prove that they've matured sufficiently to be an asset to the project, I wouldn't be opposed to their return, provided that they were closely supervised for awhile. However, the flip side of this is that by the time the majority of disputes reach ArbCom, second chances have already been given and harsher sanctions should be seriously considered. If elected I would consider each remedy on the merits of the case, not on a personal inclination to leniency or harshness.

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.

   ArbCom should work within and interpret policy, not change policy; that decision has and should be left to the community at large. If a policy needs to be clarified, I'm willing to support the Committee clarifying minor points but leaving the major policy questions to the community. In the past, ArbCom has asked the community to clarify a policy point and I think this is the best way to handle it in certain cases, though caution should always be exercised to avoid 'legislating from the bench'.

   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?

   Considering that the Five Pillars is a "nutshell" collection of the important values for the community, theoretically, it could be included. However, it's not as nuanced as the policies it actually links to and given how complex ArbCom decisions can be, I would prefer that the actual policy is cited. I could think of an exception though, where the Committee could cite the essay as a whole to emphasize the importance of a particular policy (e.g. NPOV) to the community, and later go on to cite the specific policy.

   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?

   The BLP policy is one of the documents that ensures the smooth running of the project. It’s also of prime legal importance, because it is intended to prevent defamation. ArbCom has and should continue to assert the importance of this policy by applying sanctions to editors who refuse to adhere to it; violations of BLP should be taken quite seriously when weighing sanctions for disruptive editors.

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

   ArbCom can aid in content disputes by ensuring that the conduct of the editors involved meets the standard, issuing remonstrations and interaction or topic bans if necessary. One of the difficulties in issuing bans is that this inadvertently cause the undue weight policy to be violated; this needs to be weighed carefully in making those decisions. Another mechanism that ArbCom has and can continue to use in content disputes is a mandated, binding RfC, as was done in the Muhammad images case. This allows a consensus to be reached by the community, so ArbCom can provide a solution to a content dispute without mandating what exactly the solution is to be and ensure that it will be satisfactory to the community.

   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.

   The purpose of a motion, in my mind, is to solve a less-serious or very obvious problem that still warrants the attention of ArbCom, albeit in an expedited manner. This removes some of the bureaucracy and time inherent in running a full case while still allowing a remedy to be put in place. I would choose to handle a situation by motion when there is an emergency situation (e.g. admin rampage) and the Committee needs to act quickly. This can also be used when an editor is very clearly being disruptive but a unilateral indef block or a community sanction is not enough, for whatever reason.

   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?

   Motions should never be used when a dispute is complex. That’s part of why the structure and process of ArbCom exists – to unravel the complexities and nuances of a dispute over time, to allow for community input, and to make sure that the dispute is understood and solved as completely and satisfactorily as possible. Furthermore, ArbCom serves the community and does not have the right, except in unusual cases of private information, to overrule. If the community can't decide on an issue, but no member of the community chooses to bring it to ArbCom, I don't believe ArbCom has a mandate to begin a motion. If the issue is truly that pressing or that difficult, it will be brought before the Committee.

   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 judgments that you did.

   I thought that the Committee handled several motions appropriately and well, including banning Racepacket and adopting mandated external review, but I'll give one in-depth example and explain these two in brief. One motion that exemplifies the good about the Committee this year was the motion to allow Cirt to edit Dan Savage bibliography. He's been editing it off and on since that motion was passed and it's been improved greatly with little to no conflict. I expect to see it become a featured list soon - the project would have lost out had the Committee not exempted him to work on it. It's a great example of the Committee working to maximize the benefit to the project with a nuanced solution, not simply trying to minimize the damage. That kind of balance is something the Committee needs to work towards. The banning of Racepacket was a difficult but ultimately correct decision. He was unable to abide by the terms of his interaction ban and couldn't work in a collegial environment. As upsetting as it is to lose a longtime contributor, the Committee made a good decision here - and the fact that they are willing to give a second chance eventually makes it an even better decision to me. Adopting mandated external review was a really good call, in my opinion, because it allows for another way to solve a behavioral problem without immediately resorting to blocks and bans. It has the side benefit of being an educative process, in that editors placed under the sanction need to learn how to edit more collaboratively, and they will be provided with the guidance to do so. I think it's reasonable that if this doesn't succeed in helping that editor contribute in line with policy, then they face harsher sanctions. The motion I think the Committee handled the worst this year was the motion to ban Malleus. Thankfully, it didn't pass, but it was not an issue really brought up by the community, which simply wanted a clarification, not anything close to a ban. It also caused a ton of drama, all of which was 100% unnecessary. The one thing they did do well in that situation was to (eventually) not pass the motion.

