Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Ks0stm

Greetings all! My name is Steve, but I'm preferably known as Ks0stm on Wikimedia projects. I've had an account on Wikipedia since May of 2007, but I didn't really become active until late 2009. I'm not the most prolific content writer, but I have produced three Good Articles. I became an administrator in September 2011. As an administrator I haven't focused on any one particular area; I pitch in wherever I feel like I can help out at a given time. I also help out with OTRS.

Having read AGK's essay to candidates and been observant of Arbs, I realize that serving on ArbCom requires a significant time commitment and is by no means an easy way to serve the Wikipedia community. Despite this I would be more than willing to volunteer my time and effort as a member of the Arbitration Committee for the next two years. If elected to the committee I believe some of the best assets I would bring to the table would be my empathy and the fact that I always try to be as confident as I can before taking action, both of which I believe would help me to consider all matters with fairness and diligence. I also am and always will be open to criticism and strive to be humble at all times.

I am willing to fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, including identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation. Other than a few IP edits from before May 2007, I have only ever edited from this account and my alternate accounts User:Ks5stm and User:Ks0spy. I also have User:KsØstm as a doppelgänger.

• Ks0stm (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: Ks0stm 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?

   If elected I hope to bring my generally cautious nature and my skills as someone who can listen to and empathize with both sides of an argument/dispute. As I said in my candidate statement this helps me to treat situations with fairness and diligence. My experiences from helping with OTRS will also be helpful, I'm sure. That's all I'll say for this answer; generally other people are better at spotting my good qualities than I am.

   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'll be blatantly honest here: My interactions with the dispute resolution process have been very few. Generally I don't have very strong opinions about most things, so I usually haven't seen the need to comment on disputes. In other words I've watched but I haven't really gotten involved. The areas of Wikipedia I work in are also pretty calm, so disputes rarely come up related to areas I edit, and even when they do they are resolved fairly quickly and painlessly.

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?

   In general I believe that I would lean towards the opinion that a greater number of bans and desysoppings is not preferable. However, what decisions I would support would likely highly depend on the context of the case and editor. If an editor shows long term, habitual neglect for policy and/or an extensive history of bad behavior this will influence me towards harsher sanctions than if their problems are more ephemeral.

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.

   I do not believe that ArbCom should change or recommend specific changes to policies or take specific positions on their appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity. ArbCom is supposed to resolve user conduct issues and it could cause problems if they started becoming a policy-making body in addition to their current role in the dispute resolution process. In my opinion this is a sort of separation of powers between ArbCom and the community. If a policy is "inappropriate, ineffective, or unclear" to the point where ArbCom would need to change it or recommend changes then a request for comment should be instigated. My primary rationale for this opinion is that it could create a sort of "judge, jury, and executioner" type situation if ArbCom were to create policy and then sanction people for violating it.

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

   The Five Pillars are of direct importance to Wikipedia. They were designed as core principles of Wikipedia, and in my view are a foundation for the most core policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, etc) of Wikipedia (despite the fact that the Five Pillars were created after many of the core policies). As to whether they should be used in committee findings, I would say they could be, but it would not be preferable. I would much prefer the specific policies themselves be used rather than the Five Pillars in committee findings (WP:NOT for the first pillar, WP:NPOV for the second, etc).

   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?

   I would say that they can be handled much the same way as other cases in general, however, great care must be taken in the area of BLPs (least of all because an arbitration case related to a BLP could significantly affect the subject). BLP policy already exists, and I see no reason why the committee could not use BLP policy in their principles, findings, and decisions. What they should not do in those principles, findings, and decisions is legislate BLP policy...that should be left for the community.

   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.

   With regards to content rulings, I believe the best way to handle content disputes that the community cannot handle (and that are causing behavior issues to the point where the Arbitration Committee gets involved; the Committee should not get involved otherwise) would be remedies like the one from the Abortion case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Systematic discussion and voting on article names). Remedies such as this provide the committee with a way to hopefully put to rest the content dispute while not giving any direct content rulings.

   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.

   In my view the purpose of an ArbCom motion is to take action on something without going through a full case. As such, motions are best suited to amending/clarifying prior cases, situations simple and clear cut enough that a full case is not necessary (blatant wheel warring, etc), or situations that need more immediate action taken than a case could provide (emergency desysops, etc).

