Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Elen of the Roads/Questions

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.

General questions

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?

   In real life I work in local government in England, and I have been the complaints officer for a city. While this has proved less useful particularly in the last year, I still think that the main focus of the committee should be dispute resolution, and I have years of experience of identifying the issues out of a morass of data, and finding the appropriate response to the problem based on policy and experience.

   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.

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?

   Neither. Or both. I'm usually described as on the lenient side, but I will use blocks and bans if necessary. Outside of Arbcom, I've found blocks to be most effective on young people, who accept them as a feature of the site, and are flexible enough in their outlook to work out how to avoid one next time. If a editor is so disruptive that everyone else is having their editing in quiet enjoyment destroyed, then banning is the only option. On the other hand, if no-one is being terribly disruptive, it's their failure to agree that is disruptive, then I prefer more creative solutions, as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping where the two main protagionists were sanctioned only to stay away from discussion about the name of the art, because that was the only problem area.

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 find it fascinating whenever the opportunity arises to view policy as it started out, or talk to those involved in its original creation. What I find is that the original policies were frequently simple, a shorthand for an idea that the community as a whole had signed up to. Now, it frequently seems that editors quibble endlessly over a single word, often because they have failed to agree on the overall intention. Sometimes policies are written in such a technical way that the words have lost their natural meaning. Sometimes policies conflict. Or it may be that times and situations have changed, and policy has not kept up. Arbcom has no role in saying "let's have a policy to...ban pink signatures!" But it does have a role in pointing up problems. In some cases this may mean interpreting a confusing policy, or emphasising one aspect over another where there is a conflict. In other cases, the committee may have to toss it back to the community and say "this is not up to snuff, any volunteers for a working party to look at 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?

   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?

   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.

   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.

   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?

   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.

   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?

   There is a blanket approach at the moment - everything stays. I'd like the committee to use approaches similar to the guidelines I am familiar with in the UK, which creates a fine grain of data, and has different rules for different circumstances - so if you've ever been convicted of certain crimes it never goes off the record and if you wanted to (say) work with kids it would follow you around for life, while traffic violations expire after five years, allegations that are investigated and found unproven have to disappear from 'the system' rapidly.

   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?

   All of the above implies the need for better tools. Once something gets into an email system, it's well nigh impossible to get it back out again, so personal data - even if emailed *to* the committee - should not get to the committee by email. Businesses worked out years ago that it was safer to pour it into a database - the ancestors of our modern crm systems - that everyone looked at, but no-one could copy out of. The WMF is looking at a crm system now. This would help a lot with information management, as an entire record can be set to expire and moved out of sight or out of existence.

   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?

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

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

   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'm going to answer this one, because it's one of the few areas where I feel I had an actual impact on the committee. Taking the English legal principle that a man has a right to face his accusers, one of the things I insisted on, insisted on having written into procedures etc, was that where Foo emailed us with allegations about Bar, we should in most instances make Bar aware of the allegations against them. We should make Bar aware that Foo has made these allegations, and before we do so, we should make Foo aware that this is what we are going to do if he wishes to pursue this line. Previously, what happened frequently was that Bar was given a precis and told that 'another editor' had made allegations. So to answer your question, unless there are some exceptional circumstances (eg we have had information from law enforcement agencies very occasionally), an editor should not be able to make anonymous allegations, and the editor who is the subject of the allegations must be able to see the evidence in toto, not a precis. However, this does not necessarily mean that the information should be made public - sometimes the evidence is given in camera for a good reason, and it is preferable to carry out an investigation, rather than plaster an allegation all over the project.

   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?

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?

   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?

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?

   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?

   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?

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.
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?

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question:
#:A:

---

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

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

   A: I'm surprised didn't die of old age. Cases really do take too long, and that one took too long.