   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. Information like this could be used in dealing with long-term abuse cases or in ban appeals, for example.

   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?

   I think that information should only be kept as long as it's needed. For example, if a user is banned with the possibility of appeal after a year and the Committee has private information regarding that user, then that information would need to be kept at least that long. For maximum accountability, the entire current Committee should have access to the data being kept (not former members). Information that has no conceivable use should be deleted, but that would be on the terms of an individual case.

   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 think as much discussion as possible should be done on wiki. I've never been an arbitrator, so I don't know the kinds of things they handle "behind the scenes", except for what has been leaked. So I don't think I have a full picture of what could be dealt with off wiki vs. on wiki but my inclination is to be as transparent as possible without compromising private or identifying information. I also don't know how difficult it would be to have some discussions on-wiki from an efficiency standpoint. I would like to see the Committee strike a balance between being as transparent as possible and not allowing cases to drag on for months.

   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?

   The obvious thing they did wrong was not maintaining good security on the mailing list. However, I think they handled what was a really messy situation pretty well - they did the best they could to communicate with the community and stopped the leak once they figured out where it was coming from. As far as I know, security has been improved to prevent a similar situation in the future.

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

   I don't plan to do so, because I'm a woman living in a big city. As much as I would like to have the accountability of being known under my real name, I need to keep my safety and security, as well as that of my loved ones, in mind.

   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?

   I think that any non-private/identifying information should be made public so the community and users involved can see it. If there's a case that involves crucial private information, the person that the information is about should be able to see it and be able to make their own statements and responses. Cases should be conducted publicly as much as is possible.

   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?

   One of the things I really like about Wikipedia is that policy and its interpretation can be flexible and can change when the community wants or needs it to. Locking ArbCom into precedent would, well, set a bad precedent for stagnancy.

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 think that WMF's role is definitely more of a hands-off one, at least with regards to ArbCom. They're there to help provide direction for the project's mission. The only time that the WMF should intervene in an ArbCom matter is if there's something that poses a real-life danger to a community member, or in the case of legal threats made by a party. I'm happy with the division of power as it stands.

   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 the "last resort" or "final step" of the dispute resolution process for a good reason. It's the place where the community's most intractable disputes land, disputes that the typical processes (informal/formal Mediation, noticeboard discussion, etc.) can't solve. The division of responsibilities is that the community takes care of everything that it can with those processes and kicks the rest up to ArbCom. I think this is pretty reasonable - a lot of the disputes that end up at ArbCom have been going on for years without a resolution.

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?

   I don't want to characterize that as the extent of the problem, but yes, we have some editors who regularly violate the NPOV policy who don't also engage in egregious personal attacks or other forms of incivility/tendentious editing. Extensively violating NPOV is something that can definitely result in sanctions; that would be made more severe by the existence of other policy violations, not made less severe by their absence.

   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?

   I think it's a side effect of having a collaborative project that birds of an opinionated feather flock together. People with similar interests find themselves working together and agreeing on issues. I see this as somewhat equivalent to how people of similar political persuasions in real life can end up becoming friends and agreeing on things. I try to assume good faith when I see a group of people agreeing on something. Rarely, like in the Eastern European mailing list case, people who both agree on issues and socialize together can become a problem, and it's best to treat that individual group as the outlier they are and not make sweeping generalizations or remedies.

   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?

