Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth

Carcharoth

My user name is Carcharoth. I've been here since January 2005, editing regularly since January 2006. I became an administrator in October 2007 and was appointed to the arbitration committee following the elections in December 2008. I served a two-year term and chose not to stand again in December 2010 as I firmly believe that taking a break from intensive roles such as arbitration, and returning to other areas of the encyclopedia, is necessary to regain perspective.

I've spent the past 23 months focusing more on content and reviewing, including some very enjoyable volunteer outreach work at events held at the Geological Society of London and the British Library. When Newyorkbrad asked me in September of this year if I would consider running again my response at the time encapsulated my thoughts on the matter (including my initial reluctance). I have followed arbitration matters for the past two years and disagreed with some of the decisions made and how they were made. Being concerned at the relative lack of current and former arbitrators standing in this election, I've decided to stand myself to offer a degree of past experience and with the aim of bringing some stability to the committee.

Though some of my views have changed since I last stood for election four years ago, what you will get from me as an arbitrator is someone who has extensive familiarity with the site policies and guidelines, who has prior experience of the work involved in arbitration, and who is able to take the long view. More than six years of seeing editors come and go, and disputes rage and fade away (or become completely intractable and deadlocked), gives a more nuanced perspective on matters around here and how best to handle certain types of disputes.

Details of my article work and reviewing work are here and here. I will provide more details on my background, and my past arbitration work in my responses to the general questions over the coming days, aiming to have the questions answered before voting begins. Please ask if you have any specific questions.

As a former arbitrator, I've identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. Aside from some stray IP edits, I've only ever had this one account.

• Carcharoth (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

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?

   A: The main experience I would bring to the committee comes from my prior term as an arbitrator, plus the length of time I have been around Wikipedia. Knowing what work is involved is invaluable and would mean there would be far less of a period of 'getting up to speed' before getting down to work. Also, knowledge of past arbitration cases makes it easier to recall applicable principles, findings and remedies that could relate to the current dispute being arbitrated. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: Rather than provide links to all the requests, cases and motions I commented on or voted on as an arbitrator, some index links are available at this page in my userspace. That page also contains a section that was intended to be used if anyone had specific concerns they had. It wasn't used much, but I would use such a system again if anyone requested that. If anyone wants examples of requests or cases where I commented before or after I was an arbitrator, please ask. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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?

   A: If bans are needed, I will vote for those sanctions. But if someone argues that a lesser sanction may work better, I am prepared to listen to such proposals rather than reject them out of hand. It really does depend on the specific case. It also depends to a large extent on how much of a 'repeat offender' someone is. Ditto for desysoppings, though historically in those cases lesser sanctions rarely get proposed or voted on, it tends to be either a desysopping or nothing. I'm not entirely sure that is a good thing. What should happen is that if an editor has misused the tools, the tools will most likely be removed, but this shouldn't preclude being sanctioned further if poor editorial conduct warrants it. Having a sysop bit to be removed shouldn't be a form of protection against the correct sanctions being applied. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

   A: ArbCom should not be allowed to make changes to policy directly as this would subvert the editorial process. ArbCom can (and should) prompt the community when discussion may be needed, but any subsequent discussion and changes should be left for the community to handle. ArbCom has done such prompting in the past, but the relative success of any subsequent discussion depends heavily on who participates. ArbCom should, in particularly critical cases, direct that such policy discussions be widely advertised. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: Essays should not in general be used in committee findings, even one as long-established as the Five Pillars (which isn't actually marked as an essay). Rather, the correct approach would be to refer to the policies, some of which are mentioned there. Having said that, even a brief look at a page like Wikipedia:Principles tells you that things are not so simple. Over the years there have been many attempts to produce simplified sets of principles or sets of rules, some more popular than others. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: Having asked the editor who suggested this question, it is clear that I misunderstood the 'not limited to BLPs' part of this question. For now, I am withdrawing my initial answer and will provide a new answer shortly that should more directly address the BLP question. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   Issues that affect living people (BLP issues) can occur in any Wikipedia article (i.e. the problem is not limited just to BLP articles). The default position is to take a hardline stance on conduct issues around BLP editing, but this wasn't always the case. On Wikipedia there is always the risk that policy may get diluted over time. If that happens to the BLP policy, the correct place to try and win that argument is in policy discussions, not at ArbCom. This was debated at the time of the creation of the BLP prod process, and the basic idea is that for there to be any lasting solution that has a chance of actually making a difference, the community needs to be on board and willing to do the work needed. If BLP issues were central to a case, one of the things that ArbCom would need to do is ascertain whether the BLP policy was stable at the time of the dispute in question. Certainly ArbCom should prompt the editorial community to discuss BLP issues if that becomes necessary following an arbitration case. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: ArbCom should not make direct content rulings, but should facilitate the work that needs to be done by the editorial community to resolve content disputes. Sometimes this involves removing editors from the dispute who are hindering attainment of a consensus, or who are subverting a consensus (e.g. by presenting sources in a biased manner or misrepresenting sources). The hope then is that the editors who do know how to handle sources correctly can then come up with a resolution, or that competent editors who previously avoided an area will be willing to help resolve the issues. Only in the most intractable situations (usually ones where the sources themselves are divided and/or there is a lot of churn in the sources that makes it difficult to achieve a stable consensus) will there be a need for something more. This is in some ways a failure of the Wikipedia model, in other ways a natural reflection by Wikipedia of the polarisation that may be present in the sources. In such cases there are no easy answers. The best course of action seems to be (though only as an absolute last resort) to follow the course of action that has sometimes taken place (such as in some of the country naming disputes), which is to direct that a comprehensive summary and presentation of options be drawn up, and a widely-advertised poll undertaken, followed by a moratorium on discussion for a set period. The idea is not to get some 'correct answer', but to settle things down enough that other work in the topic area or article can proceed without the ongoing dispute becoming a timesink that draws in or puts off editors, and wastes people's time. Care has to be taken though that artificial controversies are not given attention they should not be getting. Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: Motions should be used in situations where the evidence is clear and not disputed. A very clear abuse of administrator tools, if not disputed by the admin, could be dealt with this way. Situations that may require a site ban are ones where a full case is more likely to be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: ArbCom should in general only take action if they are asked to do so, and even then they should put the request on hold or reject it as premature if community discussion is still continuing and is not yet deadlocked. ArbCom should certainly never step in uninvited. What this does mean, though, is that those within the editorial community that are aware of issues, and are able to identify when something is not being resolved, have to be more willing to file requests. Don't think that an earlier premature request means a later request will not be accepted. One of the more frustrating things as an arbitrator is seeing deadlocked situations not getting resolved because the community gives up and no-one bothers to file a request (in some cases, this may be because all those involved know they would likely face sanctions). Going back to the first part of the question, appeals of community discussions that result in sanctions should in most cases be initiated by the appellant, but in the vast majority of cases there would be little reason to overturn a community consensus unless it was clearly wrong and an injustice had been done. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: I've looked through the motions listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions for 2012, and I think the Racepacket motion was handled well. What could have been a tricky situation was handled decisively and firmly, and re-reading it it is clear why the action taken was needed. Similarly, the motion that desysopped Carnildo was handled well, and explained clearly. One motion that was handled poorly, in my view, was the one that desysopped EncyclopPetey, though that is mainly a process objection over the timing and not giving enough time for EncyclopPetey to respond at the request that led to the motion. The result might well have been the same, but just waiting a few days might have avoided a lot of the objections that were made there. Finally, the motion involving Malleus Fatuorum was handled appallingly. I was away on wikibreak when that erupted, but even reading back over it now it is clear that it turned into a complete trainwreck. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: This is a difficult question. In principle, hardly any such data should be retained, because of the need to keep it secure and the problems seen in keeping such information secure (i.e. the mailing list leak). The approach should be to hear cases in such a way that such data is minimised. But in practice, it is difficult to do this. Sometimes such information is submitted with out being identified or flagged up as such. Certainly, if someone volunteers information without being asked, ArbCom shouldn't be expected to initiate a bureaucratic procedure to 'secure' the information (beyond the normal expectations of privacy for e-mail correspondence). On the other hand, if ArbCom requests information, and say it can be submitted in confidence, then they should take steps to ensure that is likely to be the case. Ultimately, though, ArbCom is not set up to be a secure repository of sensitive information (partly because of the turnover in arbitrators), and that should really be flagged up to those who are not aware of that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: The ideal should be to defer to whatever policy the WMF have in place for such data (such as for checkuser data). See also my answer to part (i). Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: I believe that most non-private case discussions should take place in public. There is a place for some private discussion to lay out the framework of a case without running public commentary, but that should really be kept to a minimum, and the mantra should be drilled into all arbitrators that the real place for case discussions is in public, and with the parties to a case. One difficulty is not accidentally mentioning in public something that was communicated to the list in confidence, but that leads back to the question of how to handle such submissions. You either have an additional layer of bureaucracy to flag up and approve confidential stuff and reject everything else as 'please ask us on the case pages', or you handle things on a more ad-hoc basis. Most of the problems arise from a lot of paperwork being needed to handle confidential submissions (of which during my time as an arbitrator there were not as many as you might have thought). What was (maybe still is) really needed was people trusted to have access to the mailing list, and willing to do boring clerical work to make sure things are done properly. This would include taking arbitrators to task if they began using the mailing list to carry out discussions that could be conducted in public. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: At the time, the response may have appeared chaotic (and it was likely even more chaotic behind the scenes, the old analogy of the swan's legs paddling away furiously as it moves across the surface of the water comes to mind). But I know from past experience what it is like dealing with an ongoing firestorm like that. So I think it was actually handled reasonably well. I was, of course, one of the arbitrators whose correspondence to and on the mailing list was leaked and it was disconcerting that some things that were not intended for public view were published, but that matters less than the fact that those who emailed the committee in confidence had that confidence breached. I wouldn't have done much different, though with hindsight actions should have been taken beforehand to prevent such a leak. What I did appreciate was the update that was eventually posted saying what had been done to improve security. One final point here is that I placed a note about this on my user page in the form of the following diff: [1]. Issuing a statement like that is about the only thing I would have done differently. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Adding here, that one of the things that was done right was to add this notice to the WP:ARBCOM page; note in particular the edit summary. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

