Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Courcelles

2. What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?

4. What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.

6. Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?

   I think this question is somewhat flawed. The Committee isn't here to hand out punishment. We have to try to do what is necessary to stop disruption of the encyclopaedia, but only what is sufficient to do so. That said, I think I tend to fall on the harsher side than average, especially as it concerns desysoppings, which is because I believe admins serve at the pleasure of the community, and a desysop has an immediate, clear appeals process; RFA. Courcelles 23:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).

10. Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?

    There's nothing.

12. Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.

14. The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?

16. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?

    A few ideas I've been kicking around are 1) introduce a new fifth main page for every case, Arbitrator Discussion, in addition to the main, evidence, workshop, and proposed decision pages. This would hopefully help get a lot of the case talk off arbcom-l and onto the wiki. 2) Reform of the AUSC. As it stands, it is a paper tiger at best. At worse, it is useless. At a minimum, I think we should return selection of the community members of that body to the community. It is too much, in my view, that the committee appoints both the users of the permissions and those who are charged to resolve concerns over the same. 3) Figure out a new system for ban and block appeals. The current one of a mailing list is inefficient, and is prone to letting things fall through the cracks. The first and third would be accomplished through the committee simply deciding to do them. The second; I think we need a wide-ranging community-wide RFC on the AUSC early in the new year, well before the next selection cycle. Courcelles 00:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?

20. It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?

22. What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?

24. Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?

    I've held these two flags since mid-2011, first as a member of the AUSC, and later as a confirmed permanent functionary. This would not change, and I doubt neither will my usage of them; running the occasional SPIs to help with the backlog, investigating vandalism, cleaning up issues. Courcelles 23:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

26. Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?

28. Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?

30. Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?

    The first question is simple. Never. Not in a million years. There can be no secret trials, no Star Chamber. The second part is sometimes necessary, though. We do not, and cannot, share evidence that is protected by the privacy policy. We do not publicize or do anything to draw attention to child protection issues. That really is one of, if not the only, thing I've seen that we can't leave any on-wiki indication of. Almost everything else can be explained publicly, even if occasionally without the direct evidence. Courcelles 23:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

2. Do you feel that the current Arbcom has been consistent in the way it deals with outing issues? If not, could you give an example of something that was handled poorly?

2. 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?

4. 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 ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?

6. Please identify a few motions from 2013 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. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.

8. The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.

10. In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?

12. 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?

14. The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.

    - If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?

    - If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?

    - All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?

2. What do you think about a suggestion that arbitrators should more often recuse themselves on a time availability basis and be more hands-on and quickly to vote in those cases they do take part in?

2. What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?

2. First off, thanks for stepping in front of the firing line that is ACE again ;).. My question is this: The last couple years have been trying times for the Committee, with members unable or unwilling to complete their terms,along with numerous strident disagreements. What needs to change, and do you think burnout amongst committee members is at an all-time high, and if so, why?

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. 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, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

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

4. What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?

6. 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?

8. 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?

10. zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?

12. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?

14. What is your definition of "outing"?

16. What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?

18. Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?

20. Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?

22. Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?

Thank you. Rschen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.

2. An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

4. Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?

6. Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?

8. 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?

10. 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?

12. 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?

14. "Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) 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?

Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

2. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?

4. wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)

6. 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 to...?)

8. The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?

10. 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?

12. I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for volunteering.

2. Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you believe that it is a good thing that Arbcom accepts unproven or defamatory allegations about off-wiki events that may seriously damage the careers, personal lives or reputations of the Wikipedians involved as part of their investigations?

4. Do you think that that Arbcom should continue to retain online records that include unproven or defamatory allegations or unpublished assertions about the personal lives of parties involved in a case, or do you think that the risk of leaks makes this unacceptable?

6. Do you believe that Arbcom should continue to run its own investigations into suppressed or deleted information from other projects?

8. In what circumstances would it be okay to assert that on-wiki comments or allegations from other contributors appear homophobic or transphobic?

2. Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.