Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Salvio giuliano/Questions

Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?
I wholeheartedly agree that ArbCom may not (and, anyway, should not) make policy; however, this case is a bit more complicated than that.
Back in 2008, ArbCom passed a remedy, WP:BLPBAN, which gave admins a lot of latitude when it came to upholding the biographies of living persons policy. At the time, discretionary sanctions had not yet been developed into a complete system and, so, ArbCom adopted an ad hoc procedure, which, eventually, got incorporated into the BLP policy.
Flash forward to 2014. A couple of months ago, ArbCom started a review of the rules concerning DS, during which they (well, we) also amended a limited number of anachronistic remedies, which had been passed before DS became a thing, in order to bring uniformity into the system. In that context, we ended up substituting the new WP:NEWBLPBAN for the old WP:BLPBAN, but, from a practical standpoint, we did not change anything. Basically, an admin can do no more now than he could do before; only the procedure is somewhat different.
Anoway, to reply to your question, I can only say that I would handle those remedies carefully and on a case-by-case basis, always trying to avoid making policy even indirectly.
Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?
Yes; I believe that an arbitrator should not be voting on a case, unless he has familiarised himself with both the evidence provided by the participants and the proposal submitted on the workshop page. If I anticipate that, for a specific case, I will not be able to study that material, I move to inactive on it.
Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?
I'd have to think about it longer to make up my mind, but my feeling is that reducing the number of arbitrators hearing a case would be detrimental to the final decision; each arbitrator brings a slightly different perspective to cases and, up to a point, the views of one can complement that of the others, so, at first glance, it looks like this proposal is probably a bad idea.
Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?
I believe I do.
Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?
An arbitrator should not have made up his mind (or give the impression that he's made up his mind) before having reviewed the evidence submitted during a case; therefore, announcing an opinion concerning the outcome of a case at the request stage would not be appropriate. Concerning the addition of parties to a case, well, arbitrators cannot add any editor they like. They have, however, been historically allowed to add new parties who had been involved in the dispute being arbitrated without having to recuse. The important thing, in my opinion, is whether an arbitrator has made up his mind (or gives that impression) before reviewing the evidence submitted or not. If an arbitrator asks that a party be added with the intention, from the start, of imposing a restriction, by all means that's improper; however, if he just does that because he thinks the user's conduct bears review and he has not prejudged the case, then I see no problem with that.
The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?
No. I have never felt the need to bring a case before and hope that does not change, but I'm not going to waive this right unconditionally, because I can't be sure of what may happen in future and there may situations where I perceive it necessary to seize the committee.
As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?
That's a serious allegation and I'd like to see some evidence supporting it, seeing as the consensus, as far as I know, is that CU-blocks should always be based, at least partially, on private information (which is why admins are not allowed to overturn them: they don't have all the facts).
The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?
ArbCom is not a court of law and, in my opinion, an arbitrator's first duty is towards the project. That, however, does not mean that cases are not about justice or fairness; actually, arbitrators should strive to be as just and fair as possible and to reconcile, whenever possible, the fundamental tenets of natural justice with the need to curb disruption. In that respect, for my money, ArbCom is doing an adequate job (which, by the way, is part of the reason why arbitration cases last this long); it's true, occasionally arbitrators make mistakes, but, from my experience, they try to learn from them to avoid repeating them.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. As a break from past years, I am not assigning "points" for the answers, but the answers to the questions, along with other material that I find in my research, will be what my guide is based on. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?
I originally joined Wikipedia after using it to look for information about the murder of Meredith Kercher and seeing that the article, at the time, contained some rather curious errors concerning the Italian legal system. I started editing and haven't stopped since, although today my focus is mainly in a different area of Wikipedia. For the most part, in addition to dealing with the various responsibilities arbitrators have (hearing cases, responding to clarification and amendment requests etc.), I am involved in oversighting edits and checkusering suspect socks, although I also sometimes do admin stuff.
What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?
As an editor, I have been involved in a couple of disputes; and, as an arbitrator, I have had to deal with some controversies that the community has not been able to solve.