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A: It should be a group of folks with a common interest getting together to pool their efforts in furthering their topic of interest, deciding a common approach, picking priorities, generally geeing each other up and supporting the development of the topic

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: As anyone who has ever run a church group, charity or voluntary organisation will tell you, vested contributors are essential. They do all the heavy lifting. You can't run effectively just on the people who can only give you an hour or two, even if you have hundreds of them. However, you do need to add to your vested contributors from time to time, and this can be where problems arise with things like resistance to change. I think we are seeing that happen - Wikipedia is changing, and some of those who have been here from the early days are finding that difficult. It was their playground, where they made exciting things happen. Now there are too many signs saying Walk/Don't Walk (I was going to say they can't fit their square peg into all the round holes, but that sounds vaguely indecent). Some have jumped, some been pushed. I think it is sad. What's to be done? Well, understanding that would help. Empathy. Dialogue. Efforts to defuse tensions, make the "old guard" feel still valued, but at the same time tackle the fact that the lawyers and the rules seem to be here to stay.

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

   A:If the committee did something that I really really could not agree with I suppose I could leave in a huff and a sedan chair. But then if they all really really disagreed with me, they might just kick me out anyway.

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:

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: (a) yes it's impossible to legislate for everything, so there can be areas that have no direct instruction. Also, sometimes you can see someone trying to pick the least worst option. (b) If it's bloody obvious I suppose - but then if it's so bloody obvious, one would expect the community to be up in arms anyway. Actually one instance where it would be likely is following an emergency desysop, where Arbcom actually has some info about what's going on that might not be available to the community generally.

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:

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:

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

   A:

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

Additional question: You were "reminded" in the Rich Farmbrough case. What are your thoughts about that? --Rschen7754 07:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What can I say - it was a good reminder. I just didn't think of Helpful Pixie Bot as being an extension of Rich Farmbrough, so I didn't see stopping the bot as blocking him, just switching off an annoying piece of code that was malfunctioning (or at least not operating within the parameters imposed by the community). That was a mistake. The community definitely sees bots as part of the operator both in terms of accountability and in the sense of "in dispute with" from WP:INVOLVED. It was an error of judgement on my part, and it was right to call me out on it. I think its the only time I've done something and absolutely everybody said it was a bad idea. As you might expect, there are instances where opinions have been divided, and sometimes I have revisited a decision and concluded with the benefit of hindsight that there was probably a better option, but as far as I recall, this is the only time there was universal agreement that I got it wrong.

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

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:

2. What does "Civility" mean to you?

   A: Civility is a slippery beggar: it always means 'appropriate social behaviour according to the norms of the social context", but that has such a wide range that it's hopeless as a measure. What is the social context? "Behaviur that would be acceptable in an academic environment." Would that be like the University of Wallamalloo? And so it goes.

I'm pointing folks at User:Elen of the Roads/On editing in a collaborative project for a lengthy answer. The short answer is that I think the project needs to make its own definition of what constitutes appropriate social behaviour in the context of creating an online encyclopaedia, agree it, publicise it, and stick to it. Broad brush - but with more agreement on terms than is there at the moment.

Question from Mark Arsten

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 it is the case, but I don't know why. There aren't as many female admins as there are women editors either, possibly for similar reasons. I think more female voices would make the committee different maybe, but I wouldn't want to trade on stereotypes.

Questions from Cunard

Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

• 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.
  Oh absolutely. While we occasionally get personal data that should not be disclosed, the rest is about edits made to a website. Hardly top seekrit. It would require a massive change in mindset though - the committee have got used to saying everything on a mailing list, and it being completely out of sight. I personally moved to always drafting proposed decisions onwiki, but I haven't done many of them, and really cases are only a part of the overall activity. Should ban appeals be recorded and discussed onwiki for example?

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

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?

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 and #Transparency, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.

Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

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

   A:

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 (I note that you were on the incoming mail team). 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:

Question(s) from Risker

With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.

How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you should ask that here. There are several questions in here all packed together, so let's unpick a little.

Motions and case decisions are passed on a majority vote, so if the majority agree, that is what will happen. Any lone dissenting voice does not have consensus and filing a minority report - "I disagreed, here's why, but the consensus decision was.....so that is what will happen" is the most one can say.

