Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/The Devil's Advocate

The Devil's Advocate

Salutations, you may know me or you may not. I am not an admin and I know that right there may be a deal-breaker for people. I am not a particularly prolific or exceptional content creator and I know that right there may be a deal-breaker for people. I have had a few blocks or sanctions in my history and I know that right there may be a deal-breaker for people. I imagine I am not anyone's ideal candidate and I am not even sure I am my own ideal candidate, but I figured I might well give this a try. ArbCom has always been a place for admins and I do like the idea of a non-admin having a spot on the Committee for once. So, I guess this is me trying to be the change I want to see on Wikipedia.

During my time on Wikipedia, I have seen its bright shimmering coat and its dirty underbelly, which has contributed to how I view its faults and its strengths. As my username suggests I am prone to going against the grain in a discussion. In my life, online and offline, I have always tried to see all potential avenues and consider all sides. My personal reasons for this vary from a desire to be certain that everyone is treated fairly to a desire to see that the best course is taken in the end. Were I to argue for one particular reason why I might be a good arbitrator it would probably be that I have been through the wars and have not let it harden me. Understandably, I have a lot of things going against me, but I would like to be considered with some seriousness.

As to the usual disclosures, I am over eighteen years of age and have only ever edited using this account on Wikipedia, with the exception of a single accidental IP edit. Were I elected I would naturally be willing to identify myself to the Foundation. Thank you for your consideration.

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

What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
Having spent quite a bit of time commenting on arbitration-related matters I feel I have a good handle on how the process works and doesn't work as well as how to apply policy. Generally, I feel I can offer personal insights that someone with a spotless record of activity in areas that see little conflict will have a harder time providing. I feel I have a pretty good read on people and am not prone to judging them based on first impressions or community whims. That opens me up to seeing issues with a situation that may otherwise go unrecognized and on occasion my concerns or suggestions have prompted action. One other thing I pride myself on is being willing to look deeper and dig up details on a situation when others wait for the evidence to be served to them on a silver platter.
What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
I have not had any involvement with the mediation process, though I have participated in a number of other dispute-resolution forums such as DRN. My experiences have mostly been with the arbitration process where I have frequently commented as an uninvolved editor. A few times I was a named party, though I have never been a named party in a case that was accepted. The first case where I was heavily involved was the Fae case and others where I was involved significantly include the Doncram case and the Manning name dispute case. I have commented on and made proposals on several other arbitration cases, as well as clarification and amendment requests.
Addendum: I have been minimal in describing my experiences with dispute-resolution, so I feel I should provide more details. One other area where I have been somewhat active at times is in 3O, having helped out in at least a dozen or so cases. Additionally, while I recognize that ANI's reputation is not particularly good, deservedly so, I feel there are certain instances where it has functioned akin to arbitration as a dispute-resolution forum and here are two instances where I would consider my input to have been of some import, even if just in raising broader concerns over a case that are later acted upon by others.
Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
Most of the time when I have commented on a case it has been to suggest lighter sanctions against one or more parties. In the Kiefer-Ironholds case, for instance, I proposed much lighter sanctions for both parties than those that were imposed by the Committee. However, at times I have supported sanctions against parties who they did not sanction or sanctions that might be considered harsher. In those situations it is because I feel one party is being more unfairly sanctioned than other parties who are also at fault. Overall, I would say I would be more lenient than harsh, though I would think of it more as trying to go at a dispute with a scalpel rather than a hatchet.
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
I do not think there is anything in my offline life that would require me to recuse. Obviously, like most active editors here, there are certain matters on-wiki where I would have to recuse should they be brought before ArbCom. Most, if not all, the contentious areas where I have been active have already been the subject of arbitration cases, though. Certain matters relating to U.S. politics may arise where I would feel compelled to recuse. While most of my off-wiki activities are not an issue, I imagine my participation on Wikipediocracy might sometimes mean I have to recuse from a case where I was particularly active in discussion of the matter there.
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
I have no reason to believe I would be unable to serve out a full two-year term.
Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
The ban of GoodDay is one situation where I think the Committee acted appropriately and effectively, given the editor's widespread and relentless disruption in numerous topic areas. I feel the committee did a rather poor job of handling the Tea Party case, not only in accepting the case, but in their various delays and oscillations. Going from a regular case to a mediation process to a bizarre proposal to topic-ban people without regard to actual misconduct and on to a final decision that topic-banned a number of editors on a rather thin basis made it a comic tragedy of a case. How it should have been addressed was by punting the case altogether. It essentially arose from an incredibly minor civility kerfuffle about biased editing and exploded into some ANI train wreck before moving to ArbCom. Such a case never really had a viable solution.
The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
Presumably it would be a good thing as it might suggest matters are being handled before they get severe enough to warrant ArbCom action. There is also hopefully some element of institutional memory where incoming arbitrators are able to get a handle on what kind of cases are best handled by arbitration by looking at past examples. Aside from whether a dispute is severe enough to warrant intervention, I would try to consider whether there was some effective resolution only ArbCom could provide. Two cases this year where I feel the latter requirement was not met were the Tea Party case and the Manning name dispute case. It is likely both situations would have calmed down without any need for arbitration, so arbitration only caused a lot of additional grief for the community.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
My responses to Tryptofish and Tarc point to certain changes I would support. As to how I would bring such changes about, the most I could do is advocate for changes, make proposals, and work with those in the Committee or Foundation as the case may be to gauge opinion and come to a satisfactory consensus.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
A concern I have is the tendency for the community to bring a heated matter to ArbCom because they cannot resolve it in that heat of the moment. The Tea Party and Manning name dispute cases were both instances where I feel the community was not given enough time to sort things out themselves. Below, in my response to Tarc's question, I note one area where I feel the WMF should take the lead rather than ArbCom and the community. As to establishing additional mechanisms, I do feel the process is currently lacking in a decent lower-level forum for dispute-resolution regarding conduct. Cumbersome RfC/Us are presently the only real mechanism outside the drama-laden noticeboards and cases jumping from ANI to ArbCom is usually not a good thing. I especially think the process is lacking in a non-binding mechanism regarding conduct since WQA closed down.
It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
Taken literally and as written it would certainly be true in my experience. Having said that, it is normal that decisions reached in arbitration cases play a role in shaping how the community and admins approach conduct issues in the future. It is also the case that when the Committee hands out sanctions it occasionally has the result of influencing any decisions on content by leaning more heavily on one side of the dispute than the other. Such indirect influence can probably not be avoided and is likely to have the same effect, so the goal of the Committee should be that any indirect influence they have on the process would serve to help Wikipedia move closer towards achieving a more ideal state.
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
Its role should be to intervene in cases where editor conduct is an issue and normal procedures would be inappropriate to address the problem. Given the number of mechanisms in place for enforcing BLP, direct action by ArbCom should be minimal. That said, should the Committee be made aware of an issue any member would be obligated to see that appropriate action is taken, even if it is not formally an ArbCom action.
Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
I would undoubtedly request oversight privileges as being able to view deleted and suppressed material would be critical to carrying out the duties of an arbitrator. On checkuser I am less certain of whether I could use it on technical grounds, though I would consider requesting it for a trial period and giving it up if I felt I was not proficient enough to handle it.
Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
I imagine few could honestly say there is nothing someone could do to persuade them to not serve on the committee, but if things like having my identity revealed and people writing bad things about me on another site are all that would occur then I could handle it. While I try to keep my identity a secret online and would prefer to keep it a secret, there is nothing I have done or said online that I would not be willing to own in my regular life.
Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
In certain cases retaining non-public information may remain necessary such as with persistent sockpuppetry or, when it comes to identities, if there are conflict-of-interest issues with a specific editor. Unless non-public information would have such long-term value it should not be retained. At the same time, any information being retained should not be kept in places that have been prone to leaks, such as the mailing list.
Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
I mainly foresee sock-puppetry as being a case where information should be withheld, and even then I would support disclosing as much as possible. The only reason I can think of for withholding in that case would be to avoid providing a persistent sockpuppeteer with a checklist for things to avoid the next time. Only other reasons I can think of for not disclosing all the evidence is if it would affect another user negatively, such as by disclosing non-public information about them. Obviously, far more cases will require the community to be unaware as they may involve non-public information or may have legal implications should the details be disclosed.

