Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Timotheus Canens

Timotheus Canens

Hello, I'm Timotheus Canens. Occasional editor since late 2005, started editing in earnest in 2009, admin since March 2010. I'm a clerk at sockpuppet investigations. I've worked at articles for creation, articles for deletion, deletion review, RC and new page patrol. Much of my current work is at arbitration enforcement.

I'm running because I believe it is useful and important to have more arbitrators who are previously AE administrators, especially after a few very disappointing recent episodes that nearly destroyed my willingness to continue to work at AE. I believe that it is important that the committee get a better understanding of how its decisions will be interpreted and enforced at AE, and how their actions and inactions can affect the work of AE admins. As the number of topic areas under discretionary sanctions continues to grow, I think it will greatly benefit both admins and editors working in those areas alike to have a fair, effective, and efficient enforcement system, but that can't happen without support from the arbitration committee.

I'm over 18, and willing to identify to the foundation if elected. All my currently used alternate accounts are listed on my user page. User:Tim Song is my previous username; User:Tim song was created by an impersonator that I then usurped and used as a doppelganger.

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

Skills and experience:
a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
A: I think my most valuable on-wiki experience is my work at arbitration enforcement. Having spent a lot of time enforcing arbcom decisions, I have a good idea of how an arbcom remedy will work out at AE after it passes, and what the effect of an arbcom action will be for AE admins, who are in short supply. In addition, I'm fairly familiar with sockpuppet investigations, having been a clerk there since early 2010.

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.
A: The only case I filed is WP:ARBFLG2, but only in my AE capacity, as the original AE request in that case was too big and complex for AE to handle. The only other case request I've been extensively involved in, to the best of my memory, is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Race and intelligence 2.
There are also some clarification/amendment requests in which I have been involved, usually due to AE, again. Some are appeals of my AE decisions (the most recent one being Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Clarification request: Motion regarding Iantresman), and others were filed by me, such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Request to amend prior case: Discretionary sanctions in cases named after individual editors.
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?
A: I don't remember anyone ever characterizing my AE sanctions as lenient, so I guess that would put me on the stricter side of the scale? People who wish can examine the AE archives to see the sort of sanctions I've handed out before. I'm not a big fan of a dichotomy like this, though. In my view, sanctions should be sufficient but no greater than necessary to control the disruption. In many cases, that may require a harsh sanction, in others a lenient one will be sufficient. The nature and severity of particular misconduct at issue and the editor's history of misconduct are the most important factors to me. Also, I tend to have relatively little patience for topic areas that keep coming back up.
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.
A: The primary task of the Committee is to resolve conduct disputes. In carrying out that task, it is necessary to interpret our policies. I think it's appropriate for the Committee to point out issues it encountered during the interpretation attempt.
That said, the Committee should never make changes to policy directly, nor recommend any particular change to a policy as a group (it can, however, ask the community to clarify a particular aspect of policy without taking a position on how the policy will end up). Allowing the Committee to both write policies and interpret them would concentrate too much power in what is first and foremost a dispute resolution body. Individual arbitrators may propose changes as a community member, however.

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?
A: WP:5P is a good summary of our fundamental content and behavioral policies, excellent for giving new editors an introduction to the subject. Being a summary, however, it lacks much of the nuances found in the actual policy text and is in my view too simplistic to be used in the decisions of the Committee.

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?
A: The problems with our biographical articles and the effects inaccuracies can have on real people is fairly well documented, and I'll not repeat that here. Compromising the quality of a biographical article, especially a BLP, has always been considered one of the more serious kinds of misconduct by both the community and the Committee, and properly so. That said, administrators have been granted special enforcement authority with respect to BLPs since 2008, and I'm not sure what more can be done by the committee on that front, other than carefully examining biographical edits of parties to a case for compliance with our core policies, handing out BLP/biographical bans liberally when problems have been demonstrated.