What we are seeing a lot of at the moment though is very near run things, split votes, decisions coming down to the wire, all indicating that the committee does not have internal consensus on certain things. This is a much more difficult situation, because a motion may be defeated by a narrow margin only to pop up again in another format shortly after (as we have seen with civility), leaving the committee itself looking like it needs dispute resolution. In some recent instances, members of the committee seem to have put differing interpretations on something they are voting for, or have voted for in the past, which doesn't help either. I would be concerned if that continued - this being Wikipedia, I'm not sure that deciding by one vote is a good thing, regardless of my opinion of the motion, and one might perhaps want to look again at margins and processes.

I've not known the committee make such a shocking bad decision that I couldn't live with it. Rather, I think it tends to not do something, which later comes back round again leaving one saying "well, I did say last time...". I don't think that response is particularly problematic. However, if the decision is X, one either confirms (minority report notwithstanding) that X is what has been decided and one will work with X, or I suppose one leaves in a huff and a sedan chair. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork

As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, so edit on UTC or BST. I normally edit in the evening (can be through to the early morning), but also sometimes during the day as well. I have noticed that I can be the only active checkuser on Sunday afternoon/evening --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Bazonka

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm personally not involved off-line, through preference rather than lack of opportunity. Being on the committee makes me a bit wary I must say. I used to be the complaints manager for the city, and if anyone asked I avoided answering, because otherwise I got a flood of complaints about refuse collection. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Begoon

I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" you, 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?

The definition used by the main UK Arbitration organisation, ACAS is as follows - arbitration involves an impartial outsider being asked to make a decision on a dispute. The arbitrator makes a firm decision on a case based on the evidence presented by the parties. Arbitration is voluntary, so both sides must agree to go to arbitration; they should also agree in advance that they will abide by the arbitrator's decision. The requirement for voluntary agreement can be met by an arbitration clause where both parties agree at the outset that should there be a disagreement, arbitration rather than the courts should be used to settle the matter. One could say that anyone using Wikipedia has signed up to an arbitration clause - I'm not sure though that most editors are even aware of Arbcom's existence though, unless they get hauled before it.

I don't therefore think that sitting in judgement is different to arbitration. ACAS arbitrators try to get agreement between the parties, but will come down one way or the others if the parties cannot compromise. Arbitrators usually cannot create penalties - if there are penalties, this is usually specified in the contract (like penalty clauses for failure to deliver on time) and the arbitrator indicates in their judgement whether or not the penalty applies. Again, it could be said that the penalties for disrupting the project are written into the policies for editing the site, so arbitrators are only indicating whether a penalty applies.

ACAS makes another point - that arbitration is usually private. This is not consistent with the Wikipedia philosophy though, so arbitration sessions take place in public.

In real world arrangements arbitrators are only making a decision for the parties, who have agreed to abide by whatever the arbitrator comes up with. In the Wikipedia state, it is not clear whether the community (in whole or in parts) is a party to the arbitration. Parts of the community clearly thinks that it is, that the Wikipedia model means that at the end of the day, consensus is what matters, and Arbcom should enforce the community will. Other parts want the committee to make a decision "for them" without necessarily wanting to prescribe what that decision is.

You can see where the tension arises from. The key thing Arbcom was supposed to provide is a means of breaking intractable disputes by taking some action when the community cannot resolve the situation (because it's too complex, too many people are involved, or whatever reason). This means that Arbcom is making a decision for the community, not primarily for the parties concerned. In the real world, this is what governments are for - the community has said "govern us", and the government makes the hard decisions

The question I suppose is 'what does the community want'. It might not need an Arbitration committee any more, it might want to give it a different remit. It might say 'let's have a couple of WMF staffers deal with the paedos and the stalkers and the nutters, and do everything else in community forum'. It might not want to take the time to dig through a gazzillion diffs and say instead 'let's have the findings of fact but leave the sanctions up to the community'. It might say 'let's restrict sanctions to...topic bans...and let admins block the unruly'. There are a number of options available for discussion.

Question from Gimmetoo

1. You cite real world experience with customer service and claim "years of experience… finding the appropriate response to the problem based on policy and experience". Is referring to editors as "anal retentive" [1] an example of what your years of experience has brought you?

   A:

2. In late May 2012, you were asked about your "clarification" of an arbitration remedy [2]. You interpreted that remedy in a way that allowed the user in question to serially sock puppet. You have previously noted this user as one of your friends. Do you still stand behind this interpretation?