   Absolutely it does. I was browsing through the 50-some admins from my "cohort", elected in November 2007 when I came back from my hiatus, and it was really disheartening to see how many had left. Excluding the editors who "retire" in a dramatic huff and return a few days, weeks, or months later, there have been a lot of editors leaving quietly and permanently. As we all know, new editor numbers are down too. Part of this is attributable to the project's maturity - less obvious redlinks and more complete content - but part of it is due to the way the project has changed. Though there are some bright spots that have popped up recently (for example, the Teahouse), there's still a fairly hostile attitude towards newbies in a fair few corners of the project. They get template-bombed and policy is dumped all over their page. That's not a good thing for retention. I think we're managing for now but as we lose editors through attrition and conflict, we will need to gain new editors. That's not happening quickly enough. I think we could always use more content creators. After all, that's why we're here.

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

   I was really not a fan of how ArbCom handled the Perth case as a whole. I understand that they wanted to 'crack down' on wheel-warring but I think the fact that they almost desysopped 3 long-term administrators (and actually desysopped one) for a frankly silly wheel war was too much. I think the ultimate decision was better, as they backed off a bit and chose to admonish two of the admins, one of whom hasn't been around since and one of whom is still serving quite well. On the other hand, I thought the decision in the Muhammad images case was very well executed. I closed the mandated RfC, as I mentioned earlier, which made me a strong supporter of this as a solution to content problems. ArbCom took what is a complex, politically and religiously charged issue and came up with a nuanced solution for the behavior, and an effective, nuanced solution for the content issue. By running a community RfC, they were able to ensure that at least part of the content problem would be resolved without specifying what the solution would be, avoiding the trap of ArbCom mandating content. This was also a great example of ArbCom working with the community to resolve a seemingly-intractable issue.

7. Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

   To be totally honest, as a new arbitrator, I wouldn't try to propose any changes until I had some more seasoning. I wouldn't be comfortable trying to effect change right away - and besides, I think I'll be spending my first few months learning to keep up with the firehose! One thing I could see myself supporting and working on would be increased transparency, which I think I discussed in more detail earlier. Another thing I may end up trying to do would be to try and simplify the process a little bit. I remember the first time I found myself on the Arbitration pages, years and years ago, and I was totally flabbergasted by the complexity. Though it's complicated for good reason and I respect that, I think it could do with some streamlining. This would probably be accomplished with both arbitrator and community input.

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. As someone who focuses more on content work than admin work, do you feel as though you'd have a different perspective on cases?

   A: I absolutely do. I think that all of my content work would keep me very grounded when examining cases, helping to keep me from getting wrapped up in extraneous drama. Our ultimate goal here is to produce an encyclopedia, and because I focus on writing more than admin work, I think I'll be able to keep that goal at the forefront of my mind. ArbCom needs to facilitate that goal. That said, it takes all types and my ideal committee would have some very strong content members, some who do both content and admin work, and some who almost exclusively administer the project. The area you work in definitely influences your perspective, and I think having a diverse set of perspectives is beneficial.

1. Looking at your edit history, it appears you went inactive between February 2010 and March of this year. Is there a reason for that?

   A: Yeah, at that point I was in high school and there for up to 15 hours a day every day, a month or two at a time. I'd also become a little bit burned out because of some nasty harassment I had been dealing with in real life, some of which unfortunately became connected with the project. I needed a break from Wikipedia so that I could recharge my batteries, distance myself from the people who had been harassing me so extensively, and get a handle on my academics. Since I came back earlier this year, I've felt quite refreshed and renewed. I have my real life sorted out and have plenty of time for Wikipedia now, so I don't plan on leaving for such a long stretch ever again. I may take a week or so off here and there but that's it.

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

   A:I think that's one of the reasons ArbCom has 15 members - if someone's gone then their business continues as usual. The Committee should just keep doing what it has been, marking them as inactive.

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 think I could bring some expertise to incoming mail, because I'm an OTRS agent and have MedCom experience. Both of those mean that I'm good at communicating with people and have experience in helping to calm down people who are upset. I've not seen really what kind of emails I'd be dealing with but I'm assuming it includes people who would be best served with a gentle, kind tone and easily understandable explanations.

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:Though it was a really complex case, and I appreciate that, the Committee definitely could have been more efficient. The community needs cases to move along and it's unfair to the participants to be mired in a stagnant case for so long.