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.
A: In general, ArbCom assists in content disputes by removing editors who are disruptive (either directly or through administrators), and in rare cases directing some sort of binding content dispute resolution procedure such as a well-advertised binding RFC. Prescribing a generally applicable content dispute resolution procedure is too close to writing policy for my liking, but I think the Committee can and should establish procedures for binding content dispute resolution in cases of specific long-running disputes when all previous content DR attempts have failed.

c) ArbCom and motions:
i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
A: A motion in lieu of a full case or review skips the usual evidence and workshop phases, and are helpful in conserving scarce arbitrator and community time if the relevant principles are well settled, and the relevant facts are not in dispute. In those cases, the evidence and workshop phases are not needed and the situation can be dealt with by motion.

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?
A: If there is a dispute as to the relevant facts, or more rarely, a dispute as to the relevant principles (WP:AESH comes to mind), a full case is required and motions are inappropriate. It would be patently inappropriate for ArbCom to overrule a fully informed community consensus, by motion or otherwise, in the absence of changed circumstances. In general, ArbCom should not step into existing disputes without being asked; if the situation is bad enough to require ArbCom intervention, chances are good that sooner or later someone will bring it to ArbCom . Even if there exists such a case where ArbCom needs to intervene before a case request is filed, it certainly should never proceed by motion without even the benefit of the statements in a case request.

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.
A: Looking at the passed motions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions, most are fairly uncontroversial, and nothing stands out as particularly inappropriate to me. I think the proposed (and failed) motion to ban Malleus was rather ill-considered. Moreover, with that level of disagreement from the community, decision-making by motion is not a good idea. My disagreement with the proposed R&I motion was extensively discussed here, but that's more of a merits disagreement than of disagreement with the use of motions as such.

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?
A: Generally speaking, yes. Most of the time this information is useful in handling future appeals which may not be heard by the arbitrators who decided the case originally.

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?
A: It depends on the particular case, but generally records should be kept for as long as needed, but no longer than that. In practice, that would probably mean periodic reviews. On a secure server, obviously. Current arbitrators should have access to the information.

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?
A: No. It is important for arbitrators to be able to candidly and directly exchange their views, without having to worry about having to make the phrasing watertight. In addition, it is considerably more convenient to have all deliberations in one or two easily searchable place. That said, at times I have felt frustrated when it seems that I was talking to a brick wall, so I do understand the push to make more deliberations public, and I wouldn't object to a trial for, say, one case or two, to see how well public deliberations work out.

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?
A: I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details of the leaked emails to comment on what they've done wrong before the leak. I do not remember anything particularly disagreeable with their actions after the leak.

v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
A: No, though quite a few people probably know who I am and where I live in real life.

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?
A: In general, users should be able to see and respond to the evidence against them. Exceptions include some checkuser data, and some sockpuppetry evidence that will help the sockpuppeteer evade detection. The community should generally be able to see evidence that does not relate to private information.

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?
A: Prior cases should be consulted to the extent that they are persuasive and relevant. Strict adherence to precedent is neither necessary nor helpful in resolving disputes.
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?
A: The division is generally sound, and I don't see anything currently done by the Foundation (not much, anyway) that should be done by ArbCom instead. I think Shell Kinney is correct, though, that "issues of volunteer harassment, pedophiles using organization resources for inappropriate purposes and organizational privacy and security" should really be dealt with by the foundation, which is in a much better position to handle this. That said, I have no idea if the situation has changed behind the scenes since 2011.

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?
A: I think the current division is generally sound.
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?
A: Yes, there is a problem, because civil POV pushing is hard to detect and difficult to manage. It takes quite a lot of evidence to establish even the existence of civil POV pushing, which means that it is not really suitable for resolution by the community or even AE, as few people would willingly look at dozens of diffs and try to figure out if they represent POV pushing. ArbCom is in the position to tackle this problem because it has the time to carefully scrutinize edits for content policy violations, including NPOV violations, and it should do it more often when such situations are brought to its attention.