What I've learnt is that the only way to have a chance to resolve a conflict among editors is for all involved to exercise patience, keep an open mind and remember to assume good faith of others. A certain amount of diplomacy doesn't hurt either. And, the most important thing, editors should accept that, sometimes, consensus is against them.
I have, however, also learnt that, despite the fact we should always remain calm and walk away when we feel we're losing our cool, sometimes a person will feel very strongly about an issue and lose his composure or get frustrated and be uncivil. In these case, the best solution, in my opinion, is to be tolerant and ignore the occasional outburst, provided it's not part of a pattern of incivility and focus on the content issue at hand.
That said, even if a person does everything correctly, there is no guarantee that a consensus will eventually be reached. Sometimes, we have to accept that there just isn't any consensus on an issue and move on.
Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?
I have been involved in arbitration cases both as a clerk and as an arbitrator, and from my experience the complaint we hear most frequently is that proceedings last too long. In my opinion, however, it is not possible to expedite them too much without sacrificing some important guarantees.
In fact, a certain amount of slowness is necessary to allow all interested parties to have their say, to provide evidence and to have enough time to rebut the evidence presented against them and also to make proposals concerning possible solutions (I have frequently found the workshop rather useful and, as a drafter, I am known to pilfer ideas from it).
Also, arbitrators need to have time to review evidence thoroughly to come up with a fair solution. In this context, arbcom's slowness should, in theory, assist in preventing the committee from passing knee-jerk decisions and remedies.
That said, even taking into consideration the need for careful deliberation, cases often last too long and arbitrators have a reputation for not being able to keep deadlines. This may be due to various causes: the particular complexity of the case, real-life business of the drafting arbitrator, other tasks which need to be taken care of etc.
However, I don't have any concrete proposal to increase the committee's efficiency, short of decreasing the number of responsibilities the committee has been assigned over time, and encouraging arbitrators to try and be speedier without sacrificing accuracy.
I'd welcome suggestions, however, and even a review of ArbCom's procedures carried out by someone with real-life experience.
Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?
Subject experts are invaluable to us, if we want to create a comprehensive (and accurate) encyclopaedia; and they are one of the demographics that the Foundation and the community should encourage to join. Their interaction with general editors has the potential to create great articles. To achieve that goal, however, both must be willing to cooperate and adapt. General editors should be patient and help esperts familiarise themselves with our policies, which are quite different from the way scholars are used to doing things; and experts, for their part, should be willing to learn our rules and to try to follow them.
In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?
I believe we should have a process through which the community could desysop administrators.
The way the system is currently set up, ArbCom only intervenes when the admin in question has seriously and repeatedly violated the behavioural standards expected of sysops (or has otherwise committed serious breaches of trust); this takes time and, basically, a lot of drama. And there is no way to desysop administrators who have lost the community's trust. I admit I don't have a procedure in mind, but, in my opinion, the time is ripe for a reform.
Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
I am aware of that risk and I accept it. In that respect, my usual response is to ignore it and to continue performing my duties. However, I would be lying if I said that resigning is entirely out of the question: in fact, resigning is always a possibility, should harassment become too much to bear. But, luckily enough, so far I have never had occasion to seriously consider it.
What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?
The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?
Speaking in broad generalities, the rule generally is that everything the community can handle is within their purview. And the default should be a presumption, at least until proven otherwise, that a dispute or, more in general, a problem is something that the community can handle.
ArbCom deals exclusively with that which the community cannot tackle. This evaluation can be made once for all cases of a similar nature (for instance, possible child protection issues) or be made on a case-by-case basis, due to the peculiarities of the concrete case (for instance, a dispute which the community has been unable to solve so far).
As a matter of fact, over time, the community has become better and better at handling disputes and, for that, we can see a decline in the number of cases brought and we can also see that the complexity of these cases has consistently increased. At the same time, however, ArbCom has also historically been assigned new tasks, whenever it was felt that someone had to do it and the community was not the best choice; so much so that, currently, that which originally was our primary responsibility (i.e. solving intractable disputes) has become just a small part of our workload.
Nonetheless, currently there is an emerging trend towards reviewing ArbCom's responsibilities with an eye to shedding those that can be handled by other bodies, so that arbitrators can once again concentrate primarily on cases. And I fully support this process.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gerda Arendt[edit]