   A: My identity is known to a fair number of Wikipedians, mainly those I've met at meetups and various events held in London, UK, and I introduce myself to those I meet at such events. Some of those I've met are listed at a page I recently started here along with links to the outreach events I mentioned in my candidate statement (the list of Wikipedians that I've met, still very much incomplete, was inspired by a similar one I saw on Casliber's userpage). Despite this, I have not publicly identified myself on Wikipedia and don't intend to do so, and I do ask that people respect that. Having said that, I have disclosed my age (currently mid-30s), gender (male) and level of education (university graduate) at various points over the years. But one of the the beauties of Wikipedia is the wide variety of users that contribute, from many different countries, with a vast range of different backgrounds, and many different ages. Background (and generational and cultural differences) matter to some extent, but far less than being able to edit collaboratively, work with others, and being able to understand how the project works, whichever part of it you are engaged with at the time. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: The community should only (by definition) be able to view public evidence. All those who need to view private evidence (including those against whom such evidence is used) should have access to that evidence. How this is handled depends largely on what form the evidence takes. If it is in the form of diffs that shouldn't be publicly discussed, that is relatively easy to present to the accused. If the 'evidence' takes other forms, such as allegations made by e-mail that are difficult to substantiate, that depends on the nature of the allegations. One of the hardest parts of the roles carried out by those who deal with such matters is how to handle such things fairly. To some extent, the community and those being questioned or sanctioned have to trust that the system of checks and balances in place are sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: Former cases should inform current and future cases, but should not be binding purely by decision of a particular ArbCom. If the editorial community wants aspects of past arbitration cases to be binding, or to set precedent, then they should propose and gain consensus for such changes at the relevant policy and guideline talk pages. Now, that was what I had in my handwritten notes for this question (the notes that I've been typing up with some changes here and there), but Collect, who proposed this question (along with three others), makes the valid point here that ArbCom shouldn't be able to make U-turns each year. Clearly, as the project accumulates more history, some sort of balance has to be struck between codifying the more critical decisions that need to set a precedent, and allowing changes. I stand by my initial answer that it is the role of the editorial community to codify any precedents that are set by ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC) With apologies to Collect for highlighting the origin of those questions, but it is important to see where questions have come from.

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?

   A: ArbCom deals with dispute resolution regarding editors and conduct on the English-language Wikipedia (en-Wikipedia), including dealing with ban appeals. They also deal with administrator misconduct and oversee functionary conduct (checkusers and oversighters and a few other advanced permissions). The WMF has a limited but vital role to provide arm's-length support for the projects, which should include infrastructure, technical support, and (in some cases) legal advice. The differences are important to emphasise. ArbCom's jurisdiction (for want of a better word) is restricted to en-Wikipedia. The WMF has a wider responsibility to all the projects and the overarching mission. The other differences are that arbitrators are unpaid volunteers, while WMF staff are generally paid positions. I'm not aware of any issues where the division of responsibilities are being blurred, but it is important that there are lines of communication between the two so that this could be discussed. ArbCom has had, for some time now a specific liaison (currently Newyorkbrad, I believe) who could probably answer this question more fully if either individual arbitrators, ArbCom as a whole, or members of the community had concerns about any issues. Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

   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: As I said in my previous answer, ArbCom deals with conduct by editors, administrators and those holding advanced permissions (including the conduct of arbitrators). The functionary conduct often cannot be scrutinised by the community, so that falls to ArbCom by default. Editor and administrator conduct should be scrutinised by the editorial community in the first instance, with ArbCom only being needed if a dispute can't be resolved or private matters need to be examined. The editorial community has the biggest job of all, though, which is editing the encyclopedia. Ultimately, all actions taken following community discussions and by ArbCom should be supporting that central task, and not impeding it. There are a couple of instances where the division of responsibilities might benefit from being changed. Ban appeals could be made more transparent. The burden of arbitration enforcement could be spread wider, both by periodically encouraging and aiding admins who want to take on that role. Finally, some community discussions on very complex matters could be referred to arbitration even if they are not deadlocked - there is no reason why editors couldn't say "this is a tangled mess, why not refer it to ArbCom to see if they are willing to try and sort it out?" In other words, the editorial community shouldn't be forced to try and resolve complex matters before coming to arbitration. Some cases and issues that lasted years might have benefited from earlier arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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?