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?
A: Yes, it's certainly a problem in a lot of topics. Take any AE case from the archives and chances are quite good that you'd find a nationalistic dispute between two factions of editors. In many areas, when I see the names of the filer of an AE request and the editors who have commented in it, I can predict the position they are going to take with pretty good accuracy.
When the topic mirrors a real-world conflict, as is often the case, I doubt that anything can be done to eliminate factionalism. I think the best arbcom can do is first, to sanction inappropriate off-wiki collusion (like WP:EEML), though that can be very difficult to prove, and second, to take the existence of factions into account in reviewing the evidence submissions and in crafting the remedies.

c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
A: Yes, yes, yes. Of course some departures are to be expected, since this is a volunteering endeavor, and people's interests do shift over time. But many good editors are driven away by our internal conflicts, and that is a problem. In addition, many important tasks are understaffed, such as WP:AE and WP:CCI. The best ArbCom can do is to attempt to create a more welcoming environment through its decisions, removing the disruptive elements, and support administrators working in understaffed areas.
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.
A: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay is fairly well done, both in terms of the outcome and the time it took to reach it. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation was decent, but took a bit too long.
The original proposal - that almost passed - in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth was way too excessive for what was in the end a short move war in which the use of the admin tools was really incidental at best. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3's proposed decision was a gigantic mess that saw ArbCom deadlocked. What ended up passing - a site ban - was not unreasonable, though I wish proposed remedy 6 had passed instead. But then, as an SPI clerk who benefited significantly from Δbot (talk · contribs), I'm probably somewhat biased.
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?
A: I don't really want to propose a change in procedures until I've worked with the existing ones, but I think it is important for ArbCom to deal with cases and clarifications/amendments in a timely manner, and I'll not hesitate to pester other arbitrators if that's what it takes. I do think that procedures for appealing sanctions, particularly AE sanctions, could use some revamping. The current system can drag on indefinitely for seemingly no reason whatsoever.

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question: #:A:

Questions from Rschen7754

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

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

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
A: It appears to be a relatively straightforward case; certainly the time (2.5 months) was too long. I understand that the drafter had significant real life issues that caused the delay.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
A: To facilitate collaboration among editors sharing a common interest in a particular topic.
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: Yes, there's no doubt that something's not right when ANI threads concerning certain editors almost inevitably lead to a bloated thread with no discernible consensus whatsoever. If, as it is said, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results, then our community has routine bursts of insanity. I think it is appropriate to hold all editors to the same standards of conduct, with the exception of leeway accorded to newcomers and such, but at the same time, I think it is also important for the committee to explore ways to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater, by exploring potential solutions that may allow us to retain the benefits of the positive contributions of an editor without the periodic flare ups.
Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
A: If either 1) enough people who I respect think I'm out of my mind and should resign, or (2) I can no longer put in the time required and the vacancy created by my resignation will be filled before my term would have ended. If the vacancy won't be filled before my term ends, I'd prefer to go inactive instead so that I can still help in if time unexpectedly turns up.
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: a) When only one side is at fault, usually the case can be and is handled by the community, so by the time a case gets to the point where ArbCom action is necessary, usually both parties will have some behavioral problems. Sometimes both sides are roughly equally at fault, other times we may have one side that's significantly more at fault than the other, although neither is wholly blameless.
b) It very much depends on the totality of circumstances. As sanctions are meant to prevent disruption, it may well be appropriate to employ a lesser sanction - or in some cases no sanction at all - on a usually excellent editor who was fed up dealing with someone who has been totally disruptive.
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, there are lots of grey areas, and even our best admins or arbitrators do not always agree with each other. Merely being wrong, even totally wrong, is not by itself admin abuse. In my view, admin abuse happens when an admin uses their tools maliciously, i.e., to harm this project or other editors. (Preemptive note: I do agree that admins who have a long history of consistently poor judgment can and should be desysopped, but I don't think it's fair to call someone who acted in good faith and probably donated thousands of edits to this project "abusive" when there is no malicious intent. They may not be a good match for the tools, but there's no need to be.)
b) ArbCom can intervene immediately if there was an emergency (e.g., deleting the main page - it's still technically possible, if a bit more complicated), although usually stewards get to those cases first. Another scenario is when ArbCom learned of some non-public information that required immediate action, such as the User:Pastor Theo case.
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
A: a) The enwp ArbCom generally has no jurisdiction over what our editors do on other sites, but if events on other sites significantly affect enwp, then ArbCom may need to take action to mitigate any resulting disruption on this site, and if an editor purposefully did something on another site with intention to cause disruption on enwp (for example, harassment or outing), then ArbCom has jurisdiction over the editor. In addition, ArbCom can and should take into account behavior on sister sites in deciding whether to lift a ban, since these are the best indicators we have available on how the user will behave if allowed to return to enwp.
b) Evidence should, obviously, be posted here, so I assume that you are referring to, say, action taken on other projects. If so, then certainly they can be considered if they are somehow related to this project. Obviously, for admin-only or private evidence on other projects ArbCom must be able to independently verify its truthfulness before relying on it, and the editor involved should be allowed to see the evidence and respond.
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: That is one big horror story. That said, I believe that my computers, online accounts, and passwords are all fairly secure.
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A: Yes.