   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?

   It would not be appropriate to start a motion in situations not simple or urgent enough that a case could be reasonable foregone. I do not believe that ArbCom should have the right to overrule community consensus. Any situation I can imagine where it would be reasonable and proper for the Committee to overturn a community consensus would require the consensus be so against policy that I believe there is an infinitesimal chance of it happening. Finally, I do not believe that ArbCom should step in and settle issues without a request for arbitration from the community (although any member of the Committee would be free to initiate a request for arbitration as a member of the community).

   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.

   The motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement was an absolute nightmare. I neither support nor oppose the decision reached, but the amount of discord in the community and in the Committee leads me to believe that the situation would have perhaps been better handled via a full case, despite how grueling that may have been. Other than that I don't really have any strong opinions on the appropriateness of any motions from 2012.

   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?

   I believe that the committee should keep records including non-public information, checkuser data, and real life identities even after a case or issue has been handled.

   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 believe that while the information should be kept, the information should generally only be kept as long as it would be useful in the execution of the decisions/remedies of the issue or be useful as a reference in future issues. The information should be kept in as secure of way as possible, however I'm not well versed enough on the technical aspects that I feel comfortable offering any specific suggestions as to how that might be. All Arbitration Committee members should have access.

   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 that the non-public discussions have their benefits and their drawbacks. On the one hand they are beneficial as another medium in which to deliberate, discuss, and persuade just with each other, but they also have the drawback that they can create an aura of secrecy and an apparent lack of transparency. I believe that ArbCom discussions not directly concerning private information can take place via email or other non-public communication but that the fact such discussion took place should be disclosed publicly. I would even go so far as to say that if requested such discussions could be released publicly (assuming the participants gave their assent to such disclosure, of course).

   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 think that the response to the leak could have been better handled by more direct interaction with the community...a significant amount of discord was created by the scant information presented in the early stages of the event. I do think that the Arbitration Committee handled it as best they could except for that part. Personally I think the situation could have been much streamlined if the Committee had "disaster preparedness plans", so to speak, that they could follow when dealing with the situation. Having plans to follow in an emergency can make the difference between the relative mess that happened and a swift, streamlined, and organized response.

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

   While I have not disclosed my full identity on Wikipedia, I have disclosed enough information that it would be easy enough to discover my real identity. Personally I'm happy with the way it is. If others want to hunt down my real identity I'm fine with that, but I don't feel obligated to publicly expose it.

   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?

   Unless the evidence concerns private, non-public information then both users and the community have the right to see the evidence. Users and the community also have the right to "question witness' statements against them", although I would phrase it as "present counter-evidence" instead.

   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?

   Prior decisions and findings should not be binding on future decisions or findings. Much as opinions on social issues change in the United States (Plessy v. Ferguson → Brown v. Board of Education) so opinions and norms can change on Wikipedia. Former cases and decisions should be considered as precedents and nothing more.

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?

   Personally I think that ArbCom and the WMF are pretty good on which one handles what at the present time. The only one I feel is being handled by one that should maybe be handled by the other is WP:Pedophilia since situations involving it could very well have legal ramifications.

   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?

   Personally I have no problems with what the Committee is handling and what the community is handling at the moment.

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 would say that while being a problem it's not the biggest one. As a meteorology student climate change is something I see points of view on very often in real life, and the former exclusion of climate change information from the Hurricane Sandy article is a good example of how POVs can be pushed. I do not believe, however, that it is a big enough problem that the Arbitration Committee needs to do anything about it on a broad scale. The community can handle most incidents, such as with Hurrican Sandy, and in the event that POV pushing is so bad that the community cannot handle the issue ArbCom can sort out the user conduct issues (including POV pushing).

   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 the areas where I edit I have not really been exposed to factionalism, but in areas where it exists I can see how it would be a problem. Committee decisions should not necessarily be influenced by evidence of factionalism; instead, I believe that the better way to look at it is if it appears that two or more editors are working together to game the system. If this is occurring then I believe it would be appropriate to topic ban said editors from the problem area or otherwise remedy the gaming of the system.

   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?