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A: A WikiProject is a place for editors who have a similar interest to discuss and collaborate on articles in that interest area. It can be broad (WikiProject Science) or specific (WikiProject Knots), depending on how the contributors wish to organize it.

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: I don't think this is a huge problem for the project. Oftentimes, I see people who are heavily invested in the project actually becoming more, not less, grounded in their contributions. This is especially evident at the Teahouse. But I do think that there are some people who become incredibly entitled and rude, and they make the environment hostile to less-experienced editors, driving them away. That is a problem, and I think it could be mitigated by careful, gentle chiding for specific (usually younger) users, even in private if necessary, and by application of sanctions by the community in extreme cases. I find that "tendentious editing" tends to cover cases of vested contributors gone wrong in a lot of cases.

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

   A:If something really significant and unforeseen happened in real life, I would consider resigning. I don't think anything will happen, but it would be a disservice to the community to stay on if I didn't have the time to devote to it. Again, I don't anticipate anything coming up in the next couple of years - my loved ones are in good health, etc., but it's always a small possibility. I would also resign if I made a grievous, harmful error in judgment.

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

   A:In some circumstances, that's definitely true. I've seen that in mediation many times - people just feed off each other in a really vicious spiral and the situation escalates without it needing to. However, there are absolutely some circumstances where one user is acting quite admirably and after weeks of harassment, just snaps. I feel like that's a more rare scenario, though. I might consider mitigating sanctions in certain circumstances, but it would depend on the details of a specific case.

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:There's very rarely an open-and-shut case of admin abuse. However, as we've seen in several cases in the past couple of years, consistent violation of WP:ADMIN or a single violation of WP:WHEEL is enough to constitute desysop-worthy admin abuse. It should really be considered on a case-by-case basis, asking questions like: is Admin X causing harm to the project with the tools? Is Admin X often having actions overturned? If that's the case, then it may constitute abuse of the tools. Again, it depends on the facts of the case. I think it's very rarely appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse without a member of the community asking it to do so. If it's an emergency (e.g. Admin X going on a rampage and getting blocked), then it would be appropriate for ArbCom to emergency desysop. Otherwise, I believe that the community would need to make a case that Admin X is abusing the tools and ArbCom should be involved.

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.wp ArbCom has no jurisdiction over other Wikimedia sites. In fact, users that have been banned here have been productive contributors on other projects. They're separate entities and should remain such. If a user's not misbehaving on en.wp, it's not ArbCom's responsibility, either, it's the responsibility of the dispute resolution bodies on those projects if they are misbehaving elsewhere.

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:Obviously, Mr. Honan was in a very difficult situation, and I have a lot of sympathy for him and his family. I'm not terribly worried about the same happening to me, however. I protect my anonymity fiercely and plan to continue to do so.

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

   A:Yes. I may take a week off here and there for real life commitments, but that will be a rare occurrence.

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

Additional question: I'm a bit concerned by the length of time it's been since you've been answering questions, especially considering that you've made plenty of other edits. If elected, how much of your on-wiki time would you be willing to spend on ArbCom? --Rschen7754 06:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been drafting answers to these longhand (I know, so old-fashioned) and was planning to post them all at once, sorry about that. I'll type up everything I have today and post it - I'll be online intermittently throughout the day. If elected, I plan to make ArbCom business my first priority for my entire term - one of the things arbitrators always say is that you'll give up everything else for the first three months. I'm okay with that and would plan for that.

Additional question #2 (sorry!): When would you recuse from a case? --Rschen7754 21:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie, I'm happy to answer! I would recuse from a case when I'd had any personal involvement with it and couldn't be neutral and fair. For example, if someone I was close to or someone I'd had a dispute with was involved in a case, I'd recuse so as to not be unfair or biased. There are people here who I've worked with and become friends with; I couldn't be impartial about them. There are less people I've had "run-ins" with, or expressed strong negative opinions about, but I'd recuse with those too, obviously, because I couldn't be impartial there either. I'd also recuse if I had previously been involved in a dispute resolution process with someone, or if someone/a couple of people came to e and asked me to recuse for something I hadn't realized. It would be a case-by-case thing, that's for sure, but being impartial and fair is incredibly important to me and I would recuse whenever necessary in order to maintain that.