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

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.
There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.
How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?

A: I'm not particularly convinced about this "authority" vs. "community" distinction, especially since, by the time ArbCom intervention is required, it means that the community has tried and failed to resolve the problem. In general, I think it is appropriate to give community consensus building a chance if there is a reasonable probability that it will work. But if it does not, or will not, work for whatever reason, then quick and decisive action is called for.
Mechanical adherence to rules is a recipe to disaster. We even have a rule - IAR - for this. It is appropriate to attach significant weight to our policies and guidelines, as they are descriptions of community consensus, but it is never proper to let rules overrule common sense.
What does "Civility" mean to you?
A: In short, to treat others with respect, in the manner you expect to be treated by others. I think it is quite possible to be uncivil without using profanity, and using profanity does not necessarily imply incivility. Context is key. It is difficult to come up with an exhaustive definition, though, so I think I'll have to pull a Justice Stewart on this one ("I know it when I see it").

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) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closes

Anchor: #RfC closes

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.
A:Yes.
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?

A: A well-reasoned close should not be summarily overturned regardless of whether the closer is a non-admin or not. Conversely, a poorly reasoned close should not require much bureaucracy to overturn; whether that means summary overturn by a single admin or overturn after a quick and short AN discussion is, in my opinion, not a big deal. Balancing between the two competing interests can be done a variety of ways: on one extreme we might allow summary overturning of non-admin closes, trusting admins to use their common sense and not overturn reasoned RfC closes summarily; on the other extreme we can insist on every request to overturn a close going through a discussion, trusting SNOW to do its job. There are merits to both approaches, but in the absence of evidence that poor non-admin closes are frequent, I think I'd prefer the latter approach. That said, if this kind of situation arises often enough, it might be helpful to create specific criteria of when an non-admin close can be summarily overturned by an admin.
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.

A: AN is pretty much the catchall review venue, so having it as a review of RfC closes makes sense. I believe that Move Review essentially copied the format from DRV so those two are roughly the same. I think the basic format is sound, although the particular link templates used may need to be changed since RfCs can cover a wide variety of subjects.

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.
  A: From a purely workability standpoint, given what I read about the Committee's workload, I am doubtful that it is feasible to have all the discussion on-wiki and yet stay informed about everything. MediaWiki is not great for tracking multiple simultaneous discussions on the same page. (This part might be technically fixable; for example, we might have a bot that posts to the mailing list each time an arb posts in an on-wiki thread so that all arbs can just read the mailing list if they just want to stay on top of everything.)
  I also think that it is important that arbitrators be able to candidly and directly express their views, and explore all possible solutions to a matter, without having to worry about whether their comments cover all eventualities, will be misunderstood by the community, or might be quoted out of context. I'm aware of no quasi-judicial body that opens up all its internal deliberations on a case to the public, and I think there's a good reason for that.
  That said, as I explained in my previous answers, I understand where this push for transparency is coming from, and I won't object to a trial run in one or two cases to see how that would work out. I'm doubtful that it will turn out workable, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Recusals

Anchor: #Recusals

In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.
See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk regarding this case request.
See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."
Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.