Thanks for being ready to continue your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you had never heard the name of the user in question, how would you comment in this case? My so far favourite comment has four words ;)
No foul, play on. No, seriously, Andy was banned from, among other things, adding infoboxes; in that case, he was not adding an infobox, but rather repairing a malformed one, so his edit does not seem to violate his restriction.
Thanks, seriously, that is my favourite. (It wasn't in the enforcement, but the clarification that had to follow as if it was not clear. Perhaps tell those of your colleagues who still saw some grey area.) No answer needed, seriously, for the question if it would sometimes be better not to know the history of a user? - Anyway, the history of this one developed nicely. - No answer needed to the question why the season of banning is in Oct-Nov?

Questions from EllenCT[edit]

Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?
In general, good-faith content disputes are outside of ArbCom's remit. Disruptive editing, on the other hand, falls squarely within their province and disruptive editing can take various forms. One of these, in my opinion, may well be the repeated and sustained failure to follow the reliable source criteria.
As I said, there must be a pattern and, especially when an editor is incapable (rather than simply unwilling) to comply with the rules, before sanctions are imposed, he should be given the opportunity to learn, but if he cannot or will not abide by our policies, then, yes, his behaviour may be examined by the Arbitration Committe, assuming the community can't deal with him.
When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?
The oft-repeated mantra that ArbCom does not deal with good-faith content disputes means that ArbCom does not get to make binding decisions as to the content of an article. However, it does not mean that ArbCom needs to be completely blind to the content side of a dispute. In fact, to the extent that it is necessary to evaluate an editor's conduct (the clearest example of this would probably be allegations of misrepresentation of sources), ArbCom may indeed have to examine the dispute contentwise.
How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?
This question is a bit too vague; the situation you describe may be indicative of POV-pushing, but there may also be other reasons justifying their conduct. This would be a call to be made on a case-by-case basis.
If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?
Again, this is far too vague. I'd have to examine the case to give an informed opinion.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gamaliel[edit]

Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?
Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?
Yes, the gender gap is definitely a significant problem mainly because, as you point out, it has an impact in terms of topics we cover and because it results in our articles reflecting only one perspective. This means that Wikipedia needs to strive to bridge the gap. To come up with proposal and solutions, however, is up to the community and not to the arbitration committee, because ArbCom cannot make policy and, in general, should not take an active role in leading the community. As some are fond of saying, ArbCom is not GovCom. The only thing arbitrators can do is enforce extant policy.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from IP[edit]

For quite some time you have had a note at your user page that states: "Salvio giuliano is currently experiencing health issues that may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia. Please bear in mind that these issues may temporarily affect this user's ability to carry out his usual Wikipedia duties. This user may not consequently be able to respond to talk page messages or e-mails in a timely manner during affected periods, and your patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you." Do you believe that you could make a good arbitrator, if you're constantly experiencing health issues that may affect your ability to work on Wikipedia? Thanks. 202.106.169.228 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe my health issues would not prevent me from discharging my duties regularly. Over the last two years, I have been an arbitrator and, in my opinion, these issues have not impacted on my ability to serve in that role, because, to my knowledge, I've always been able to do the needful in a timely fashion and not to disrupt the committee's workflow.
The template is on my talk page because I may occasionally have to stop editing for a couple of days at a time and I wanted to warn those who came to my talk page requesting something or asking a question that, sometimes, I may not be able to reply immediately.

Questions from Collect[edit]

Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
In principle, yes, a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary, and I'm not opposed to closing a case with a set of principles and no remedies (or a general reminder to follow policy to all parties involved), if, under the circumstance, that appears to be the best course of action.
However, the way the system of dispute resolution on Wikipedia is set up, by the time a dispute reaches ArbCom, tempers have become frayed, the respective positions entrenched and, more often than not, at least some parties have conducted themselves in a disruptive manner and, so, in most cases, sanctions will end up being necessary.
Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?
Yes, in general, I believe that to impose a sanction (any kind of a sanction), ArbCom first needs to establish that the editor in question has violated one or more policies. The prior existence of an ANI discussion has no real bearing on this requirement.
Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
Basically, never. If you do not have the time to familiarise yourself with a case (and it may happen), you simply do not vote on it. Just move to inactive and let your colleagues deal with it.
"Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?
Currently, precedents are not binding, but they are quite persuasive. In fact, you frequently see ArbCom repeating principles from previous cases, adapting them to the circumstances of the case at hand. This allows people to rely on ArbCom's consistency, to have a general idea of how the committee will deal with a particular situation, but, at the same time, gives dynamicity to the system by allowing arbitrators to abandon old precedents when they are no longer considered appropriate (or when they would lead to an inadvisable decision in the case at hand). And, yes, I find this position valid.
Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
Yes, but, in general, I prefer to base principles on policy rather than on the five pillars. In my opinion, the five pillars are the founding ideas on which the project was built – a sort of constitution, if you will. They set the basic framework of the system, clarify the goals of the project and, broadly speaking, form the basis of policy, which flows from them.
So, yes, the five pillars should be kept in mind when formulating the principles in a case, to make sure that our interpretation of policy does not contrast with them, but, as I said, arbitrators should primarily rely on extant policy whenever possible.
Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?
BLP is one of the most important policies we have, because this is one of the areas where our articles can potentially cause real harm. For that, ArbCom has historically given editors and administrators leeway to ensure that our articles comply with the spirit and the letter of the policy and, going forward, when faced with a case involving the biography of a living person, the committee should continue to adopt the approach which best protect the subject of the article.
How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?
During a dispute, a faction is a group of editors with a similar opinion or goal. In my opinion, factions are not inherently disruptive; they become so when a group of editors team up to taint or obstruct the consensus-building process, to circumvent our policies or to engage in otherwise disruptive conduct. In these cases, I believe a hypothetical finding would have to concentrate on the behaviour of the various members of the faction, showing how their conduct falls into one of the categories I just mentioned.
Thank you. Collect (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Everyking[edit]