1. First off, thank you for running. My question has to do with the differences between your work on the Mediation Committee versus your possible role on the Arbitration Committee. What are the differences you see in Mediation versus arbitration, and how would you prepare differently between, say, running a MedCom case and drafting an Arbitration decision? SirFozzie (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A:Thanks for asking. One of the primary differences between Mediation and Arbitation that I see is that Mediation is a more participant-driven process. When I mediate a case, I'm trying to find places where I can foster agreement and compromise between the disputants, whereas in Arbitration, a decision is drafted and handed down by the Committee, not created by the disputants themselves. Mediation also deals way more with content than with conduct or policy. The compromises and agreements we form when mediating are almost always content-based decisions - for example, three users could decide how to word a specific sentence in a specific article, or how to order certain facts. There's always policy behind the decisions, as people need to find a compromise in order to avoid undue weight, but Arbitration is a lot more policy-focused than Mediation, as ArbCom will cite policy as a rationale, emphasize policies' importance, and even clarify points of policy. Another major difference between the two processes is that ArbCom will focus on the conduct of the users involved in the dispute. In my experience, people try to be on their "best behavior" during Mediation, but when people start to be consistently uncivil or behave badly, a calm comment from me is usually enough to garner an apology for whatever was said and to cool things off in the dispute. Because Mediation is focused on hammering out a workable solution for everyone, prior incivility or negative interaction matters less than what's going on during the mediation. In Arbitration, people are often sanctioned for their incivility and indeed, that can be the focus of an entire case.

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:I think that I have a pretty balanced approach to authority. I'm not normally one to, for example, use the admin tools unilaterally (though I'm sure I have, I try to make that rare). I like consensus and discussion for the most part. I do agree with you, the rules serve the community and should be applied in the most sensible way. I've also mentioned in some of the general questions how I favor a case-by-case approach, looking at the facts of every situation individually and not having a "blanket" approach to anything. So, that would apply to ArbCom in a couple ways. First, I'd examine cases on their individual merits and, if drafting, try to come up with a solution that is best tailored to the specific problem. I'd work with the Committee to seek a consensus and try to make sure that the remedies we ultimately put in place will best serve the community. Just as the rules serve the community, ArbCom serves the community.

2. What does "Civility" mean to you?

   A:My personal approach to civility is a two-way street. I do the best I can to be kind and respectful to everyone, and to help create a collegial environment. When something here stresses me out or bothers me, I turn off the computer and get a little distance. That way I can come back with a clear head and respond in a sincere, kind way - or disengage if that's not possible. But the flip side of that is that I need to have a thick skin when other people don't live up to that standard. I recognize that other people have shorter fuses than I do, or simply have a different way of communicating. So when someone says something I perceive to be incivil, I try to respond as kindly as I can or leave the situation. I think that people should not fly off the handle when presented with someone being a jerk. I'm also not a civility cop. I just looked through my block log and of about a thousand, one justification cited incivility, and that was a long-term disruptive editor, whose disruption included gross incivility. A couple of others cited incivility as a component of particularly nasty vandalism, as a justification for a slightly longer block. In a nutshell, I try to be as nice as possible and hope that others do the same. When they don't, I try to brush it off. If this becomes a pattern for a long time and someone just can't ever work collegially, biting everyone's head off, then it's a problem. I hope this makes sense; if this wasn't the type of answer you were looking for, please feel free to ask a follow-up question or two.

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) 00:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: Sorry it took me so long to get to this one, I've been mulling it over for a few days. I think it's really hard to divorce content-related behavior and other misbehavior. One situation I can think of is if an editor is continually pushing his/her POV on a talk page, trying to weight the article unduly against a previously established consensus. That kind of behavior should be sanctioned. Another thing would be if editors are trying to hash out a consensus on the talk page and one participant is "filibustering", they are impeding the consensus-building process and keeping the content from becoming stable. That, too, should be sanctioned because it's tendentious editing. More thorny questions should be answered by community RfCs, a la Muhammad images - that was, for the most part, a content dispute that could be resolved by the community. ArbCom facilitated that in a very productive way, and helped the process along by authorizing discretionary sanctions, issuing a ban, and admonishing/reminding editors about their conduct. This shows that ArbCom can help to solve content disputes without "taking sides" or "dictating".