   Ahh, editor retention. I would say I do believe that Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention, however I believe the reason for it isn't necessarily anything more ominous than failing to keep editors involved. When I started editing back in May of 2007 I became active for a while then fell into inactivity for a couple years. I could easily have dropped off the radar then and never have returned to editing. Keeping people involved and interested from their beginnings as an editor would work wonders for editor retention. I would say that Wikipedia overall does not have a shortage of editors but that particular areas of Wikipedia do. The main WikiProject that drew me into Wikipedia, WP:SEVERE, is extraordinarily deficient on active editors. There are also some tasks that could use more participation. It's not so much that Wikipedia as a whole has a shortage of editors, it's just that they are clustered more densely in some areas than others.

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

   I think that the Committee did a particularly good job with the way they handled hearing parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal in public and parts in private. Other than that no cases jump out at me in particular as having been above or below average.

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?

   At this stage I am not going to propose any specific changes to how ArbCom works. I'm almost 100% positive that it's a very much different viewpoint when you're on the Committee versus not. Having not been on the Committee I don't feel qualified at this time to say what changes to ArbCom's working would and would not have a positive impact. Proposing changes, if any, is something I will reserve doing until if I am elected.

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:

---

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: Enh...it's not the best I've seen, but also not the worst. Personally I would love to see most cases handled in a month, give or take a week, but I know that this isn't always possible. ArbCom should strive to get cases completed with a maximum of both speed and quality.

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A: The purpose of a WikiProject is to bring together editors of a certain topic area for collaboration and support and to provide assistance (whether that be through guidelines about how to format certain types of articles within the project's scope or direct assistance) to editors editing articles within the project's scope. They also serve as a place for centralized discussion about things concerning articles within the project's scope.

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 do think there's a bit of a problem with "vested contributors". I get highly concerned when I see someone blocked for what I consider to be at least borderline blockable but the block gets undone by another admin within 20 minutes. When I see this happening repeatedly with the same users, I get even more concerned. In my opinion there's not much that can be done about it on a broad scale at this point; incidents have to be handled on a case by case basis.

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

   A: If I determined that the community had lost trust in me and faith in my competency as an Arbitration Committee member I would resign for sure. I also would resign if real life became too busy for me to fulfill my duties as an Arbitration Committee member (although see my answer to Rschen7754's last question).

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: I do indeed believe that sometimes it takes two to tango. Not in every circumstance, but sometimes. I learned this in elementary school. If some kid shoved me and I shoved him back, a good amount of the time I would be the one who got in trouble cause the teacher saw me shove back but didn't see the other kid shove me. However, "But he pushed me first!" was never an acceptable excuse...the correct action on my part would have been to ignore that the kid shoved me in the first place, but since I shoved back we would both end up in trouble. For similar reasons I would normally not be willing to mitigate sanctions on a user because of the actions of another.

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: Well, to start off I'm going to treat "admin abuse" in this case as "misuse of admin tools". How you determine if misuse of the tools took place is as simple as determining if the administrator violated policy relating to the use of admin tools. Sadly, this is complicated by the fact that these policies are often interpreted different ways. For example, what constitutes being involved may be different to one user than to another. Hopefully situations where the tools are misused could be handled by the community, but in the event it cannot or wheel warring ensues ArbCom should step in. I do not believe that ArbCom should act on it without it having been brought by another editor, however, I do believe that any member of ArbCom can bring it to ArbCom outside of their ArbCom role (in other words, present it to the Committee and recuse themselves from the proceedings). It just keeps things cleaner that way.

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:I believe that ArbCom does not have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites in general. However, I do believe that actions on other sites can affect the user on enwp so long as the actions are related to enwp if they affect going-ons or other users of enwp.

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: I'm not all that concerned, to be honest. I have my accounts related to Wikipedia relatively compartmentalized already, and I will make them fully so if elected.

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

   A: I do plan on being active the majority of my term. Even during my more inactive times on Wikipedia I'm usually still around, albeit not editing due to events in real life.

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

1. First off, thank you for running, and congratulations for taking a big step :). My questions are based off something in your nomination statement. First, you admit that you do not have a lot of experience with Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution system. Running for the Committee is taking a dive into the "deep end" of dispute resolution. Is a lack of experience here apositive or negative here? SirFozzie (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A: I think that my lack of experience could be both a positive and a negative. On the positive side of things it means that I'm a pair of (relatively) fresh eyes. Also, it means that I don't come in already with "dispute resolution burnout"; I haven't already been around these circles multiple times so I'm fresh and ready to go. On the negative side is the fact that it means I'm perhaps not as knowledgeable on the process, characters, and characteristics as your average candidate. I don't think this should count against me, though; I'm a quick learner and I'll get accustomed to things quite rapidly.