   A: The English Wikipedia does have a problem with POV pushers. But it is a red herring whether they are civil or not. The key is to identify people pushing a point of view and call them out on that and ensure that article adequately represent the key points of view with due weight. Don't get distracted by whether someone pushing a point of view is civil or not. What Wikipedia does have a problem with is identifying POV pushers, especially when this is done by persuasion and subtle misrepresentation of sources. There is no easy answer to that, other than marshalling sources and making the necessary arguments for the correct weighting of the article content. If you feel someone is persistently misrepresenting sources or pushing a point of view, then that needs to be laid out with a clear argument explaining why you feel that is the case. That is hard, but it is the only way something will get done about it. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

   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, factionalism does exist. It can be of several sorts. It can be topic-related or interpersonal, and it can develop here on Wikipedia or be imported from outside. In topic areas, factions can develop as editors polarise around positions on the content of articles, either importing existing positions or taking sides in a dispute. If this is limited and resolves peacefully and everyone moves, that can be OK, but if the same groups keep appearing at article after article across a wide area, this can be damaging. Factions can also develop in process areas of the project if impressions of cliques form. Sometimes the only way to dispel that is to bring in new people and/or effect some sort of change. Factions can also develop around individual editors who have become the 'poster child' for some perennial issue. Such conflicts can have elements of interpersonal disputes and are in many ways harder to resolve (ultimately, resolution of interpersonal disputes occur when the editors involved manage to move on from whatever caused the dispute). ArbCom should definitely examine cases where factionalism is alleged, but should try and determine the underlying causes when considering the remedies. Topic bans or interaction bans can help disperse tension, but in some cases factions will reform involving new editors, so longer-term remedies may be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

   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 to the editor retention question. Possibly to the shortage of editors question - it depends on whether you can adjust the figures to take account of the work done by anti-vandalism bots. More editors would be good, but you want to retain the good ones and encourage and help those willing to learn and develop as editors. Some areas do have shortages. There is a need for people to help out at WP:CCI (contributor copyright investigations) and also at various review processes (peer review, good article and featured articles), but in all these areas you need to be able to do the tasks involved, or be willing to learn the ropes before diving in. There are plenty of other areas that could always do with extra editors, and plenty of backlogs in the clean-up categories (of varying levels of complexity). Some of the content noticeboards always need thoughtful and clueful editors (particularly the reliable sources and BLP noticeboards). It would be good if community processes, or newsletters, or even the WMF, could identify the areas needing most attention. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

   A: Looking at the cases listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2012, the ones I am at least partly familiar with, or commented on, were 'Civility enforcement', 'Rich Farmbrough', 'Perth' and 'Fae'. In 'Civility enforcement', I initially thought the decision to desysop Hawkeye7 was too harsh, but looking back on it I think that was in fact the right call there (though still borderline). I don't think the topic ban of Malleus Fatuorum from RFA talk pages was well thought out. It has the air of a compromise thrown in to get the case closed, and has proved to be more trouble than it was worth (there was a lot of subsequent arbitration actions that followed on from this case). The admonishments, I agree were needed. In the 'Rich Farmbrough' case, the process was rather tortuous, but the outcome is one that I think was justified. One good thing there is that ArbCom seem to have learnt from the Betacommand cases in how to handle bot and/or automation restrictions (or how it can be near-impossible to handle them). That case also had follow-on incidents, and I note that Rich Farmbrough retired earlier this month (see his talk page). That is not an outcome anyone would have wished to see. In the 'Perth' case, my objections to the way the arbitrators engaged with the parties (or rather failed to do so) are documented in the arbitration noticeboard archives (see archive 18). That might seem like process for the sake of process, but I firmly believe that if ArbCom had talked to the parties more in that case, and ensured that the parties were engaged with what was going on, that the outcome might have been more productive. Finally, the 'Fae' case looked to have been handled well - though I was somewhat surprised to see the ban of Fae that eventually resulted, it was clear some sort of sanction was warranted. The other cases I'm not familiar enough with to comment, but the 'Timid guy ban appeal' did have the hallmarks of a watershed moment, with an administrator (Will Beback) desysopped and banned. It also looked to have laid down a clear demarcation of the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and Jimbo Wales, which is something that was needed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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?

   A: One change I would make would be to cut back on the number of motions that are being proposed in lieu of full cases. The major change I would like to see take place is more care being taken on cases, so that the parties end up satisfied that attention was paid to what they were saying, even if they disagreed with the outcome. There should also be more thought given about what (if anything) should be done in response to the long-term trend, which is for less and less arbitration cases to be taken, but for them to be ever more complex. Elen of the Roads made some interesting points in her candidate statement, and some of those issues and those raised by other candidates (regardless of whether they are elected or not) should be pursued after the election, with wide-ranging community discussions to see what changes may be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

Note: I answered Rschen7754's December 2008 questions, and the answers then can be seen here (only the first two look the same). Anyone looking at those answers should bear in mind that this was four years ago and things can change in the period of time. See also my comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

   A: I remember half-following that case and thinking that it was taking a long time. It opened on 28 April 2011 and closed on 15 July 2011, which is nearly three months. That is almost certainly too long for any case, but sometimes there are extenuating circumstances such as case parties or drafting arbitrators being unexpectedly absent. Explanations/excuses for delays in drafting usually crop up on the proposed decision talk page, and in this case we see Elen of the Roads (the drafting arbitrator) saying that she lost two months over a family crisis. That is unfortunate, but what I would look for then is some indication that this was communicated to the parties to the case and when that was done. From a quick perusal of the evidence talk page and the workshop talk page, it is also clear that part of the reason for the lengthy case may have been that the parties were arguing acrimoniously with each other, which increases the amount of 'side-show' that arbitrators have to wade through. Things were brought under control, but to then have little happen between then and the posting of the proposed decision doesn't help either. Once the proposed decision was posted, things concluded relatively quickly within a couple of weeks. What might have helped is if someone else had stepped in to do the drafting, but sometimes delays are unavoidable and it would take just as long for someone new to get up to speed, as it would to wait. This is one advantage of having teams of two draft cases, in the sense that one drafitng arbitrator 'shadows' the other one, and if one is called away, the other one can carry on with the drafting. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A: I still believe that WikiProjects should be there to co-ordinate and assist article improvements. I would add that they also serve an important function in bringing together editors with similar interests. It is important that WikiProjects integrate well with the wider community and don't become insular. The most active and best WikiProjects can also help spread good standards. WikiProjects can also serve to showcase topics and articles (especially if related portals exist and are well maintained). Examples of this can be seen in the regular feature on WikiProjects that appears in the Wikipedia Signpost. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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: This used to be one of Lar's questions. My answer to that in 2008 was yes (followed by some off-the-wall ideas). My answer now would still be yes, there is a problem. What I said then still applies now: "some of the problems that arise are difficult to deal with because of their status and contributions". The solution, though, is not a direct one, as you can't go around labelling people as 'vested contributors'. The only thing you can do is hold everyone to at least the same minimum standards, and where someone has been around a long time expect standards from them at least as high as you would expect from an administrator. What you can't do is make 'allowances' for anyone because of their contributions. There was a trend at one point towards 'thanking' prolific contributors that were being sanctioned, but I think that is ultimately counter-productive. People who have made excellent contributions know that. They don't need thanks from ArbCom at the same time as they are being banned or otherwise sanctioned. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