1. Looking at the current Arbcom composition, it appears to me that most of the committee's members are male. (The same appears to be true of the candidates running in this election.) Why do you think this is the case? Do you feel that a lack of women is a detriment to the committee?

   I think this is the case because Wikipedia's editorship is overwhelmingly male. It makes sense that most of ArbCom would be male too, that follows pretty logically! The lack of women is a detriment to the project as a whole because we need a balance of varied perspectives, just like the geographic imbalance is a detriment to the project for the same reason. But that's something we as a community will have to address long-term. I'm less concerned about the Committee because I think it should represent the community's ideals - and besides, wisdom and intelligence are unrelated to gender. If someone is a good editor, they're good regardless of their gender, and the same goes for a good arbitrator.

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'm aware and have it watchlisted. I haven't closed many RfCs recently but since I know it's backlogged occasionally I'll try to pick up a few here and there.

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?

   If the close is well-reasoned, I don't see any reason for it to be overturned. However, a problem I've seen with non-admin closures in the past is that the closer is not experienced enough to weigh consensus in a complex situation. If a non-admin close is controversial (seems to contravene what the obvious consensus is, gives no reasoning when it's not unanimous, etc.) then admin review would be warranted. If an admin chose to overturn it, it should be with good reasoning and that admin should both explain their decision to overturn in sufficient detail and give a solid closing rationale for the discussion. It depends on the situation - I've seen a lot of non-admin closes that were great and those absolutely should not be overturned just because they weren't an admin.

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 think a process like DRV is reasonable; DRV works pretty well. AN, as a central noticeboard, could be an appropriate venue, as RfC closes concern administrators. I don't know if contested RfC closes happen enough to warrant a whole separate venue.

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've talked about this a little bit above; I do agree with him. One concern I've heard from arbitrators is that some conversations are more convenient to have offwiki, and I can see that in certain situations. However, I would rather that, when possible, discussions be held online. As long as there's no private information being revealed I don't see any reason to not have a conversation onwiki.

  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.

     One thing I'd do is if I needed to bring up a topic of conversation, I'd bring it up either on an individual arbitrator's talk page, on the case discussion page, the general ArbCom talk page, or another appropriate venue. Obviously I would have to be sure that this didn't involve any private information, but I would try to be as transparent in my communications as possible.

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.

   Aside from cases where I would recuse myself without question, which I think I outlined above (feel free to ask about those if I wasn't clear there), I would recuse if a party requested it and made a point that I hadn't seen. Perhaps they remembered a dispute that I didn't, but that was relevant to the case (or had been particularly acrimonious), or had some other reason that I hadn't seen for whatever reason. I obviously wouldn't recuse no questions asked just because someone requested it, but if they had a good reason, I absolutely would. I think I'm pretty reasonable on that point. Of course, that would depend on the case, and I'd try to make sure I was impartial before commenting at all.

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.

   There are definitely some areas where I'd have to recuse. I've made some friends here in my time, and though it'd be laborious to list them all, I would recuse if anyone I'm close with were a party, immediately. On the flip side, I'd also recuse if anyone I'd had a dispute with were a party. I did found a WikiProject, WikiProject Women scientists, so I'd recuse in any matters relating to that. I was pretty involved in WikiProject U2 way back in the day as well; WikiProject Astronomy has been an area of recent collaboration. That's about all I can think of that I have really strong feelings about. I know I've expressed opinions in various RfCs and community talk pages; if a case came up that involved that page and my opinions then became relevant, I'd definitely consider recusing. I don't have terribly strong religious or political opinions, but I do have them and if it became an issue I might recuse.

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?

   I think Drmies's close under BLP1E was reasonable and within normal boundaries. I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way on the topic.

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.
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?
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?