A: If I was previously involved in the topic area; or if a reasonable observer, fully informed of all the facts and circumstances, could question my impartiality.
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

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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
  
  A: In the particular circumstances of the case, I do not think a delay is appropriate, and I think the desysop is sound. Administrators are required to be accountable, and when their actions have been brought before the Committee, they fail to respond at their own peril. While it may well be appropriate to hold a case in abeyance for an editor or admin with actual real-life issues, in this case it appears that EP was active on other Wikimedia projects while the case request and the motion were pending, and apparently deliberately chose not to respond to them beyond the initial statement, which didn't really address anything substantive with respect to the admin actions in question. Under these circumstances, I see no good reason to delay the motion.
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?
  A: It depends on the particular circumstances of the case, including the nature of the misconduct that led to the original desysop, and whether there are other colorable community concerns regarding this editor. Personally, I prefer a fresh RfA, but it depends on a case-by-case evaluation of the particular circumstances.

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?
  A: I don't think it is appropriate for me to comment on the merits of this matter, as it may appear before the Committee later.
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.
  
  A: I think the comment is entirely inappropriate and seriously misguided, and I think it certainly violates the part of WP:CIV that asks editors to "always treat each other with consideration and respect". I don't think blocks are a good solution under the circumstances, both because I think it would just inflame the situation, and because I'm not sure it sets a good precedent to block an arb for expressing a view in his arb capacity, even though that view is completely wrong.
  A Wikipedian in my opinion is someone who has contributed in good faith to this project with the intention of improving it. A hypothetical editor who made good contributions to the project only as a means to, say, gain adminship and then cause disruption with the tools (User:Archtransit-style) is not a Wikipedian in my view. An editor who contributed to this project in good faith and with the intention to improve it, but for one reason or another turned out to be incompatible with the project, is still a Wikipedian.
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?
  A: Especially in view of the community backlash, I do not think it is appropriate to pass a ban by motion. I don't think it is appropriate for me to comment further on the merits.
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?
  
  A: I think such a serious backlash means that it is necessary to take a good, hard look at the proposed decision, to see if it is truly a good idea and if there are no feasible alternatives. That said, arbitrators are elected to decide cases that the community can't decide; making unpopular decisions is part of the job description.
  As to SilkTork's opinion, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of the matter. In general, he is correct that it is difficult, if not impossible, to gauge the opinion of the so-called "silent majority". The committee's primary task, however, is to resolve disputes that the community has failed to solve, not simply to "uphold community consensus". If there is an actual community consensus, after all, it would not have been before the Committee in the first place. Arbitrators are expected to bring their own independent judgment to bear on a matter, and make the decision they think will best serve the project. It is, of course, appropriate to take into account the effects a particular decision will have on the community, but I do not think it is advisable to make "what everyone is saying" a substitute for the arbitrator's own judgment.
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?
  A: (This applies to questions 5 and 6) I don't think it is appropriate for me to comment on the merits of this matter, as it may appear before the Committee later.
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?
  
  A: I agree that it is sound in principle to require something "extra" before a total ban from RfA may be considered. I'm not sure "an insanely high bar" is what I would have used to describe it.
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?
  A: In general, I don't like the "net positive" and "net negative" labels. They purport to treat a difficult question as a mathematical formula: sum up the contributions, subtract the disruption, see if the result is positive or negative and act accordingly. But, putting aside for a moment the dehumanizing aspect of this kind of calculations, it is never that simple: while it is perhaps relatively easy to quantify contributions (number of FAs, GAs, edits, barnstars, etc.), it is virtually impossible to quantify the amount of disruption caused by a particular editor. In virtually every case where it is an issue, it is simply impossible to tell how many good edits we would have gained without the disruption, and the formula falls apart.
  In general, site bans should be reserved for either egregious misconduct that is completely incompatible with continued editing on this project (e.g., serious real-life harassment, "grooming" children, etc.), or persistent misconduct for which a lesser sanction (such as a topic ban or a revert restriction) is unworkable or ineffective.