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:

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

Question from Tryptofish

What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?
I believe any process of significant import should be as transparent as possible, though I do recognize the legitimate desire to have a closed chambers discussion of sorts. Akin to the confidentiality of jury deliberations, it is a good idea to not have all discussion be public, at least during a case. Editors who are subject to arbitration proceedings should have an idea of how the process is going and be aware of the thinking that went into every draft and vote. The biggest mark against an arbitrator I have is when his or her public involvement is essentially to leave a vote without a public justification. Overall, I would say the proposals linked above are quite reasonable. I would prefer that the Committee disclose internal e-mail discussions after a certain period of time if they do not pertain to information that needs to remain confidential and cannot be easily redacted. I think the leak during the election last year and how many Arbs reacted to it is a good example of a situation where confidentiality served no purpose and seeking to preserve it was in conflict with the body's purpose.

Question from Sceptre

Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in Sexology, the massive embarrassment of the Manning dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?
I like to think the best way to maintain good relations with any individual or group of individuals is to treat people fairly. Though I am not sufficiently familiar with two of the incidents you mention, when it comes to the Manning name dispute, I feel it should not have been accepted in the first place and that the second move discussion would have been enough to defuse the conflict.

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
It definitely seems like the case was simple enough that it would not have required much time to reach a final decision. While I recognize that a personal situation involving the drafting arbitrator interrupted the proceedings, it would have been good for the other arbitrators to find a way to avoid a long delay, even if it meant having someone else take the lead. Having more than one Arb handling the drafting as is the case now, seems to avoid that particular problem, though delays are unfortunately still common.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
A WikiProject is a gathering place where editors can collaborate on a common interest, whether it is content or some other aspect of Wikipedia. Articles are not owned by a WikiProject, but they may represent a local consensus that should normally be respected unless there is a greater community decision to disregard that specific consensus. In an ideal situation the wider community would seek an acceptable agreement on any such disputes rather than simply overriding them.
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 problem does exist, though it is inevitable that certain editors will gain a status within the community that makes them prone to being treated better than other editors. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, even if one editor takes the reins on an article he or she will have to depend on and work with other editors as a matter of necessity to maintain or vet the article. Over time a collegial atmosphere forms bonds and those who are most involved in such collaborative efforts will develop more bonds. There are also, admittedly, elements of social interaction beyond content such as with off-wiki areas where those bonds can become even more personal. Good relations being necessary for the purpose of developing content, it naturally leads to a situation where authority figures on this site will defend or downplay misconduct by certain "power users" and be a little more ruthless to those who come into conflict with those users. At best the problem of such bonds can only be mitigated by having impartial and dispassionate authority figures who will give due weight to any value an editor brings to the project and to any detrimental effect the editor has on the project. One way in which ArbCom can resolve such problems is by developing and imposing novel solutions to a conduct matter that is able to keep a valuable contributor active, while limiting the editor's negative impact.
Addendum:Noting the evaluation of this answer in the guide, I feel I need to clarify what I am stating above. My statement is not a defense of there being vested contributors, but an understanding of how the problem emerged and that it is likely going to be with us as long as the site consists of imperfect human beings. It is my belief that the most that one should expect is that the problem can be mitigated by having people in charge who can be impartial and dispassionate.
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?
Most of the time a heated dispute involves bad actions by people on both sides, in my experience. I am extremely leery of one-way interaction restrictions and believe that they should only be imposed when there is no evidence of the other party initiating a negative interaction. There are times when one editor is the primary problem and the other editor's actions fade into the background or maybe where one editor is made out to be the primary problem when the editor is merely being provoked by a more savvy editor. Provocation is the sort of situation where I feel sanctions could be mitigated or avoided and I feel too often the existence of provocation is ignored by admins and arbitrators. After being imposed, I feel certain sanctions should only be lifted due to the conduct of another editor when it has the result of removing the reason for the original sanction. For instance, if an editor has an interaction restriction with an editor and the other is subsequently site-banned indefinitely for related or unrelated reasons then it may be reasonable to remove the restriction.
zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