     I would have opposed that motion just because it was such a short time. I would have supported or proposed a motion to wait for a given time period (a month or 6 weeks seems fairly reasonable, maybe longer) and put the case on hold to allow him to participate at some point. I think desysopping in this case wasn't necessary to prevent harm to the project and it wouldn't have hurt anything to wait awhile and see if he came back.

  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.

     I think I answered this in the previous question.

  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?

     It really depends on the circumstances of the desysop. Was it for one ill-considered action? Was it for a consistent pattern of abuse? What were the conditions of the desysop? I think if the decision stated that the admin could apply to ArbCom for the tools back and they had been desysopped for one misjudgment, I would consider supporting a return to adminship if they had shown impeccable judgment after the desysopping. If they had been desysopped for repeated misconduct, I would be far more inclined to support them having a fresh RfA. I would look at this on a case-by-case basis; without more details I can't really opine definitively.

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've had good interactions with Malleus before and he's been a wonderful collaborator and copyeditor on several of my articles. I have no personal issues with him. He can be too blunt sometimes but he does excellent work here and that is in no way overshadowed by his periodically unpopular comments.

  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.

     This comment was unwarranted and exacerbated the situation.

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

     Yes. The sentiment that a community member has been ex post facto ejected is not in the spirit of collegiality that the civility policy tries to express.

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

     Though the block was clearly made to prove a point, as civility blocks go, it was justified. I don't often like civility blocks but this one is no worse and no better than many I've seen before.

     (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.

     Anyone who has or continues to support the project with constructive contributions was or is a Wikipedian. Blocked/banned users who did contribute positively in their time here were Wikipedians, and some are still Wikimedians as they support other projects. I don't know what else to say - IP editors are Wikipedians, registered editors are Wikipedians, vandals aren't Wikipedians.

  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?
  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?

  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?
  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?

  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]

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) 08:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question, Risker. I think that arbitrators should comply with the decision made by a split committee, and that their dissent would be clearly visible to the community on the proposed decision page. I personally would uphold and abide by a split decision, regardless of what position I took; the community abides by those decisions, as should arbitrators, whether dissenting or supporting. If I had a strong opinion that wasn't held by other members of the Committee, I would express it during the case and try to find a middle ground solution, but even if that didn't work out I would still uphold the Committee's decision.

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} 14:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I live in Chicago, which is UTC -5 in daylight savings time and -6 normally. I'm usually awake from 15:00 UTC to 6:00 UTC (during non-daylight savings time) and online for most of that time.

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) 23:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to get involved in some of that; I'm planning to attend a meetup and help with some editing tutorials/talk about WikiProject Women Scientists this upcoming February at the Biophysical Society meeting. I don't imagine I'd cancel that if I were elected to ArbCom. I don't know how deeply I'll be involved in offline events after that, I guess we'll see! If I'm elected, obviously my first priority will be ArbCom business, but if I have spare time after that, I don't see a problem with doing offline tutorials and such. I hope this answers your question.

In your statement you say: "Sometimes you can find me on IRC (usually in #wikipedia-en-spi and #wikipedia-en-admins). That will get my attention about as quickly as a talk page message." Could you explain what is so useful about IRC and, in particular, #wikipedia-en-admins? I know and appreciate that many of our admins find #wikipedia-en-admins an interesting and very useful place, could you explain why this is, and also why you obviously spend so much time there - to the extent that you indicate it's a second talk page for you? Thank you. Giano (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, unfortunately, that's a bit out of date - I haven't been on in awhile and should probably update my userpage. I found it useful for being walked through complicated stuff (like some histmerges) that I hadn't done in a couple years once I came back from a break. I haven't been on IRC since August. I've found it useful to ask a quick technical question of someone I knew was online, so I could get an answer and go do whatever it was that I was trying to do without breaking the wiki. Thanks for asking.

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?

Civility: 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) 22:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure what you meant by this question, but I do believe that editors should try to treat one another kindly. Please feel free to ask more questions if I misinterpreted!