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]

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
A: If it is an unexpected absence, certainly we should first attempt to contact the member at issue to see if there's an estimated time of return. If the member cannot be reached and an election is upcoming, it may be appropriate to remove the member so that the vacancy can be filled, as has been done previously. Also, it is probably a good idea to temporarily remove access to the mailing list, the internal wiki, and checkuser and oversight tools, etc., to be returned once the member returns. Obviously the responsibilities of that member must be reassigned to different arbitrators.
Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee. Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?
A: I think I can probably help out with cases, some higher permissions stuff, and technical matters. I spent a lot of time dealing with AE cases, so I suspect that I can probably help a bit with arbcom cases as well. I'm not going to be of much help with respect to OS, but I can probably help out somewhat with CU, considering that I was made a full SPI clerk before I got my admin tools. I'm probably not the most technically minded candidate (I think Coren probably is?), but I do have a computer science background and should be able to help out with the technical stuff as well.

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) 08:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think arbitrators should stand by a properly made Committee decision, regardless of their personal vote on the matter. If I find myself in disagreement with a majority of the Committee, I'll certainly explain the reason for my disagreement either on the mailing list, or in public, or in both places, and try to persuade other arbitrators to see things my way. But once the decision is made, finality becomes a very important consideration, and close decisions should be followed just like unanimous decisions. In the end, arbitrators are elected to resolve disputes, not to perpetuate them, and some resolution, even if not the outcome I prefer, is better than no resolution at all. In the exceedingly unlikely event that I find myself in disagreement with the Committee on a matter of fundamental principle, I will likely resign.

Also, while I do not believe in mechanical adherence to precedent, I do think that some level of consistency is very helpful, and I will take that into account should a similar issue come to the committee again.

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} 14:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: UTC-5/4 most of the time; UTC+8 for about one or two months a year. T. Canens (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AnkhMorpork

Your stated reasoning regarding your decision to fashion unique article restrictions that facilitated "easy removal of existing material" even without consensus, was predicated on your particular viewpoint that"I had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material."
Should Arbitrators shape their decisions to affect article content based on their particular point of view, or is determining article content a community function? Ankh.Morpork 18:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: I would love to answer this question, except that I have no idea who my wife will be yet. Once I know who she is, I'll let you know when I would stop beating her.
Nowhere did I "shape [my] decision...based on [my] particular point of view". I don't have a point of view in P-I matters; if I did, I wouldn't have been doing AE on this topic. The article at issue (Israel-related animal conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) has attracted a good amount of partisan attention over the years, and IIRC it was not the first time that particular article has come up on the AE radar. I have little confidence in the quality of any article that has been through this type of partisan wrangling, regardless of the point of view they are said to support. There are good reasons why stability is a FA and GA criterion.
I'll explain my reasoning again for the benefit of the readers: the immediate cause of the restrictions was revert warring at the article over what was colorably alleged to be OR/SYNTHESIS material. WP:BURDEN means that those introducing material into the article are responsible for proving its suitability. It is therefore appropriate, under these circumstances, to require them to demonstrate the suitability of the content first, before introducing it and predictably causing a revert war. As the existing content in the article was also suspect, it makes no sense to me to invert the burden of proof for the existing context. Yes, that means that it is the responsibility of those restoring any removed content to prove its suitability, but that's exactly what our policy requires.
You state that you acted in response to "revert warring" over "alleged OR/SYNTHESIS material." Do you feel that the existing policies and remedies (e.g WP:DR, WP:NOR/N, WP:AE, WP:PP are inadequate to resolve this issue?
A:
You invoke WP:BURDEN to rationalise your atypical restrictions. Given that this burden is discharged by "providing a reliable source that directly supports the material", how have you interpreted it to support that a consensus must be formed prior to the addition of any material, even that not previously contested, and do you acknowledge that such a view could forseeably inhibit good-faith article improvement?
A:
Since you expressed concern regarding the "quality of any article that has been through this type of partisan wrangling", it stands to reason that such a concern should extend not only to the quality of existing article content, but also to that which is being forcibly omitted. Yet, your measures further inhibited valid article additions; do you feel that you satisfactorily resolved this particular concern?
A:
The primary concern raised in two different requests for arbitration was that partisan editors, of which you acknowledge their presence, would exploit your restrictions by removing acceptable content which could not then be restored until a new consensus was formed and assessed by an administrator. Do you find this concern credible?
A:
How do you respond to SilkTork's views that "I am not comfortable with general editing restrictions being applied to articles without there being some form of discussion and consensus sought first..."? Do you think you should have discussed your atypical restrictions with another editor first?