Accepting a case that solely concerns abuse of the tools should only occur when the action was severe or it involves a pattern of abuse. Should less serious tool misuse be alleged as part of a broader contentious dispute then it can be examined more closely within the context of the broader case, presuming such a case would be appropriate. A case concerning conduct unbecoming of an administrator is probably something that is going to have to involve a broader dispute to be reasonable for ArbCom to review, unless it is something fairly extreme. Such cases can otherwise be resolved through lower-level mechanisms. The recent Sandifer motion removing his tools was an unusual case where a largely inactive admin posted personal information off-wiki. Given that the usual result in an outing case is to ban an editor and this also occurred, removing the tools was an obvious move. Even if a ban had not occurred outing, or at least intended outing, is a situation where removing the tools by motion seems reasonable, especially when the tools have seen little use for a long time.
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
ArbCom is traditionally limited to addressing matters that occur here. What occurs on other sites only becomes an issue when it bleeds onto the English Wikipedia. I believe conduct off-wiki can be within ArbCom's remit in certain situations. The best example recently would be in the Kiefer-Ironholds case where both parties said and did some rather inflammatory things to each other and other editors on other sites. While I largely agreed with the reason Brad gave for wanting to decline the case, it is a perfect example of a situation where ArbCom had grounds to get involved. Generally, I believe areas such as IRC and criticism sites can be good as places for editors to let loose a little without being too concerned about adhering to this site's stricter standards of behavior. ArbCom should only jeopardize that status when editors are not keeping it there or their actions regarding other editors are too extreme to go unaddressed.
What is your definition of "outing"?
The revelation of non-public information about an individual's identity. How to define "non-public" is the area where this occasionally becomes contentious. Self-disclosure works against a claim of outing but it does depend on the manner and extent of disclosure. If it is clear someone did not take issue with publicly sharing certain details about their identity with people who had no obligation to keep the information confidential, then I would consider that to be important, even if it was not as simple as them identifying on a user page or in a signature. My biggest problem is when editors try to unring the bell on identifying details after they have become known due to their own public disclosures. In a few cases, including one I know of that led to an arbitration case, problematic editors pursue a "clean start" for "privacy reasons" but essentially continue on in the same manner as before but use "outing" to avoid being associated with the previous account's checkered history. Failing to avoid behavior that would associate one with a prior account that contained personal information should be treated as voiding any claim of outing in that situation. On the other hand, I feel the focus on "outing" itself misses a broader point that even if a person's identity is known it does not mean it is appropriate to mention it repeatedly against that editor's wishes. When it is unnecessary to mention an editor's identity and the editor objects to it being mentioned, it is more a case of being respectful to avoid mentioning it than whether the information is technically "non-public" or not. That should still be treated lighter than cases of outing.
Addendum:Noting the evaluation of this answer in the guide, I feel I need to clarify what I am stating above. My comments about outing concern some of the more complex situations that sometimes arise where an editor has previously disclosed the information being revealed by another editor and when those instances should be considered outing or not. Even if mentioning personal information would not be "outing" it does not mean it cannot still constitute harassment and thus still be unacceptable.
What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
I am aware that there have been issues in the past, but of the more recent instances where I am aware of them being used I have not had concerns the vast majority of the time. When I have had concerns they have not been serious enough to warrant any action regarding their use.
Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
Yes, I have had more than a few content disputes in my time and I have engaged in some informal and formal efforts to mediate a content dispute here or there, though nothing major in that respect. My experience is that content disputes typically become difficult to resolve when one or more parties let emotion and personal opinion take charge over their involvement with other editors. Getting people to recognize their biases is not easy, but even biased editors who occasionally get in a few spats can resolve disputes amicably if they are willing to look past the content and work with the people on the other side. Resolving content disputes is less a content issue and more a personality issue. When people on both sides are willing to bend and accommodate each other out of mutual respect, then content disputes tend to just require good ideas, sometimes from outside parties who can be more impartial. It is when one or more parties fight against any effort at compromise and refuses to treat the other side of the dispute with respect that disputes require intervention. This is typically a sign of people having very strong emotions about the subject for personal or political reasons.
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
Hopefully, ArbCom will become increasingly less necessary and not because it is running out of contentious disputes to resolve, but because the community has found ways to resolve their disputes without the need for arbitration. When disputes arise that it has to resolve my hope is that it would be focused on doing exactly what is necessary for resolving the dispute and enabling the improvement of content without showing partiality towards any given position or personality.
Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
I do not anticipate any problems with meeting the identification requirements listed in the policy, nor do I imagine there are any changes that might be a problem.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