   A: If I found I no longer had the time to do the job, or something had happened that would warrant my resignation. Precisely where that line is drawn depends largely on the exact circumstances. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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: (a) Not in every circumstances. Sometimes you just have one party harassing another one. (b) The degree to which that would mitigate any proposed sanctions for, say, an over-reaction in any resulting dispute, does depend on the exact circumstances. In some circumstances, yes, it would be possible to eliminate sanctions entirely, but probably only in the most clear-cut cases. Saying you were provoked only goes so far. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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) If some bright-line rule was breached, that is usually simple enough. Grey areas apply where intent and timing matters. In such cases, you would usually have to question the administrator about what happened, and then judge accordingly depending on their answers. Sometimes there might not be enough evidence either way. (b) Usually only if the administrator was already under ArbCom sanctions (i.e. there was prior history). Even then, only in the most extreme cases. I suspect there was one such case this year, from what I saw of how that played out. In the vast majority of cases, though, ArbCom should leave the editorial and admin community to oversee their own, and only take cases on if requested to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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: (a) en-Wikipedia does not have jurisdiction over other Wikimedia sites. The actions of users on other sites may be relevant, but if someone is, say, banned on another site, that shouldn't affect what happens on en-Wikipedia. In practice, though, it can get complicated (global bans and so-forth). (b) Evidence on other WMF sites should not, in general, be admissible (I recall a case that involved some evidence from Commons, which is what I think you may be referring to here). What should happen is that there should be a strict formal process to request evidence from sister sites, through the WMF if needed, though only if approved by a WMF-initiated projects-wide discussion. It is important that the independence of the sister projects is maintained, but also that a unified approach is possible as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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: That is a sobering story. My thoughts are that some changes I made a while ago, plus some other changes I made after reading that story, should hopefully be sufficient to avoid anything similar happening to me. If I am elected, I would make other changes as well if any were recommended. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

   A: Yes. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Thank-you for these questions. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from User:Casliber

For follow-up comments and questions, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions § Moved comments from #Question from User:Casliber.

I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for writing those notes, Casliber. Some interesting thoughts there. Resurrecting the Core Contest was an excellent idea and it's been great watching that develop. You are right that Wikipedia is at a crossroads. You may be interested in a user talk page comment I noticed the other day here. That talks about breadth and depth of coverage. Attaining deeper, more reliable coverage of certain topics is difficult and may ultimately not scale.

Turning back to your question, I agree entirely with what you say about the need to focus on content-related editorial conduct. It has always been within the remit of the editorial community and ArbCom to sanction editors who abuse the content policies. Those who misrepresent sources, or who show basic incompetencies to edit, and don't change their ways or improve their editing, absolutely should be topic- or site-banned where needed. The difficulty has always been to lay out the evidence for such misconduct in a clear and unambiguous way (sometimes such misconduct is very subtle and hard to identify). Where that can be done, it should be done and the appropriate sanctions applied. It should, by and large, be laid out by fellow editors and assessed by the community (I believe that was done in the Jagged 85 matter), but if that does not resolve matters it should be escalated through the stages of dispute resolution until, if needed, it is brought to ArbCom. Being able to access and check obscure sources that are in dispute would be a great help for some cases, less needed for others. This would be done to identify editors that misuse sources. Any actual clean-up work would need to be done by the editorial community (obviously), but there is nothing wrong with ArbCom saying "this area is a mess, it needs a new (or reduced) set of editors to clean it up".

Going back to your userspace notes, I agree with you that the RfC process (the user conduct side of things anyway) needs reform (one idea would be for those involved to work together to produce an RfC they are happy with before people start commenting), and that consistent arbitration enforcement, with support from ArbCom, is vital. I also agree that follow-ups to cases are needed. Take the Socionics case as an example. How would you have addressed the post-case content issues there? A prompt for a 'Review of articles' to take place was voted through as part of the final decision, but I saw no signs that this was ever done. Some areas get too much activity, others get too little. Those are some of my thoughts; I hope you will find the time to develop some of your thoughts further. Please ask if you have any follow-up questions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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: Both approaches have their place. Sometimes you need quick, decisive action, and sometimes you need more thoughtful deliberation. Some have described me as a deliberator, but I have supported decisive action when needed. One thing that is essential to remember, though, is that Wikipedia lives and dies by its community of editors and the quality of that community. Even the most authoritative orders issued from above (e.g. by the WMF) mean nothing if there is not a community of editors willing to make things work and to scale. At the ArbCom level, this was seen most clearly in the BLP PROD issue. Ultimately, it is a healthy and functioning community that will ensure Wikipedia continues to thrive, and ArbCom has very little influence on that. ArbCom's most important function is to support that community by breaking deadlocks where asked to do so, and removing those who are disrupting that community. In terms of rules, I fall on the 'a few bright lines' side, with common sense aligning with the spirit of the rules (rather than the letter of them), and being sufficient most of the time. That carries forward into ArbCom cases as well. When drafting ArbCom cases, the tradition has been to use formal principles, but I could adapt to a more informal (explanatory) approach if that was ever mandated. Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

2. What does "Civility" mean to you?

   A: To me, it defines the approach taken when interacting with someone you have not met or encountered before (which will be most people on Wikipedia if you edit widely). The default starting position is to be polite and respectful, at least until you know someone better. When you meet someone you don't know face-to-face, you take cues from facial expressions and body language. That is not possible here. A lot of the conflict on Wikipedia is caused when people say things to each other they wouldn't normally, because they are typing in a text medium and are largely pseudonymous. Part of the conundrum is figuring out a way to handle that sort of behaviour. Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Addendum on civility: The above doesn't really do justice to the scope of the issue, so I'm adding some more thoughts here.

• (1) Many people have opinions on civility and what it means. Back in September 2008, I created Category:User essays on civility. Reading through at least a few of those essays (including the excellent one by Elen of the Roads, which is not currently listed there) will give an idea of the diversity of opinions on this matter. That is something that needs to be kept in mind in any discussion about civility.
• (2) There is a tendency for matters such as this to become politicised (including in elections such as this). There are many excellent views on how civility issues should be handled, but the underlying basis on which enforcement takes place should be guided by the community-developed policy and common practice. What is needed is less politics and more development of practical and workable policies.
• (3) Discourse and debate about what 'civility' means in an online and collaborative environment such as Wikipedia is good, but when there is dispute and conflict over what civility should be, that can itself become divisive and damaging. It should be possible for the community to look at the bigger picture and come to some workable conclusions without dividing into factions.

Hopefully some of the opinions expressed in these elections can help move the debate forward, but the real debate needs to take place within the community, not at arbitration level. At arbitration level, the debate should be largely centred on how ArbCom should sanction for civility issues that reach the level of arbitration, and what should be done before that level is reached (i.e. how to avoid premature escalation to ArbCom). Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

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

   A: They should find out the reason for the absence, if possible, and take a decision on that basis. I was somewhat surprised (though maybe I missed something) that no explanation appears to have ever been provided for Xeno's extended absence. In practice, nothing was really affected, as the remaining committee was able to deal with the work, but it does feel wrong somehow. If the committee was struggling to cope with reduced numbers, then it might be necessary to try and find a replacement, but that tends not to happen and seats have historically just been left empty. It also seems to matter whether or not an arbitrator is in the first or second year of their term. Iridescent was removed for inactivity (see here) towards the end of their first year, which contrasts with the way Xeno's seat has just timed out. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee. Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?