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 this has happened, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A: I'm going to assume you're referring to an RfC that was happening as part of a formal mediation but wasn't to be closed by the mediator (if it was, I would have already recused from mediating). I would politely decline closing and try to find an uninvolved admin to close it. I wouldn't be neutral in closing the second AfD for an article where I'd commented in the first AfD, and I wouldn't be neutral closing a DRV for an AfD that I'd closed. It's a similar situation - I wouldn't be neutral closing an RfC that I'd had involvement in before, even if that was in the form of having a significant dispute with one of the parties. So the remedy I'd suggest would be having another admin close it, and I would probably have commented in the RfC, knowing that I wouldn't be able to close it.

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:

   I think site bans should be used when there's no reasonable alternative. Site bans, like blocks, are meant to protect against further harm to the encyclopedia and if there's a different solution that would allow someone who is troublesome but productive to contribute without doing harm, I would prefer that. For example, if a user was being particularly disruptive in one area but productive in another, I would support a topic ban from their area of disruption to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Of course, if the editor couldn't stay away from that area where they were being disruptive, and continued to cause harm to the encyclopedia, I would consider a site ban, as the more lenient option was not successful. It's a fine line to walk, and it depends on the history of the user and the case, but in general, I would support a site ban when other options seem unlikely to succeed. An example of that would be when a user's disruptive behavior spans many topics or is not limited to a feud with just one user. That would be a situation where I would be more likely to see it as a better option.

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

   I agree with your essay quite strongly. I try very hard to assume good faith, and when that runs out, to issue warnings or help find/support alternative restrictions. I also believe that a lot of blocks issued are punitive and not preventative (e.g. a large proportion of civility blocks) and serve to exacerbate the situation instead of preventing harm. The sentence "a user restricted & reformed (deradicalized) is a user that helps the project. A user banned is at best not damaging it further" really struck me as something that admins should follow whenever they use the block button. What you said about not being afraid to make the "hard calls" also struck me as valuable.

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...?)

   Answered below.

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

   In a very limited sense, yes. A site banned user, like a prisoner, is prevented from interacting with Wikipedia/society. I'm hesitant to draw a more full parallel because incarceration is obviously a life-changing (or life-ruining) event for a lot of people, and getting banned from Wikipedia is, in the big scheme of things, not nearly as important (though it can still definitely have an effect on people's lives). When you're banned from Wikipedia, you have way more recourse, first of all (BASC, CLEANSTART, OFFER, etc.) than a prisoner. You still have your support network in place, you can even communicate with Wikipedians. You certainly don't lose your job, Internet access, family, friends, freedom to move about the world as you please. However, Wikipedia means a lot to me, and it means a lot to many, many people, and site bans are a big deal. But in the end, it's a website, not life, and I think it's not fair to either banned users or prisoners to compare them. It's insulting to prisoners to trivialize their incarceration by comparing it to getting banned from a website, and it's insulting to banned users to insinuate that they've done something horrendously immoral or criminal. I don't want this to be taken as me not thinking a site ban is something to be taken seriously, because it definitely is. I absolutely do not think ArbCom should issue decisions on the basis of "oh well, it's a website, just ban everyone involved for a year, they'll be fine". That's not fair - and that can cause a lot of personal harm to people, as many invest a significant amount of emotional capital here. But, again, an analogy of incarceration is limited because the scale is just so different.

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?

   To answer the literal question, it's clearly not working, as recidivism rates are incredibly high. Human built systems can be guided towards success by modeling them after more successful, similar systems. My personal belief is that the US needs to modify its approach to incarceration in a few areas to emulate countries with lower recidivism rates, which would be cheaper and more beneficial to society. Given that I think incarceration is a very limited analogy for harsh ArbCom decisions, I don't really want to draw the direct parallel to ArbCom with this question. I think the nuances of what could potentially be a beneficial change for the US justice system are different from what could potentially benefit with ArbCom decisions and, as I alluded to above, I certainly don't want to conflate the two.

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

   A:It depends on how the profanity is being used. I've seen discussions where zero profane words were used and everyone was on the same level and quite civil. I've seen discussions where profanity was happily being thrown around by all parties and everyone was on the same level (albeit more rare than the first option). But, I've seen discussions where the profanity was being used to insult and belittle other editors. That's different. Long story short, profanity can be totally acceptable, if it's used appropriately (e.g. not in an insulting manner).

Your answer seems very fair. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]