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

An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
Sort of like in politics, some arbitrators feel an obligation to prove that they did something and may stretch themselves too far in order to demonstrate that their actions accomplished a task. If a case has developed to where there is no clear reason why sanctions should be imposed other than proving time was not wasted, then the response should be to set the case aside rather than sanctioning editors as a face-saving measure.
Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?
It is important to lay out the reasons for sanctions against an editor and the evidence that prompted the action not just as a matter of process, but to ensure that editors can understand where they are held to have done wrong so that they have the option of reforming their behavior or addressing the concerns. This much is demanded of every admin per WP:ADMINCACCT, so for arbitrators with a greater level of responsibility it is an even higher priority that they only commit to taking action in situations where they can provide a cogent justification supported by evidence. When editors do not understand why they are being subject to sanctions it can be disheartening and cause them to question the entire process, as well as their continued participation on this site.
Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?
I do not think it is ever acceptable to neglect the evidence and workshop phases of a case. Even if a case takes a different turn following the evidence and workshop phases, it is always crucial to keep in mind the circumstances leading up to that point. On many occasions it seems certain admins and arbitrators do not give enough thought to the evidence and comments during a dispute, but act based on emotions regarding the dispute, the subject, or the editors involved.
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?
Although I agree that past decisions should not be treated the same as legal precedents, it is common to refer back to similar cases to see how they were handled. Doing so builds up the ability of the Committee to act more effectively as there is no need to reinvent the wheel with regards to forming solutions. Past findings are naturally important as they can inform how to deal with the recurrence of past issues or the emergence of new issues.
The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
The five pillars constitute the project's supreme ethos as it were and to that extent are valuable in guiding decisions reached by the Committee. Currently there exists a labyrinthine collection of policies, guidelines, and essays, which are used in various different circumstances to make various different, and occasionally conflicting, arguments for how to resolve a dispute. Deconstructing such a tangled web of ideals and bringing it down to a core set of values helps keep all editors grounded in this site's central purpose.
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?
As it concerns individuals, both living and deceased, some measure of respect should be held for them with regards to how editors shape their legacy as that is what is being done through such articles. This is similar to how other matters should be treated, but proves more important when it concerns those who are living or those whose legacies are still of present significance. With the living there are special considerations as how their life is described here can still affect them directly and thus any misconduct regarding those issues should be considered more egregious than misconduct surrounding those who have long since passed. Yet there still should be some greater importance assigned to how editors treat figures who once lived as it can be a window into the mindset of those individuals. On a few occasions I know editors have talked about the recent death of one controversial individual or another in a seemingly positive manner as freeing them from the strictures of our policy on the living and that is deeply disconcerting to me. The way one regards or treats the legacy of other human beings, alive or dead, should be given some additional weight regarding how conduct is to be evaluated and commensurate action taken.
"Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
Much like the question about vested contributors, factionalism does pose problems at times and is also an inevitable result of a collaborative endeavor. It is important to recognize that factions will form over issues either due to opinions and biases editors bring to Wikipedia or those that are a product of Wikipedia, such as factions divided over the application of various policies and guidelines. Existence of factions should serve to inform any decision regarding a case, but only to the extent that editors put factionalism above content and collaboration as that is when battleground mentalities arise. People will have their biases and their editing will likely be influenced by them to some extent, but what matters is whether that person's bias can be shown to significantly impede their ability to work with editors of differing views on content.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:SirFozzie

First off,Thanks for running. You note in your statement that there are things that might be deal-breakers for some voters. While a bit of refreshing honesty in the statement, you ask that you be taken seriously.. Ok.. tell us why you should be considered seriously. What do you think that you can bring to the Committee that makes you a good candidate? (I'm not being rough here, I want to give you an attempt to "sell yourself" as a possible Committee member.
I answer that in my statement to an extent. An admin with a clean block log and no sanctions is not as likely to know what it is like to be on the receiving end of their actions. Some arbitrators have even demonstrated a rather callous attitude towards those they look to sanction as we saw last year in the Malleus case. Even if this is just a website, it is also a place where many people invest time and effort. How the conduct of authority affects those subject to it is less apparent to those in authority and knowing how disheartening it can be could be an asset. Additionally, the traditional criteria are not a guarantee against problems. In the Manning name dispute and the Tea Party case it was pretty easy to discern that there was at least one arbitrator in each case who had strong personal opinions on the subject yet continued to act as an uninvolved arbitrator. Each of them had everything I mentioned that I lack.

Questions from User:MONGO

In the past two years, you were twice topic banned from editing articles related to the September 11 attacks, first in 2011 for 30 days and then again in 2012 for 6 months [1], and twice you violated those topic bans and were blocked. [2] You were subsequently blocked for a 3RR violation just this past April. Explain to us why we should trust you to make good judgements regarding others misconduct?
I would note the incident in April was one where several administrators agreed my reverting was acceptable and that I should not have been blocked under the circumstances. With regards to why people should trust me to make good judgments, I would think that past administrative actions against an editor are less important than the editor's demeanor. See my answer to Fozzie above to get a better idea of my thoughts on this question.
In your eyes, does Wikipedia exist as a substitute for other social networking sites or is it an online encyclopedia?
Obviously, it is an online encyclopedia that includes elements of social networking as one would expect of any collaborative venture on the Internet.
Should offsites be used as a place to smear those that you cannot get away with smearing on-Wiki? Please elaborate on whether you think attacking Wikipedia editors offsite is appropriate.
Depends entirely on the manner of commentary off-wiki. Our civility should not be enforced as strictly for off-wiki commentary as it is for on-wiki commentary, though there are certain boundaries where off-wiki commentary becomes unacceptable.
What are your opinions on real life stalking of our editors and what will you do if your real name and identity are compromised and made public? What penalities are you prepared to make against those that post the real life identities of our editors against said editor's wishes?
Uh, real-life stalking is bad. As to what I would do in the case of my own identity, my answer to the general questions reflects this well enough. How to respond in such cases depends on the specific circumstances, how the one who revealed the information intended the action, and whether it was an unequivocal violation of the outing policy. An individual who reveals personal information that required substantive digging off-wiki with the clear intent to intimidate another user for a typical disagreement should be banned indefinitely unless that editor can provide meaningful assurances that the action will not be repeated.
Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAC, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.
As it stands I only have one Good article credit of my own, though I have performed several Good article reviews. There is also my work on DYK where I have a number of credits. All that can be found on my user page.
What types of cases and/or editors would you avoid due to a conflict of interest?
Obviously, any instance where I was involved in a heated dispute with another editor or over a specific topic is one where I would recuse. At the same time, I would consider recusing if I feel I would be perceived as too favorable or too close to a specific editor due to prior interactions. Presently, there are not many editors who I believe would fall into that last category.
As followup to question 1 that I asked, I find your answer to lack self reflection. Please detail precisely why you think you got the second topic ban.
The way I would describe it is that I was suffering from target fixation. I feel I identified legitimate problems with articles in the topic area, but was so focused on resolving issues as I came upon them that I neglected how it wore on other editors. Additionally, I focused more on fixing one side of the problem than the other and this created the impression of bias. Subsequently, I have worked to limit how much I pursue any given concern with an article or topic area when encountering resistance and have made more of an effort to look out for issues on both sides. I feel my actions in the topic area since then have been more balanced.