   A: I have past experience with dealing with incoming mail and ban appeals. I would tend to avoid the higher permissions and technical side of things, as others can usually deal with that better than I could. If elected, I would offer to do more case drafting than I did previously. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from User:Hestiaea

1. Moral conundrum. You discover that a fellow Arbitrator has done something potentially embarrassing for the Committee, possibly even criminal. You are concerned, but the Arbitrator has already stepped down for a different, unrelated reason. A year or two later, he or she stands for election again. You, and a number of other arbitrators, are horrified. Do you (a) persuade the arbitrator to stand down, perhaps implying that you will publicise the affair on-wiki. Or (b) make the matter public, even if it is embarrassing for you, given the Committee did not make the affair public from the very beginning.
2. Another candidate has (commendably, in my view) come out against lying. Do you think it is ever acceptable to lie, e.g. if the lie is 'for the good of the wiki', or if the lie prevented embarrassment for Wikipedia or the committee? Do you think there should be a 'statute of limitations' on lying? I.e. if you find a Committee member has lied some time ago, do you think it is best to 'let sleeping dogs lie'? If you do, how does that square with Wikipedia's principles on openness and transparency?

Thank-you for these questions. I am currently working my way through the general questions and should get to the individual questions towards the end of this week. If there are any unforeseen delays, I'll add an update here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Briefly, though, my initial response to question 1 would largely be in line with what Newyorkbrad said here in response to that question. Carcharoth (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Per this and this and this, I'll be responding here on the more general issues raised in the follow-up. Also relevant is this exchange on Newyorkbrad's questions page and the question asked there. The question on openness and transparency is a good one that deserves a considered response, so I'll be coming back to this one after answering some of the later questions. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Refactored 13:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A: OK, I've now looked around a bit more and there are some things that need to be said (and I apologise for not realising this earlier). While I read through your talk page (back on 22 November) I saw the comments where you said you are writing a book about Wikipedia. I also saw that you created your account only quite recently (September 2012). I didn't realise the full implications of all this until today (I had been concentrating more on answering the other questions on this page). The issues are now clearer in my mind, especially after answering a question further down this page about something that took place three years ago. What worries me here is that you did not state up front in your questions to me and others in these elections that you are writing a book about Wikipedia, though you did mention the book in your fourth question to Newyorkbrad. What you need to do if you want to write about openness and transparency in Wikipedia culture, is tell people when you approach them whether or not you intend to use the material in your book.

Having got that out of the way, and to address your questions, my response to the first two questions still stands (I agree with what Newyorkbrad said, you are transparently basing your questions on actual events). On openness and transparency in general, as it relates to ArbCom, it depends entirely on the context. I would in general prefer a more open culture, one where old history (including some of the off-wiki matters) could be debated openly without old grudges and conflicts being stirred up again, but that doesn't really seem to be possible. It may have something to do with the openness itself, and that 'anyone' can edit and that (on Wikipedia at least) the old history is always there and can be brought up again at the click of a button. Which is why people can write books about it. How to handle embarrassing but not strictly confidential matters? My view is that Wikipedia and ArbCom should be more open in handling such matters, though more of these matters are freely available and openly debated than you might realise (take a look at several of the later arbitrator resignations in the 2009 and 2010 period, for example). Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

   A: I am aware of that page. I am unlikely to have time to help out there, and there may be the potential for some of the issues being discussed at some RfCs to reach arbitration, so if elected it would be best to avoid that situation arising. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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?

   A: The actual question Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?" is something that the editorial community need to discuss and answer. There are valid arguments on both sides, though I am more persuaded by the arguments to follow the similar processes developed elsewhere. Certainly experienced non-admins are perfectly capable of closing such discussions, the question is whether the closes will stick and be accepted. As I said, this is something the editorial community has to work out and come to a consensus on. Though I have given some of my views here, it is vital to realise that this is not something where the views of arbitrators or arbitration candidates are especially relevant. Their views here are that of any other member of the community. I do hope the editorial community do manage to come to a clear consensus on how such closures should be handled, as poorly handled closes can exacerbate disputes and end up prolonging them. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

   A: Again, this is a question for the editorial community to thrash out. The key is to realise that processes that work smoothly are fine, don't fix things that aren't broken. When a process, or new process, appears not to be working, we (the community) need to try and work out what is causing the problems. Is it the process that is causing the problems, or is it editors and administrators abusing the process? If the latter, that could, ultimately, be a matter for ArbCom. If the former, then the community need to re-examine the process and try and fix it or replace it or reject it. Things do change and processes and noticeboards do get rejected. The community sanctions noticeboard was marked historical a long time ago, and the etiquette alerts noticeboard was also marked historical more recently. Again, individual candidates in this election can have views on this, but views on how to set up community processes and modify them, are not for arbitrators to give as arbitrators. What can be determined by consensus at any given location on Wikipedia, and the validity of such consensus, is, however, something that needs to be considered. One key matter is how widely publicised the discussion was (see Wikipedia:Publicising discussions, a page I started) though not all discussions need to be publicised widely, whether the discussion was in the correct location, and whether there was sufficiently independent participation and closure. That in turn leads on to whether is it valid for a new discussion to be started later, or whether repeated attempts to force something through is being disruptive.

   On the actual question asked, it is a matter for the community to work out. I don't think such matters should be 'politicised' (for want of a better word) by being asked in elections such as this (the oft-named ARBCOM vs GOVCOM issue). If the community want a committee to handle such process matters, they should set one up. On the general thrust of this question section, ArbCom's involvement in RfC closes should only extend to whether editors or administrators are abusing the processes as set up by the community. Certainly ArbCom could find (as part of a wider examination of a dispute) that a content-related RfC was improperly closed, or poorly managed, or poorly set up, but they should express no opinion on the outcome. If they sanctioned an editor or administrator they could, in some cases, state that a review (by the editorial community) and a new RfC may be needed. As in all such cases, the language should be advisory only. Certainly ArbCom can't overturn content-related RfCs (examination of user conduct RfCs is a different matter entirely), they can only make findings related to user conduct around such discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

     A: I agree in part with SilkTork, in that more discussions should be held on Wikipedia, but disagree that all of them should be. The privacy elements obviously have to be held in private, but the key is being available to explain committee case, clarification, amendment and motion decisions both as they are being made, and after they have been made, and also how they were made (i.e. disclose when mailing list discussions result in on-wiki actions). Having said that, not all arbitrators should be expected to respond to an 'en banc' decision. If all arbitrators responded to all such questions, chaos would likely ensue. Arbitrators should be willing to explain outlier positions and any controversial individual actions. Major changes to arbitration processes should be held on Wikipedia. There are some exceptions to holding all discussions on Wikipedia. Presenting a poorly thought-out proposal can be counter-productive. Just as ordinary editors can work on proposals offline before bringing them on-wiki, so arbitrators should do the same. What is key is transparency and disclosure, along the lines of "this proposal was worked on off-wiki for x days/weeks, and had input from the rest of the committee and is presented here for further discussion". The key is to recognise when something has moved from 'preliminary' discussion to a stage where it needs to move on-wiki. If additional sanctions and findings are added to cases, it would be good if the transparency extended to "this was first proposed on the mailing list at such-and-such a time and arbitrator Y was delegated to work on the new wording which is now being proposed here" (the note would go on the proposed decision talk page). None of this is in the least confidential, and arbitrators should be more open in stating such matters, including when they are struggling to deal with cases in a timely manner (being honest about that is important). Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  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: I appear to have answered this above in my reply to question 1 of this section. Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