Questions from Cptnono

I believe stats show that you could have favored editors at AE who are on the Palestinian side. I could always be wrong. Some people say you can't argue with gut feelings, so my question is:

Why do you think some editors have accused you of being biased at AE?
A:

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) 23:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A:I used to participate in the NYC meetups when I was living in the city. I don't expect any changes on that front whether or not I get elected.

Question from Giano

You appear to execute a large amount of blocks [1]. Why is that? Do you go looking for trouble? Many admins go for days and weeks, even months and some, years without hitting the block button. What is it that drives you and makes you so dilligent with your tools? If elelcted, will you become Wikipedia's lord High Executioner? Giano (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: Any admin who works at SPI for a period of time will by necessity have a long list of blocks. I doubt that my block log is particularly atypical for someone working in this area. The same can be said about deletions: admins regularly working with XFD or CAT:CSD will have a much longer log of deletions than admins who do not work in those areas.

Question from Begoon

I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?

A: I hope you'll forgive me for checking out your clarifications on other candidates' question pages, and answering the much clearer three questions here instead.

Do you feel that arbcom's remit should be more closely limited to actual arbitration rather than dishing out sanctions?
Arbcom's task is to resolve disputes by making binding decisions; that's the definition of arbitration. The decisions has frequently included sanctions such as blocks and bans, but that has more to do with the type of disputes arbcom is responsible for resolving - disputes about user conduct. Of course sanctions may not be needed in some cases, and arbcom should try to explore alternatives to sanctions, and hand out sanctions only if it is really necessary, but I couldn't really imagine how most of the intractable user conduct disputes that made it to arbcom can be resolved without resorting to sanctions at all.
Do you think it is workable and/or desirable for arbcom to judge and rule on its own behaviour, or that of its members?
In many cases there is really no other way to do it, short of getting foundation involvement, since you can't really judge someone without seeing everything, including all the off-wiki communications involved. I don't think setting up a separate body that monitors arbcom's private mailing lists, as proposed by someone recently, is a good idea; it would disseminate all the real private information that got sent to the mailing list to a bunch of people who really have no legitimate use for it, and increase the likelihood of actually damaging leaks of private information, all to prevent the rare occurrence of misuse (and it can be circumvented by sending emails directly to the recipients if really wanted).
Do you feel that the "politicised" nature of arbcom is a problem, leading, as it seems to have done here, to damaging splits and recriminations?
Yes, it's a problem, but the problem is inherent in the way the arbitrators are selected, and I think we likely stuck with elections for the foreseeable future, since I can't really think of a better way to select arbs that still allows for as much community input.