Question from Piotrus

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

when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?
Certain situations cannot be resolved by simply barring an editor from a given topic area or barring them from interacting with a given editor. Although I would favor limited bans over full site bans, even if the limited ban leaves little room for editing, individuals who reveal non-public information about another editor, for example, should be blocked until they can offer reasonable assurances that they will not do so again. There are other instances I have cited where a site ban should be considered, such as severe BLP abuse. I am not a big fan of how the civility policy is handled, but if an editor has a track record of being malicious, especially harassing, to other editors and it cannot be tied to any specific dispute then I would support blocks up to an indefinite ban. Not one-off remarks in the heat of the moment, mind you, but persistent incivility where there was little or no provocation.
wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)
Sanctions should not be a form of punishment, but instead serve as a preventative measure. That said, a promise to behave better in itself is not compelling to me. It is very easy for an editor to admit guilt and promise not to do it again. Depending on the circumstances, at the very least I would expect the editor to offer some commitment that could be made binding to address the reasons for a site ban. There are cases where I feel the actions were so egregious and indisputable that the editor would need to show a clear understanding of what was done wrong and why it was wrong. Although we are meant to assume good faith, that does not mean we have to take an editor's promise to behave better as ironclad proof of an ability to behave better.
to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to...?)
I understand some would liken it to imprisonment as it bears some appearance of that, but it is more comparable to the term from which it originates: banishment. A modern day take on this would be deportation in a criminal case. Editors who are banned are still free to do as they please, just not on Wikipedia, and they have to petition for re-enty into the community.
The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?
Not sure how that is relevant here.
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?
I rather like it and wrote a more detailed elaboration some time ago on the potential detrimental impact of poorly-considered sanctions that reflects my thoughts on the matter.
I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.
I am an American and I see no issue with disclosing that much, but the other details are bit too specific for my liking. My preference is to not leave too many bread crumbs for others to follow and even seemingly small details can be enough. I believe my background on here and the answers I give to any questions will be sufficient for people to evaluate how I would perform.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Gerda Arendt

Thank you, precious candidate, for volunteering.

Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox placed at the bottom of a page in a rather shoddy fashion is moved up to the top of the page and introduces the minor error of an extraneous colon, leading it to display text in place of the original image that was placed there.
Well observed. - Second question of three: imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe such an edit, in isolation, should be used to support any kind of sanction. That said, as I am aware of the case to which this is referring, I know the concerns about the editor were not as simple as that.
Good point, not to use any diff in isolation. - If you a have a bit of time, look at the history of that article, it's short, but probably you are busy answering questions ;) - The editor in question was always helpful to me, so I am biased, of course. - Final question: imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, and an equal number of arbs voted against it, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. Assuming you lean towards it (or will you never?): will you?
I looked at the context where it occurred and I would say it does seem excessive to cite that diff to justify a site-ban. Particularly, as the problems that previously went to arbitration all focused on that same specific issue the topic-ban that was imposed seems to be more appropriate for addressing persistent problems on the subject. When it comes to a site-ban, it would always be undesirable to have the proposal pass by one vote. Being the deciding vote in any decision is always going to put a great weight on the arbitrator with that power over another user's fate and a vote to support an action should only come after a lot of consideration. In such a position an arbitrator should look at why the matter is so divisive to see if the division means not taking such action is the better course and if there are less contentious alternatives that can resolve the problem.

Thank you, passed. (If you looked you saw that we almost lost an editor for helping me, something that would have been hard to take for me.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Tarc

Thank you for stepping up and giving this a go, being an Arbitrator is a often a difficult and thankless task. However;

WP:Child Protection and how the Wikipedia protects minors from the possibility of inappropriate contact with adults while being a member of the project has been a matter of much debate recently, with the powers-that-be, such as the WMF and Arbcom, coming under increased scrutiny for how they handle this matter. Given that you once said "[w]hether a sexual relationship between an adult and a child causes harm is not some black or white issue", and the time where you voiced support for the idea that reformed sex offenders shouldn't be banned from the Wikipedia community, do you feel that you would have the community's trust in dealing with issues in this delicate topic area?
In all honesty, I do not believe the matter should be up to ArbCom or the community in the first place. The policy should be controlled and enforced by the Foundation with help from experts in the field. Right now the wording is subject to being changed by regular editors and is enforced by essentially any admin acting on their own volition. I do not believe that is the right way to handle it. As to my comments, they reflect my concern about the problem of leaving the policy up to lay people who are not sufficiently informed on the subject. I know of one instance where an IP editor was blocked with arbitrators approving, because the individual had expressed the misconception that an infant would not suffer long-term psychological harm from sexual abuse as they would seemingly not remember the incident. This was wrong, but it is not hard to imagine how someone could come to that mistaken belief. Such situations arise when the matter is left to people who are not adequately informed on the subject.
At times, there are Arbitration cases involving editors' behavior in regards to WP:BLP articles with which they may have a personal or off-wiki connection to or interest in, either to promote or to denigrate the subject. How will you evaluate off-wiki actions in such a situation? Do they play any part in determining how a Wikipedia editor should or should not be sanctioned?
Any time when you have someone with a conflict of interest acting to promote or denigrate a subject it is a serious issue. I certainly support severe sanctions for someone who uses Wikipedia as a platform for defaming living people, especially if it is part of a personal dispute with the subject. How I would evaluate it would be determined by the circumstances. Should the intent clearly be to disparage a living person and the editor is in a dispute with that living person then a ban from that article would be the lightest thing I could support with a possible BLP ban being plausible. Verifiable off-wiki evidence would be of use in discerning the intention of the actions. With regards to promotion, I think it should be treated no differently than any instance where someone with a COI seeks to promote a subject.
Along that line, can you explain the reasoning behind the creation of User:The Devil's Advocate/Edward Buckner, your connection to the subject, and if this is a draft that you intend to continue working on if your Arbitration run is successful?
He is someone who has frequented Wikipediocracy and is writing a book criticizing Wikipedia. My reasoning for creating a draft was simply that, should the aforementioned book be released and become a success, he may become notable enough for an article. Whether I work on it at some later point depends entirely on that.