2. My second question is as follows. When you're an Arbitrator, you deal with a lot of the dark side of Wikipedia. Long running, personality-fueled disputes, sometimes over very trivial things. Do you think that your sense of the promise that Wikipedia offers will change by dealing with so much "bad stuff" all the time? SirFozzie (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A: I don't think that will, and if it does then I'm sure it won't have any negative effects on my participation. Any large group, including Wikipedia editors, will have certain sections that just don't get along. Just because those sections don't get along doesn't mean that the whole group lacks promise. While being on the Arbitration Committee would expose me to a large amount of "bad stuff", I highly believe that it won't hinder me from also seeing all the good stuff about Wikipedia.

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

   A: For convenience I'll split this up. If the extended absence is 3-6 months long and known in advance, as well as that they will be returning after the absence, then I see no reason for the member not to just go inactive for that time. If it is not known in advance that's more of a concern, and I believe that the committee should try to make contact with the member and ascertain when they estimate a return to duty. For absences of six months or more, especially when the member does not expect to return to duty soon, I believe the member should consider stepping down so that someone more active can be elected in the next election (if the member returns to duty they can always enter themselves in the election). I believe that although the committee has the right to remove one of it's own members doing so is not a best practice and should be reserved for extended absences where contact cannot be made, and even then only to facilitate someone being elected in the member's place in the next election.

2. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team? Why?

   A: Hmm...this is somewhat tough to answer. Of the five choices higher permissions and technical are the two I would least be interested in, the former because I have never held CU/OS and the latter because technical maintenance is generally not my strongest point. Any of the other three I wouldn't mind, with my highest two choices being case management and ban appeals due to the fact that I think they would be most suited to my talents.

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: With regards to ArbCom actions, since ArbCom is the last step in dispute resolution and specifically user conduct issues, I believe that ArbCom needs to be a body capable of quickly exercising authority. On the other hand, I think that they should also attempt to gauge what the community desires (for example the Workshop part of a case). If there was a scale from 0 to 100 with 0 being authority and 100 community, I personally as an administrator and editor would fall somewhere about 60-70. ArbCom, I believe, should be somewhere more about 45. As to the rules argument...by no means are the community here to serve the rules, but that also doesn't mean they should run around ignoring the rules even exist. The rules are there to serve the community, to allow it to function and hopefully thrive. Rules should not be applied "firmly and unconditionally", but in my opinion they are not "guidelines" either. Rules are rules, but they should indeed be applied intelligently to each situation. When the community fails to rectify a situation and it gets brought to ArbCom, it falls to them to do so.

2. What does "Civility" mean to you?

   A: To me, civility is as simple as being nice to one another. When someone lashes out at you, just ignore it. I will note that personally I failed at this at User talk:Joefromrandb, although I did not and never will descend to the types of comments I was receiving. It was still my error to respond, and I've learned from it and will keep it in my mind that just walking away serves so much better in those situations. If you don't like someone, then just stay away from them...it's a large encyclopedia. In short, a really good way to think of civility is treat others as you would want to be treated. No one wants to be personally attacked (or I should hope not, anyway), so why do that to others? Would you want others stalking your edits, reverting if there's so much as a comma out of place? Would you want someone dissing on your viewpoints whenever you make a post on a page? I should hope not...so why should anyone do that to anyone else?

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]

The committee must be very careful to not stray into making rulings on content issues with its decisions, especially when the content policies are involved...which side of the line does it fall on if the committee sanctions someone for repeatedly using unreliable sources? Does this mean the committee has ruled that their sources are indeed unreliable? I would say that it is perfectly within the committee's scope to examine misuse or abuse of content policies as problematic user behavior, they just should not sound a voice on the content issues themselves, and instead leave that to the community.

1. Your contributions took a nosedive in January and from June to August. I don't need details if you're not comfortable giving them, but I would like some sort of assurance that you're not going to disappear for a few months during your term, if elected. Can you give that assurance? How likely is it that you're going to disappear for a few months again? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   It's really not as concerning as it may appear, to be honest. Last year was my freshman year of university, and January and June-August were the only extended periods of time I could see my friends from home. With the extra responsibility that would be placed on me if I were elected a member of the committee I could most certainly make more time for editing than I did during those times. Since I'm not really sure what assurance you're looking for I'm not positive that I've covered it with this answer; if you want any further details or discussion on this feel free to ask.