   A: Someone should collect all the examples of such recusal requests over the years. I think Newyorkbrad has a few examples as well of how he handled recusal requests. In these examples, I think Silktork handled it well, particularly where he requested advice from other arbitrators. Certainly there are examples where I've been in dispute with other editors, or had them say things that might have upset me at the time (it is generally not fair to point out specific examples because you may be presenting other arbitrators with a bad first impression of that editor). It is something to ponder. The length and age of such matters does matter. Even if you, personally, had a bad impression of an editor when you interacted 5 years ago, both you and they will have changed since then. Being able to set aside such matters from long ago is part and parcel of being an arbitrator. The example with AGK is more complex. On balance, I think the recusal there was correct, and the 'spat in my face' comment (even if not said in the tone it sounds like) was unfortunate enough that recusal was warranted at that point. That brings up another point, which is that such matters should not become drawn-out disputes themselves. It is important that an arbitrator decides on a position and sticks to it, and then defers to the rest of the committee. Don't get involved in an argument. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

   A: It is possible that I might become more involved in Wikimedia UK at some future point (at the moment, I only attend various events and have not even joined the organisation or signed up to the mailing list). If that happened, I would consider how I would need to handle possible recusals. In terms of WikiProjects, I am not very active in any of the ones I signed up to or used to be signed up to. I have been moderately active in featured article candidacies reviews over the past two years and have participated in some of the meta-discussions there, and would likely continue working there and participating in discussions there. If anything centred on that ever came to arbitration, I would recuse. In terms of topic areas, I would recuse on anything related to the articles on J. R. R. Tolkien and his works (or even, I should add, the adaptations there-of). The other abiding interest of mine is chess, and it is possible that any case related to that might touch on any biases I have in relation to that. I do have plans to edit in that area more than I currently do, so would prefer to not arbitrate if anything in that area cropped up (it can be awkward to begin editing more in a topic area if you previously arbitrated in a case centred on that topic area). The other interest of mine in terms of editing (both now and in the future) is World War I. I would similarly recuse if a case centred on a dispute in that area arose. Other topic areas and recusal requests I would consider on a case-by-case basis. Finally, there are some personal areas where I would recuse (relating to undisclosed elements of life, education and work). I would disclose these to the rest of the committee if matters such as those arose at arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

Note: due to time considerations, I am skipping this set of questions. Also, I am not very active at XfD discussions and closures (that is putting it mildly!), so that factors into my decision to skip this section. If anyone particularly wants me to answer these questions, please let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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?
   • See the note at the top of this section about skipping these questions. Carcharoth (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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. In his statement, you 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. You 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)."

     Describe how would you have built in a delay for EncycloPetey. Would you have supported or opposed the motion that was passed? Would you have proposed a different motion?

     A: My main objection there was the way that events moved too rapidly at the start of the request. While there is no mechanism that requires those commenting (both arbitrators and non-arbitrators) to wait for the named parties to make a statement, my feeling has increasingly been that there should be. Arbitration case requests are rarely emergencies (in general, arbitration should be about defusing drama, not adding to or encouraging it). There is nothing wrong with waiting for the named parties to a request to make statements, followed by comments from arbitrators and others. Certainly it should be exceedingly rare to accept a case without having heard from the named parties. As an arbitrator, I would pledge to wait a reasonable amount of time for named parties to make a statement before accepting a case, and only enter a placeholder comment to that effect. I would also urge both fellow arbitrators and non-arbitrators to not rush to judgement. In the event, with EncycloPetey still not responding after a period of time (I note he has still not edited to this day since his goodbye message at WikiProject Plants), ArbCom had little option but to desysop, but I would still have preferred a slightly different formulation that allowed EncycloPetey to return and reopen the case within a period of time (e.g. six months). I believe the above is similar to what I said at the time, but would need to check that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  2. 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: (I presume the question means desysopped as part of an arbitration case, rather than for misconduct that took place after an arbitration case closed). In general, unless there were exceptional circumstances, the best route to regaining adminship is through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. However, there are cases where, if the reason for de-adminship involved circumstances that only ArbCom were privy to (or compelling new evidence or changes in circumstances were presented), then Wikipedia might be better served by granting a request made direct to ArbCom. This would be exceedingly rare. This is not an entirely academic question, as it has happened before and such an amendment request was made very recently. See the resysopping request made by Hawkeye7 here. As that may come before the new committee, it would be patently wrong to ask any candidate to opine on that, but the comments made there by Newyorkbrad and Silktork are worth reading. It would also be useful if a full list of past desysoppings and resysoppings (including temporary desysoppings) were compiled. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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: Before answering this set of questions, I should note that I commented on the original acceptance of this case when it was filed, commented in a few places in the case itself, and in at least one of the clarification requests. At least one of my encounters with Malleus was entered in evidence in the case (by another editor), and I've worked with Malleus on a few matters relating to articles, so I've seen both 'sides' of him (if you want to use that wording). I'd also worked briefly with Hawkeye7 (the administrator desysopped in that case) during a review I did at FAC, but that is less relevant to the questions here. I should also note that I was away on wikibreak when that whole trainwreck of a thread and set of motions took place, which is why I didn't say what I say below at the time. Finally, though the comments I give below concern both sitting arbitrators and fellow candidates in this election, I think the intensity of the feelings aroused in the community warrant speaking out on the matter here.

     On the first question, I have come to dislike the 'net positive' and 'net negative' wording. It demeans editors to use that wording. They are human and arbitration shouldn't be like an episode of The Weakest Link: "You are a net negative. Goodbye." I also intensely dislike how some editors become the 'poster child' for certain issues, either through their own actions or being unfairly focused on by others (usually a combination of both). What I can say is that I would strive to avoid that sort of language. It might not have been picked up on as inflammatory, but in its own way it was. If things come to the point where an editor needs to be banned, do it with compassion and dignity. Don't escalate matters by using inappropriate language, especially not as an arbitrator. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  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.

     A: My view is the latter. The comment was indefensible, even when revised. It certainly inflamed the situation, though possibly that was in part because some people were ready to be inflamed (time of the year and past disquiet with that arbitrator). Interestingly, the question you haven't asked here, though you do ask about the block, was whether the calls for that arbitrator's resignation (the motion of confidence) were justified. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

     A: That is a more tricky question. Sometimes it is necessary to be frank and air controversial views to allow robust debate to take place. Whether the specific comments and language used here are defensible is another matter. As I said above, I don't think they can be defended. Anyone should certainly feel justified in asking for comments like that to be rephrased or withdrawn. And on further reflection, I've realised that if a party to an arbitration case said this to another party to a case, they would be warned and the comments struck, so the same should apply to arbitrators. So while robust language is sometimes needed at arbitration, this definitely crosses the line. No need to try and define which 'policy' it falls under, it clearly is not appropriate language to use. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

     A: Although it looked like a point was being made, and I was initially going to say the block was not justified, the more I think about it the more it feels right that a block was made. It was lifted fairly rapidly, as you would expect, and I am glad that things de-escalated after that point (having a full case and calls for a desysopping for that block would have been excruciating), but in some ways (paradoxically) the block may have helped de-escalate things by ensuring that some permanent record was left of the matter. It certainly took the courage of that admin's convictions to make a block like that. Maybe the questions should be whether those you ask this question of would have made that block themselves even if they think it was justified? Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

     (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: Wikipedians are those who have actively contributed to building the encyclopedia (that covers more than just editing articles and includes those editing without accounts, and especially those who just edit articles and avoid all the drama and rarely or never talk to other Wikipedians). It should be noted that there are those who have contributed a few edits here or there who wouldn't really consider themselves Wikipedians in the sense meant here, being an active part of the community. Those who are indefinitely blocked and/or banned were Wikipedians, and may still be Wikipedians (for all we know, they continue to contribute as IP editors or socks). Some may not like that, but that is the reality of the encyclopedia 'anyone can edit'. Vandals are vandals, no real point saying much about them. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  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: I would have opposed, for much the same reason as Risker gave there. The motion was, essentially, illegitimate, and should never have been proposed. The minimum that could have been done would have been to open a review of the case. To end up with a motion like that (given the nature of the initial request for clarification) was a severe mis-step by ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  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?