Question from User:Worm That Turned

Firstly, please accept my apologies for adding to the list of questions! I'm one of the less controversial arbitrators but even I have had my writing twisted, my honesty questioned, my personality derided. I've been the target of unpleasant emails and real life actions. Other arbitrators have been subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?
While I have not had to deal with fallout in my offline life, I have been faced with my share of hostility during my time on Wikipedia. I imagine the only real change online would be the intensity of such hostility. During my life I have had some pretty horrible things said about me and to me in person and online, including on Wikipedia. Most things I ignore altogether and I try to calm down any negative reactions I have. Part of my philosophy on life is to try and feel compassion and understanding for people unconditionally and that means even when someone gives me every reason to feel differently. I can envision quite a few horrific scenarios, but only the most extreme and unlikely scenarios give me pause.

Question from User:HectorMoffet

The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007.

This decline has been documented extensively:

In our own "Editor Trends Study"
In popular media ("Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore")
In scholarly literature ("How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline")

This raises several questions:

Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?
I would very much take issue with any notion that "bulk of our work is done" as I believe all one can possibly argue is that most of the really important stuff the site's general audience wants to learn about has an article, but that article may itself be far from done. At the same time, content continues to be added even as editors decline. This does create a problem as content is being continually created while the number of people monitoring that content is declining. Only by harnessing more of the editors present or bringing in new editors can Wikipedia manage to operate at its current level of effectiveness should this trend continue. What Wikipedia faces is not unusual as many major online domains have been suffering the same decline in interest. People like to speculate about the reasons, but the most simple explanation is that not enough people are interested in editing Wikipedia and not enough are interested in staying on Wikipedia. This may be due to a lack of obvious tasks to perform or a lack of desire to undergo the necessary effort to perform those tasks. Since this site depends on volunteers producing content for the public without meaningful recognition or financial compensation, it is always going to be difficult to attract a person's interest and keep it.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?
This comes down to how each individual editor behaves towards new and existing editors. Part of what can contribute to editors losing interest in Wikipedia is the sense their efforts are not appreciated. If they are even vilified or harangued then it makes it even more likely for them to lose interest. Simply put, being kind and understanding towards other people is always a good step to take in order to avoid driving away editors and help draw in new ones.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?
The Foundation is taking some of the necessary steps to expand the editor base, though sometimes their implementation has been quite bungled. We saw something like that with the VisualEditor, which really would be a good way to bring in more editors, but it played out about as well as the Obamacare website has played out. For the Foundation the ways of addressing the problem are to focus on how to retool the site's design to attract more interest, conduct outreach to draw in more editors, and work on programs that can keep people interested in the site. All we can do to influence this is point out what works and what does not work in the hopes it will help them find the right formulation for a given effort.
Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?
For ArbCom there are no real steps to be taken to bring in new editors, only to keep around those who are already present, which may in turn make it possible to expand the editor base itself. The role the Committee plays is strictly to resolve disputes in the way that is best suited at stifling the problems prompting the dispute. If the issues are addressed in the way that causes the least discontent within the community then it can help preserve our existing editor base and if it makes the editing environment more accessible and hospitable then it can help draw in new editors.

Question from Carrite

Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?
Dissent plays a crucial in the continued functioning of any social system as uniformity limits the system's ability to improve upon itself or adapt to changing conditions. Although some internal criticism is common within Wikipedia, the site's policies and how they are enforced limit the kind of criticism that can be leveled at Wikipedia. One might see Wikipediocracy as a place for aggrieved editors to vent, since many members are editors who have been subjected to some form of sanction at some point, including some who are banned. This function can be useful at times since there may be cases of wrongful sanctions or other improprieties on Wikipedia that would otherwise go unnoticed or receive minimal attention if they had to be handled through the normal processes on Wikipedia. Of course, every community or system has its flaws. For the same reasons WO can offer meaningful insights and shed light on abuses it can also serve as a venue for misinformation and as a means to engage in abuses. When such abuses occur and they can be clearly demonstrated to involve editors on this site, my consideration would be the same consideration with any other concern: action on-wiki should serve as a means to prevent problems on-wiki. Only particularly egregious conduct, the kind that makes severe on-wiki consequences likely or inevitable, should be used as a basis for action. When a dispute on WO is also taking place on-wiki, then the conduct there should be considered to the extent it can be seen as influencing the dispute on-wiki. That applies to any other off-wiki venue involving identifiable Wikipedia editors such as IRC.