Question from The Devil's Advocate

You state above that you would not get involved in an administrative capacity in a topic area where you have a "point of view"? Does "point of view" mean opinion in this context or do you mean bias?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: In that particular case, I don't have an opinion on how the article should read, or whether any part of the existing article is definitively OR. In general, I would not get involved in an administrative capacity in areas in which I have been extensively involved in an editorial capacity, or in areas where I have a strongly held personal view about the subject.
How would you determine if there has been POV-pushing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: It usually depends on the totality of circumstances, though a blatantly non-neutral diff can probably establish POV pushing by itself. Barring that, at a minimum I'd consider the quality and type of sources used, whether the sources are being accurately presented, whether marginal or fringe viewpoints are presented as such, and without clearly undue weight, and whether the long-term pattern of edits in the area appears to favor one point of view. In the end, though, it's more of a "I know it when I see it".

Question from My very best wishes

When something comes to Arbcom attention (or AE at this matter), a common practice is to simply look if there was any violation of policies and to sanction everyone appropriately. But there was a suggestion by Count Iblis to give people one last chance to fix the problem by asking them: "Would you, editors X, Y and Z, agree to resolve your differences or simply withdraw from the conflict right now, or you would rather face arbitration?". This is not anything unreasonable, because some people (and especially those who did not file the case, but were brought to arbitration by other parties) could indeed prefer to simply stop doing whatever they do. Of course you might object that people had an ample opportunity to resolve their differences earlier, but whatever they did before, that was not the same as facing the arbitration. So, would you agree to create a new standard practice of giving people one last chance to stop disruption (no matter what they do) prior to facing arbitration? My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think it's a good idea in theory, but there may be some issues in practice, and I'm not sure how helpful it will end up. Certainly if the parties can agree to resolve their dispute while the case request is pending, no case should be opened, and if the parties reach an agreement during the case that should be taken into account. Given the type of cases that usually end up being accepted at arbcom these days (as opposed to those accepted during arbcom's early days, most of which would have been resolved by the community nowadays), though, I'm doubtful that many people would take that chance. Also, a very common complaint is that arbcom cases take too long; if a new one-last-chance stage ends up not yielding any agreement but simply delaying the opening of a case, that could be a problem.

Questions from GabeMc

Question: Would you close an RfC happening as part of a formal mediation 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? Assuming this has happened, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: Whether or not this is proper depends on the particular circumstances. I figured out the incident you are referring to, and in that particular incident, I see nothing wrong with the actions of the administrator at issue.

Question from Piotrus

Civility enforcement questionnaire

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

A:I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the questionnaire, for reasons many people have explained: the questions themselves are written by amateurs and of rather questionable quality, and the self-selected nature of the respondents greatly diminishes the chance any meaningful results can be obtained.

Additional questions

when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
A: A site ban is generally appropriate if a limited ban or other restriction would not fully address the existing disruption, is unlikely to fully prevent future disruption, or would be so complex as to be unworkable.
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?
A: It makes sense, though it is hardly simple math. There's no algorithm that could take an editor's history of contributions and interactions with other editors, and predict how much content we would lose by banning them, or especially, by not banning them. Arbs do their best to try to arrive at reasonable estimates for each, and the bulk of the work is in that part, rather than doing the final comparison.
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...?)
A: Restraining order from a place is probably most apt, or maybe deportation.
do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
A: Only in the hypothetical scenario where someone's entire life revolves around Wikipedia and nothing else.
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?
A: Not sure about the relevance, but it's certainly not something to applaud.

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Martinevans123

Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.
A: I don't find discussing issue of civility at such a high level of generality particularly helpful. Profanity is neither always acceptable nor always unacceptable: for example, if a new editor asks a reasonable question, "fuck off you idiot and go read up everything yourself" is not an acceptable answer; but there are definitely situations in which the use of strong language is acceptable or at least reasonable, though it may not be optimal, and obviously if you are discussing topics like Cohen v. California, using the particular "four letter word" at issue is not only acceptable but required by policy. As usual, everything depends on the particular circumstances.

I see. Glad I didn't ask you, then. Am too busy working on those new trendy "Fuck Atb-Com" t-shirts... Martinevans123 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]