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

Anchor: #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.
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?

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.

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.
  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.

Recusals

Anchor: #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.

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.

Consensus

Anchor: #Consensus

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

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

2. After considering Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley?
3. WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
4. The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).

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

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

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

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?
  2. In his statement, former arbitrator Carcharoth (talk · contribs) mentioned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision#History of the case as a similar case where an admin left in the middle of a case. He wrote, "ArbCom is not a court, but being able to build in delays for single-party arbitration cases should not be impossible (this would not apply to multi-party arbitrations about a volatile and current issue)."

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

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

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?
  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?

     (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.

  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) 08:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would have no problem upholding an outcome which I did not support. Even if I fell on the four side of a five-four vote I would see it as my duty to uphold the decision. If my opinion were not supported that's fine with me...I would be sure to articulate my opinion to the committee during voting, and if anyone else were to ask I would be happy to express my opinion while noting that even though I did not agree with the decision it should be abided by and upheld.

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]

I am in Central Time Zone (North America), however, I generally am available mostly between 18:00-6:00 UTC.

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) 23:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I've always kept my Wikipedia activities online, with the exception of a couple three failed attempts to get my friends involved in editing. I doubt that I would do many real world Wikipedia activities even as an Arbitration Committee member, but I won't completely close the possibility that I would.

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?

1. Questions: 1) Would you close an RfC that was happening as part of a formal mediation but wasn't to be closed by the mediator/s 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 resulted in said RfM and RfC? 2) Assuming this has happened inappropriately, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: I would not. Whether bias existed or not that sounds like an involved, possibly biased closure. If it had happened my suggestion would be for someone uninvolved to redo the close to remove the possibility of the close being biased.

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

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:
   • Personally, I would say that full site bans are only a better choice than limited ones when the limited ones are unlikely to fix the problem, whether that be because the editor consistently breaks the ban or because the problems are so widespread that a limited ban would still leave issues unresolved.
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?
   • That mini-essay has some good points. Ideally, "is this better or worse for the encyclopedia" would be a great standard for blocks, however, it doesn't seem to translate so perfectly into actual use. I will say, though, that if someone has serious behavior issues yet is a net positive to the project I do not see this as giving them a free pass to get away with the issues.
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...?)
   • Oddly, what I think seems to best fit is penal transportation. We completely remove the offenders from the society that is Wikipedia, but at the end of their sentence they can come back and attempt to be constructive members of society.
4. do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
   • See the answer to the previous question.
5. do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate) is something to applaud or criticize?
   • I can see a little of both. For one, it means that law enforcement is doing their job, however it also means something is terribly wrong on the prison end. Prison should reform the prisoners into constructive members of society, and with such a high rate of incarceration (and if I recall correctly, repeat offenders) that part derailed long ago.

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: Personally I don't see much wrong with profanity so long as it isn't directed at a person/editor. As an example, I would see no problem with saying "the formatting got all fucked up", whereas I would see infinite problems if someone called another editor a "fucking fuck-faced fuck".

Absolutely, an essential distinction, I would say. In fact, profanity can work quite well when self-directed, e.g. "I used to see myself as Wiki-Superman, but now I see I'm just an ANI fuck-tard". Perhaps there should be more of it. As a follow-up question, in these last, dramatic, nail-biting election moments.... Do you think that established editors should even be blocked or banned for wholly unprovoked outbursts of incivility? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here I'll use myself as an editor since it should provide a bit more balance. Lets say I make some edits to Article, User:Example reverts me, and I run fuming to his talk page to say something like "Those were my edits you reverted, you fucking fuck-faced fuck! Your version is a sack of ass!" I could only hope that some admin would walk along and slap me silly with a block for personal attacks/incivility, regardless of whether I had 100 edits or 100,000 edits. As for bans, that's a bit different. It would need to be a long term, ongoing problem for me to think of bans rather than event based blocks.

Thanks, that all looks very fair. I'm not sure I could ever vote for you, of course, as you can never trust any editor who uses a combination of letters and numbers in their username.... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]