Thank you. (This is my view also, by the way.) Carrite (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from iantresman

How important do you think is transparency and accountability for Admins and Arbitrators, bearing in mind that: (a) Checkuser and Oversight have no public logs, even though we could say who accesses these features (without necessarily giving compromising information)? (b) ArbCom has its own off-site discussion area.
Accountability is of utmost importance as any authority figure who is not accountable for his or her actions is liable to abuse that authority. Transparency is a good way to keep authority figures accountable and I feel it is very important for arbitrators and admins to be as open as is reasonable. Insistence on secrecy should generally be reserved for those instances where there would be legal implications such as privacy and defamation. When oversight and checkuser actions are not contentious I feel it is a good thing to keep the information of who used it secret as this otherwise creates personal implications for the person using the tool. So, while the default should be to withhold who used those tools in a given instance, in situations where there are reasonable concerns regarding the use of the tools then the individual who used it should identify his or her self to explain the basis for the action as best as he or she can without disclosing too much.
I see lots of ArbCom cases where editors contribute unsubstantiated acusations without provided diffs, and often provide diffs that don't backup the allegations. Do you think ArbCom should do anything about it? (ie. strike though allegations without diffs).
The evidence page should always focus on evidence so anything on that page that is not backed by evidence should be removed. On other pages, it depends on the nature of the allegations and whether they are persistent. Editors should always be expected to provide supporting evidence for serious allegations of misconduct be they admin, arbitrator, or neither, and various actions up to and including sanctions against the offending editor should be considered. "Diff or it didn't happen" is not the exact standard I would adopt as a person can point people in the right direction without having to track down a diff.
Incivility on Wikipedia is rife. Sometimes it is ambiguous and subjective. But where it is clear, why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?
I think you made a little mistake in your phrasing. If you are asking whether enough is done to uphold it then I would say there is not enough done in clear cases of incivility. If you are asking why I think enough is not done to uphold it, then I would say it sometimes comes down to who is the target of incivility or who is the one engaging in incivility. My belief is that minor acts of incivility like petty name-calling, even if it involves "bad" words, should not be used to argue for sanctions if they are punctuated incidents of incivility. Basically, if someone gets pissed off for a moment and says "Yeah!? Well, fuck you!" then I believe the best response is to ignore the comment and "be the better person" as it were. Should such comments persist or even escalate then action should be considered to limit the potential for further escalation. More extreme statements, such as repeatedly calling an editor a "stalker" in situations where it is clearly not warranted, should at least be met with immediate condemnation if not some form of administrative action. Yet, there are plenty of cases where very odious comments can be made about certain editors with little consequence. I believe this is likely because the editor or editors facing such incivility are not viewed favorably among many in the admin corps and the Committee or those engaging in it are viewed favorably.
Editors whose username lets them be identified easily in real life, are frequently subjected to "oppositional research" by anonymous editors who can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY. Do you think this double standard is fair, and should anything be done?
It is obviously not fair to have such a situation, but it is inevitable if we expect the privacy of editors to be respected. As far as doing something about it, it comes down to addressing the actions of the editors engaged in opposition research. Pointing out someone has a personal affiliation with a subject and noting the nature of that affiliation can be done within reason. When it goes beyond that then it comes to an issue where action should be considered against the editor engaged in opposition research. Revealing personal details about someone when it offers no meaningful insight is uncivil and can rise to harassment, even if those details are not "private" information.
I see lots of ArbCom cases where Arbitrators appear to ignore the comments of the editors involved. Do you think that basic courtesies should require Arbitrators to make more than just an indirect statement, and actually address the points being made?
Depends on the circumstances again, but anyone who is in a position of power over others should be willing to explain their reasons to any concerned parties when questioned. How far one should go in addressing those parties is a slightly different issue. Sometimes a case is so expansive that it is extremely difficult for anyone to keep track of every concern, let alone address them. Arbitrators should still do their best to engage in a discussion with those involved in a case or concerned third parties. I feel more confident in an authority figure who at least makes an effort to address every editor like an individual, even if I do not end up agreeing with the decision.

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?
I have not been involved in those activities. Whether I would engage in such off-line activities in the future would depend more on my personal circumstances than any on-wiki consideration, though I would feel more obliged to go out and meet the people, in a manner of speaking, if I were on the Committee.

Questions from Aprock

As your username might suggest, you have a history of supporting disruptive editors during dispute resolution. Could you discuss your philosophy with respect to disruptive editing, and how you see the role of arbitration in managing disruptive editing?
My username reflects a desire to see both sides, even if one side is being heavily maligned. That sometimes means I am trying to get a more dominant side to see the perspective of a less dominant side, with the latter side characterized as "disruptive" by the former, but it would be overly simplistic to suggest this amounts to a history of supporting disruptive editors. When you have contentious topic areas there is usually disruption on both sides of the dispute and whether one side is actually seen as disruptive or not is sometimes dependent on the balance of power, i.e. whether one side has more support than another. Arbitration is about "breaking the back of the dispute" and in that way it should be more about finding and addressing the cause of disruption, rather than focusing on who could or could not be considered disruptive.
Reflecting on your past work in dispute resolution, can you characterize how your experiences there have shaped your view of wikipedia, and editing in controversial topic areas?
A lot of my feelings on factionalism, bias, and sanctions on Wikipedia are influenced by how I have seen the issues play out in contentious topic areas. People trying to take the middle road in disputes to find a happy medium everyone can support often run into a problem where one or both sides will react harshly to their presence because it may change the status quo in favor of the opposing side. I have had this happen to myself on a few occasions where one side does not wish to have a compromise because it takes away from what they see as the "truth" of the matter. Which side is unwilling to bend tends to shift back and forth so that putting the blame on one side or another is difficult if not impossible. Yet, at the same time, they do manage to come to meaningful resolutions some times and are likely the only ones who are going to be interested in significantly contributing in that area. Ideally, one would want to sanction these editors as little as necessary and, when sanctions are used, one would want them aimed at allowing for a productive editing environment without simultaneously ending all or most contributions in the area. My experience has been that administrators and even arbitrators sometimes become so concerned with rules and process that they lose sight of the purpose of Wikipedia. There is an element of willpower to it as well, since handing out blanket sanctions such as blocks and topic bans is easier than coming up with a novel means of addressing a dispute. Thus we sometimes end up with a situation where articles are stalemated due to sanctions, a refusal to compromise, or both, and significant problems with the article go unaddressed. Such a stasis can leave an article free of serious disruption, but a stable article should not in itself be the desirable end state of dispute resolution.
With your extensive experience in dispute resolution, can you highlight and discuss a success story where you played a material role in producing a positive outcome for the encyclopedia?
Most of what I would consider my successes have been rather minor and not worth writing about. Compromise edits, talk page discussion, and the occasional third opinion are all instances where I have had successes, but there is not a single one that would be revealing on its own and I cannot think of any that particularly stand out. Of course, my definition of successful dispute resolution is probably not one that would be consistent with any result of an arbitration case. I generally do not see sanctions against editors or strict administrative regimes as "successes" for the project, but necessary evils to allow the chance for successes.