   A:

3. How do you contrast your "clarification" with another comment [3], where you note a user creating sequential accounts, editing with overlap, and editing tendentiously? A number of people would say that comment could also describe your friend. Why does policy not apply when your friend is involved?

   A:

4. On May 30 you were asked to recuse [4] Your response was legalistic [5], implying that you would only recuse on case requests. Despite the interactions noted, you commented on, and did not recuse from, a RFAR case request in August 2012 concerning Raul. Why do your actions not constitute an abuse of position while involved?

   A:

5. You have already been censured by the committee for admin action while involved [6]. Do you intend to continue to act in cases and other situations in which you are involved?

   A:

Question from Raul654

Following up on a few of Gimmetoo's questions above:

1. You refused to recuse yourself in the Jack Merridrew case, yet you offered an interpretation of the remedy for your friend that allowed him to serially sockpuppet. Do you not feel that recusals are also warranted for remedy interpretations?

   A: There wasn't a Jack Merridew case for me to recuse from. There was a point at which the committee was asked to offer an opinion on the remedy that had previously been enacted. I cannot see how the people who voted on a remedy can be asked to recuse from explaining what they meant by it.

   There was a request for clarification on his remedy. You don't think a recusal is waranted when that request involves your admitted friend? Especially when your interpretation is so off the wall that turns what had been a sockpuppeting prohibition into permission for him to sockpuppet as much as he wants? Raul654 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

   What makes you think he's my especial friend? I blocked him once, and I've blocked his more recent socks as well. I think you're getting confused between 'I saw merit in his original request to have his restrictions lifted' 'I believe he has something to contribute' and 'bosom buddy'

2. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question here: I want to know if the committee, when writing that remedy, intended that Jack should be able to sockpuppet, or if this is a case of retroactive CYA.

   A: Well clearly not, as the editor behind the accounts was blocked for creating socks.

   That's a nice non-answer answer, since it didn't answer my question about the committee's original intent. And it's patently false too, since Jack was banned by the community, not the committee. (The committee did absolutely nothing to stop him.) So can you please give me a real answer to my question? Raul654 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Gerda Arendt

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)

That would certainly be an interesting way to take the "civility debate." This is an extension of the simpler concept that accusing someone of eg socking or edit warring without providing any evidence is a personal attack. It is important to remember that there is a human being behind that username, and the minute you start saying anything about that person in real life, there is definitely a sense in which it should have the same protection as a BLP. Whether the same should apply to an editor who has chosen to edit anonymously (either as an IP or just by not identifying themself) is an interesting question, but definitely when there is any prospect of it being personally identifying information, the fact that it is a wikipedia editor ought not to be a defence against saying something that would be ruled out by the BLP policy. There's a lot of speculation goes on (...obviously a Ruritanian Nationalist..., clearly in the pay of Rio Tinto Zinc...) that ought to be stopped, because there's nothing behind it but someone's opinion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Question from Wehwalt

Do you think there's an issue with people on Wikipedia being totally unable to drop the stick? That is, once the dog is dead, hauled away, disposed of, cremated, and its ashes scattered to the winds, they are still lashing out with the stick, seeking to do harm to anyone who didn't actually kick the dog at least three times? Personally, I see it as representative of the modern tendency that it's not enough to sack someone, you have to take away his pension, all moneys earned, the spouse, kids, house, and all but sackcloth and ashes.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would venture that a perusal of the Bible would suggest that the tendency you describe isn't exactly modern:) There do seem to be a lot of parties who cannot get over some event that is traumatic to them, but I've seen a lot of them in real life as well - all local councils know people who will continue to pursue the same thing for 30 years. There is a sense in which justification depends on the circumstances. If one is Simon Wiesenthal, the world applauds. If you pester your local council for 10 years because they missed your bin, not so much. Interestingly, one would think that a customer complaints team would consist of people all determined to stand up for their rights, but the people I worked with were always inclined to let things drop, because they saw the damage it did to people who got obsessed.

Question from Mors Martell

With respect to the recent issue involving leaked messages on the mailing list, is there anything you wish you had done differently? --Mors Martell (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)