     A: The context and reaction should be taken into account, but ArbCom does also need to avoid being, or even perceived to have been too easily, swayed by public opinion. Also, being swayed like that would risk people 'leaving' in protest again if something similar happens, merely to try and achieve their desired result. Much like the SOPA blackout protest, repeating such forms of protest weakens them. I was deeply concerned about the SOPA blackout (but learned about it a bit too late to really marshal my arguments on that), but I have noticed that some people that left in protest over the SOPA blackout have since returned. Protest has its place, but to really get things done you need people that put forward arguments that achieve lasting change by persuasion. I'm pleased to see that at least one of those who 'left' in protest (over the Malleus ban motion) is standing in these elections. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

     (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 agree with "the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors". The bit about the silent majority, I would agree with less. There are lots of 'silent majorities' on Wikipedia, not all of which are even majorities (if you get my meaning there). Also, some of the protests were less about Malleus specifically, and more about ArbCom over-reaching in general. Crucially, many of the silent majority want ArbCom to make (sensible) decisions for them, not to have come out in protest. Many times, ArbCom has to make difficult decisions of far more import to actual article disruption, with only a small crowd of partisans looking on. The 'silent majority' are not likely to turn up in protest or support there, but ArbCom is still expected to produce the goods. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  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)?

     A: I would have opposed the motion for the simple reason that I think the original restriction has been more trouble than it was worth. One of those unworkable remedies that paints a target on someone's back and kicks the issue down the road. Carcharoth (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  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: I would have suggested rescinding the original restriction, and then if further trouble ensued I would have suggested a review and an attempt to come up with something more workable. Hopefully, at some point, RfA itself will be properly reformed, which would, in some ways, help more than focusing on individual editors. Carcharoth (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  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: Yes, I agree with Courcelles that you need a high bar (a compelling reason) to ban people from RfA (though I would call that sensible, not insane). A time-limited complete ban from RfA would be a last resort, something to try after other attempts failed. The real problems, however, are the ways in which the RfA process doesn't function as well as it used to; there is an insanely high bar for users to become admins. Hopefully some reform of that can take place at some stage. Carcharoth (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  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: My criteria would be whether they are a repeat offender after multiple warnings and chances to reform, and whether the nature of the offence itself warrants a ban. As I stated in my answer to the first question in this section, I disagree with the 'net negative' and 'net positive' language (though I may have used this language myself in the past, my views have since changed). Whether someone should be banned or not is a complex decision, and shouldn't just be the weighing up of 'good' and 'bad' things on either side. Sometimes it is necessary to ban those with a large number of constructive contributions, and sometimes it is necessary to ban those with only a small number of disruptive contributions. i.e. It is the nature and amount and effect of the disruption that matters more than the nature or amount of constructive contributions. ArbCom is not here to praise people for their contributions, it is here to resolve disputes that the community has been unable to handle, and to support those building this encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you. I've now finished answering the questions, though I did skip one section I didn't have time to answer. Please ask if you have any follow-up questions. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Bishonen

For follow-up comments and questions, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions § Moved comment from #Question from Bishonen.

Hi, Carcharoth, nice to see you stand again. One case the committee dealt with during your 2009—2010 tenure was "Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen", a case I filed. This aftermath is of particular interest IMO; I link to it because it's rather hard to find. Could you please let me know your present thoughts about how my request was handled, and especially about your own role? It wouldn't be technically correct to call you the "drafting arb", since the request was dealt with by motion without a full case being opened, but you certainly seemed willing to take a leading role. Is there anything (anything important) that you would do differently if a comparable request (=a request involving Jimbo Wales) came up today?

Naturally, if a person might dream, I'd like to also learn your full and frank view of the part Jimbo played in the proceedings and of the constitutional crisis with respect to Jimbo's role which you acknowledged here. But I realize this may not be the time and place.

I want to stress that this is a bona fide question; it's not meant to be a preamble to a debate or political disquisition. It's just something I'd like to know in order to know how to vote. I'll certainly respect your right to keep the content of your head private, and will silently accept whatever you're willing to tell me about your present views. In the unlikely event that I feel a need to respond to your response, I'll do so on the talk page. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. Thanks for the questions. As I said to Cunard above, I am working my way through the remaining questions and should get down to these ones some time at the weekend, as I'm not around Friday evening. Briefly for now, the 'aftermath' you link to was moved to another page, and can be seen here. That is within a collapse box, but can be seen by clicking the box open. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A: OK, I've now re-read (skimming in some places) that very long thread from 2009, and the 'aftermath' bit where we talked on that userspace page of mine. My present thoughts on how your request was handled back then are that, quite frankly, it was a mess and it could have been handled a lot better. For that I apologise unreservedly. My own role, it appears, was to say far too much, though I see a lot of other people said a lot back then as well. What I would do differently today, if a similar request came up, would be to be more concise, to keep discussion on-wiki, and to not use the mailing list in the way it was used back then. My view of the part Jimmy played in the proceedings are that he did cross a line several times that he should not have done, but this is (or should be) old history now. The constitutional crisis died with a whimper, despite efforts on my part and by others to move the issue forward again (I mention this in the aftermath bit). It is possible that the arbitration policy that was eventually voted on (some years later I think) included some formal changes along these lines with respect to the relationship between Jimmy and ArbCom. It is possible that the Timid Guy ban appeal case (held earlier this year) saw other changes. As for the relationship between Jimmy and Wikipedia as a whole, that is not a matter for ArbCom, though I see the issue is topical once more if you look at his comments made here after being notified of the Electoral Commission set up for these elections. See also what was said here by Jimmy in his partial endorsement at the RfC for that Electoral Commission. I hope all this answers your questions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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) 08:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A: I think the concept of committee solidarity is an important one. Disagreement and discussion is a necessary part of the decision-making process, but once a decision has been taken then the whole committee should stand behind it. This doesn't mean that decisions can't be changed (e.g. if new evidence emerges) or that they can't be appealed at the right time and in the right places, but it does mean that in the absence of any changes the decisions taken should be upheld. There are limited exceptions for dissenting commentary after a case closes, such as at the arbitration noticeboard talk page, where a post-case explanation for being the lone voice of opposition may be requested. But it should be made clear that such explanations are limited and only to explain that arbitrator's position. They certainly shouldn't be used to rally support for the outlying position, or foment unrest. It would help if arbitrators making such post-case comments also made clear that the decision has now been made and that they stand behind it with the rest of the committee.