Question from user:Ykantor

Should "Petit crimes" be sanctioned? and how ?
The present situation is described as User:Wikid77#Wiki opinions continued says: "some acting as "inter-wikicity gangs" with limited civility (speaking euphemistically)...Mob rule: Large areas of wikis are run by mobocracy voting. Numerous edit wars and conflicts exist in some highly popular groups of articles, especially in recent events or news articles. In those conflicts, typically 99% of debates are decided by mob rule, not mediated reason...Future open: From what I've seen, the Wiki concept could be extended to greatly improve reliability, but allow anonymous editing of articles outside a screening phase, warning users to refer to the fact-checked revision as screened for accuracy (this eventually happened in German Wikipedia"
At the moment there is no treatment of those little crimes. i.e. deleting while cheating, lying, arguing for a view with no support at all against a well supported opposite view, war of attrition tactics, deleting a supported sentence, etc. The result is distorted articles and some fed up editors who discontinue to edit. I can provide examples, if asked for.
In my view, each of these small scale problems does not worth a sanction , but the there should be a counting mechanism, such as a user who has accumulated a certain amount of them, should be sanctioned. What is your view?(talk) 03:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I would not support some sort of "points" mechanism for every misdeed, any question of misconduct should consider the bigger picture and whether a singular act or a series of acts warrant sanctions. I feel the times when administrators and arbitrators should act but fail to do so tend to involve situations where the accumulation of otherwise minor bad acts is overlooked to focus on more severe punctuated incidents of misconduct by the other party in response to those individually minor acts of misconduct. The person whose violations are obvious yet sporadic gets sanctioned, while the one whose violations are persistent yet subtle is shown leniency. Insuring all parties are held to account for their misconduct in some fashion is important to allowing for a meaningful resolution of the dispute.
Does Our NPOV policy mean that an editor is violating the policy if he only contributes to one side?
The issue is discussed her: [3].
In my opinion, the view that every post should be neutral leads to a built in absurd. Suppose that the best Wikipedia editor is editing a group of biased articles. He is doing a great job and the articles become neutral. The editor should be sanctioned because every single edit (as well as the pattern of edits) is biased toward the other side. !
The important thing I try to reiterate on the issue of bias is that it is not a behavioral tendency, but a cognitive impairment. A biased individual is someone who is unable to view an issue dispassionately and objectively. Yet, even biased individuals are capable of compromise. If that were not the case than diplomacy would be pointless as the odds of one side actually conceding the issue are very low. What should be of concern is not whether an editor is biased or generally represents one side, but whether that editor is able to work with others or instead insists on "winning" at all costs.
Sorry to bother you again with one continuation question
There are ignored rules. Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
e.g.
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone
lying

I can show that those 2 rules were ignored in the wp:arbcom but those are just an example. There are more ignored rules. So, Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
I would not say these are ignored, but rather that action is not taken outside particularly egregious or obvious circumstances. With removal of sourced information there are certain considerations, mentioned in the same policy, where removal is a reasonable course of action. My preference is to see editors working out issues through a bold editing cycle, but I would not expect that to always be the case even when it would be possible. How I would act would depend on the circumstances, but I believe the primary consideration should always be whether the actions are making content work excessively difficult. As far as lying goes, that is a question of context and severity. If someone can be demonstrated to be lying, deceiving, or manipulating editors to gain an advantage in a dispute then sanctions should be considered even in seemingly minor disputes. Our entire process is built on assuming good faith, which means the other party is assumed to not be trying to deceive or manipulate anyone, and when someone jeopardizes that it should be regarded as a very serious matter. The challenge comes in proving it and that is not always a simple matter.

Thank you. Ykantor (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from user:Martinevans123

Should articles ever use The Daily Mail as a reference source? Should articles ever use YouTube videos as external links? Is there still any place for a "WP:civility" policy, or does it depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes? Would you expect to see more or less ArbCom activity in the next 12 months? Thanks. p.s. are you, in fact, the Devil's advocate? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to Daily Mail it depends on how it is used. My preference with sources is to consider any piece independently and just insure the detail being cited is accurate, though I would generally favor using publications with a better reputation for objectivity and accuracy. As far as YouTube videos, there are plenty of occasions where it would be acceptable, such as when it involves an article about a YouTube video or is an official video or channel of the subject. Regarding civility, I certainly believe the policy has a place, but it should not be enforced religiously. We are imperfect human beings and sometimes we say things that offend people. The overriding consideration should be preventing actions that disrupt efforts towards building an encyclopedic work. Overzealous pushing of civility complaints can itself be a civility issue or disruptive. Whether their editing is otherwise good or not should always be a consideration, but it does not void the policy. Getting to the question of ArbCom activity, there is a situation I can see ending up before the Committee fairly soon, but I am not sure beyond that how many cases are likely to end up being opened. Aside from cases I can expect activity to be roughly the same as this year. To your last question ;).

Many thanks for your sensible answers, DA. I personally think that civility and edit effort/quality should be considered as separately as possible. But it is, of course, usually very difficult, perhaps impossible, to judge either in isolation from who's involved. I wish you well in the election. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]