To answer the final part of your question, it depends on why the position is strongly held. If it is a case where a judgement call is needed, then you have to let the majority vote decide. If the strongly held position is a matter of fundamental principle and you (as an individual) are not comfortable with having to stand behind the committee decision, then it may be better to resign as a matter of principle. But in practice it rarely comes to that. Most arbitrators chose to work with their colleagues on the committee to produce the best decisions possible under the circumstances, which does involve learning how to work together and moving on, even after major disagreements. Carcharoth (talk) 22:13, 24 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} 14:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A: I live in London, UK, which is currently UTC 0 (Greenwich Mean Time). The hours I am available are generally early morning (06:00 to 08:00) or late evening (20:00 to 00:00). I am sometimes available outside those hours, but those are the best times to get hold of me. In terms of general availability, I tend to be around at weekends as well as during the week, but not always. I would indicate to the committee if I was going to be unavailable for an extended period of time. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 25 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) 23:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A: I've mentioned this in a few places already, in my candidate statement, and in answers to some of the questions above. Some of the Wikipedians I've met are listed here. That ranges from people I have met only briefly at meetups or drinks or dinners when someone is in town, to those I have talked with at length about various matters. As I state there, I've not yet managed to make it to a Wikimania event, but I may do that one year. That page in my userspace also mentions some of the meetups I've attended, which have all been in the UK, in London or Cambridge. Some of the outreach or training work (sometimes little more than an editathon, sometimes something more organised) is also mentioned there. This may sound like a lot, but it is spread out over around 2-3 years and I would estimate I manage to get to such events or meetups around 3-4 times a year on average. I would like to do more of that, but if elected to ArbCom there would probably not be time to do more than attend the occasional event as I do now (some of the early meet-ups I attended were during my time as an arbitrator in the period from 2009 and 2010). If I was not elected, I may well try and do more along these lines. Meeting other Wikipedians gives a different perspective on things, and doing volunteer outreach work can be very rewarding. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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: Briefly, as I don't have much time available to answer this (see note following this question), my views here are that there has been far too much politicisation and polarisation around issues such as civility, with ArbCom and the community dividing into factions. There needs to be far less of that, and more focus (as I said in answer to another question earlier) on editors working together (rather than arguing incessantly) to come up with workable strategies and approaches to this and other questions. The same applies to ArbCom in that it needs to focus more on resolving disputes, not engaging in internecine warfare (as seems to have been happening). One of Wikipedia's strengths is what can be done when people work together, and ArbCom is no exception to that. Taking that approach will (hopefully) bring the pendulum back from a judgemental body to one that actually helps resolves disputes rather than creating drama. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Mid-election note on availability

Due to prior commitments, I will have very little time available between now and 10 December for editing Wikipedia. Hopefully the views expressed above and in my statement provide enough information for those voting in these elections, but if there are any additional questions please ask and I will do my best to reply in the time available. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from GabeMc

1) Would you close an RfC that was happening as part of a formal mediation but wasn't to be closed by the mediator/s when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that resulted in said RfM and RfC? 2) Assuming this has happened inappropriately, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A: It was obvious when I first read this question that you had a specific situation in mind. What wasn't obvious then (though it is now, a few days later) is that, as seems clear from here, you had a specific situation involving one of the candidates in this election. To put not too fine a point on it, election questioning shouldn't be used to rehash earlier dispute resolution and raise objections you have to what happened in specific situations. If you had a specific problem with one candidate, you should have asked the question to that candidate alone. So I'm going to elect not to answer the question, in part because of the approach you took here. See also what has been said here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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} 18:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A: You may be aware that My76Strat asked a number of people (I think those that commented at the Civility Enforcement case) if they would be willing to fill in this survey. My response so far is here (static version). As I said there, I've decided not to take part in this survey. I've re-read the talk page and the further comments made there (see here onwards, static version). The range of responses so far is the most interesting thing, and I hope something useful does come out of it. On a more general (and possibly more important point), I don't think issues such as civility should be thrashed out during election season. It politicises the debate, when what is needed is a broad cross-section of the editing community (i.e. not just election candidates) debating the issues and coming up with workable strategies and approaches. ArbCom only deals with the worst disputes the community can't deal with, and neither ArbCom nor ArbCom election candidates can (or should) rewrite policy, even ones that may need rewriting or clarifying (in part because they may be called upon to interpret those policies if elected). A distinction should additionally be drawn between policy enforcement and policy drafting. See also what I said above in my 'Addendum on civility' in this section of the questions. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have some additional questions on a somewhat different matter below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions

1. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
2. on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
3. to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
4. do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
5. do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions, and apologies for the delay in replying (I hope the notice above about not being available much in this period was visible enough). I'll answer the questions below:

1. A: A full site ban is generally applied when other options have failed (such as warnings and topic bans), the conduct has been wilfully repeated, or the conduct is sufficient to warrant an immediate ban, rather than trying other options first. It also depends on what the editor in question has to say about their conduct.
2. A: Looking at your essay, I agree that one of the primary considerations should be how arbitration or administrative actions impact the production of encyclopedic content, or how such actions impact the support structure provided for the production of encyclopedic content. In either case, it can be a difficult judgement call. Sometimes a light touch is needed, other times tough calls need to be made and a line drawn. Again, it depends on the specifics and requires judgement and experience of how similar matters have been resolved (or not) in the past. I'm less certain about the concept you put forward of restricting and reforming users under the term 'deradicalization'. I don't think you can generalise here, and editors should be treated as human, not ciphers or names on a screen. Part of that, in my view, involves avoiding language that generalises too much. Generalise in essays, sure, but in actual cases, avoid that and look at the specifics.
3. A: I don't think drawing quasi-legal analogies between moderation and dispute resolution on a website and incarceration or restraining orders used in legal systems is helpful. Rather than thinking of Wikipedia as an online activity somehow distinct and separated from the 'real world', it is better to think of Wikipedia as part of the 'real world', where the actions taken can have actual consequences (including legal ones). If you were, for instance, publishing online in a journal or helping with an encyclopedia to be published online, you wouldn't consider that separate from the 'real world' would you? So why do people treat Wikipedia editing and interactions as a 'virtual' activity?
4. A: No. And see my previous answer for my reasoning on how such analogies are unhelpful. Actions online can (and have) led to people being prosecuted, fined and/or incarcerated. Wikipedia is not some separate world with its own quasi-legal judicial system (though it can at times feel like that). Those editing it need to be aware of that. Being blocked from editing a website is just that, not something analogous to some legal concept. If you have to draw an analogy, it is more akin to the owners of a private establishment open to the public reserving the right to refuse admission (and delegating that right to a committee to decide on difficult cases). That analogy is not perfect, though, and the unique aspects of Wikipedia means that no analogy will be perfect.
5. A: The question would be easier to answer if you made explicit why you are asking it in the context of elections to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. The question would seem more relevant to US politics than handling dispute resolution at on online encyclopedia.

Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Question from Martinevans123

1. Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks. Added 21:49, 8 December 2012‎ (UTC)

   A: It brings everyone to the same level? No. There are valid arguments for when the use of profanities can be acceptable, but that is not one of them. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(Thanks for date-stampimg for me - the instructions for adding a comment seem to suggest that no signature is required.) I wonder could you briefly describe what the "valid arguments" are, in your view? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Briefly (will be logging off soon for most of the rest of today), some profanities are used for emphasis. Though I would personally avoid using them even in that context (due to the possibility of misunderstandings), those who object to them need to be aware of that usage. Gratuitous use of profanities isn't really acceptable, but neither is it the worst thing that can be done on Wikipedia (i.e. use of profanities can distract from bigger problems both by other editors and the editors in question). Carcharoth (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree they can be a distraction. And can be purposefully employed to act as a distraction. I also think that established editors should try and use all other means available for adding "emphasis". It's very risky, in my experience, to use a profanity where one is not wholly sure how it will be received. Repeated use of multiple profanites often make the editor responsible appear as if he or she may have a problem with alcohol, or other substance, abuse. I'm sure this is not the image that the project wishes to give, particularly to younger editors. Thanks for your considered and measured response. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)