How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved? Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me correct an inaccuracy. Cases are not decided through private deliberation. The mailing list is usually used to think out loud, so to speak, for instance "this looks like POV-pushing to me, do you agree?", or to ask for a sanity check. Aside from that, the mailing list is used to remind people of doing whatever it is that needs to be done ("Salvio, you haven't voted on remedy XY" or "Can someone respond to the OP" and so on).
The actual deciding takes place on wiki, with arbitrators casting their votes, commenting on the various proposals, putting forth new ones and amending the wording of others.
However, I'm not ready to make a personal pledge to make all my comments in public, because the mailing list provides a safe environment where an arb can ask for advice and for second opinions, without worrying that his request may be quoted against him and without having to employ WP:Bradspeak. Mind you, this doesn't mean I am against transparency, and, in fact, I am always open to discussing my votes and to explaining my opinions on wiki; it just means that, in my opinion, arbitrators need a place where they can discuss with each other freely, without the fear that they might say something wrong or stupid and that this occasional slip may be used against them.

Questions from Carrite[edit]

If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?
I'd probably go for a B, if I were to grade 2014's ArbCom. We still have serious problems keeping deadline and we had no time to appoint new functionaries this year; however, when we finally make a decision, for the most part it's reasonable and, though one may disagree with our final remedies, I'd say that this year there haven't been any glaring errors.
As for our worst mistake, I'd say it was the length of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics. Our greatest success, on the other hand, probably was the fact we finally started reviewing our procedures (the discretionary sanctions review, which brought uniformity into the system and clarified some aspects which had been ambiguous before) and responsibilities. We have just started, but it's a good direction and hopefully next year's ArbCom will keep on.
The Arbcom process is slow, generally running nearly 6 weeks from first case request to final decision. What can be done to speed up this process?
As I said to Rschen7754, a certain amount of slowness is necessary to give everyone a chance to participate and to allow for the thorough analysis of the evidence submitted; however, cases often last too long (much more than six weeks). To speed up the process, I'd say that ArbCom should probably get rid of some of the additional responsibilities with which they have been tasked over time, to best focus on adjudicating cases.
If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?

Questions from Dennis Brown[edit]

Without naming names, what skills or qualities do you have that are unique, that might not be present in the current Arbs or candidates? What makes you stand out?
I don't believe I have any unique skills or qualities, to be honest. I like to think that I am experienced and rasonable, however.
Assuming you are elected at Arb, what role do you expect to play as part of that committee?
I'm probably going to concentrate on cases and requests for amendment/clarification, which is basically what I have been focusing on so far.
What have you done at Wikipedia that you think makes you particularly suitable for the position of Arb?

Question from Tryptofish[edit]

What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!
I'd support adding it to our procedures; after all, for the most part, it would just be a codification of the way we currently do things. The only new provisions would be the ones about sharing an e-mail sent to the list by an arbitrator or a third party, which is how I think we would handle such a hypothetical situation now if we had to, but which is something for which we have no precedent yet. So, yes, I'd support making it part of ArbCom procedures.

Question from The Devil's Advocate[edit]

While still ongoing, it appears one result of the Gender Gap Task Force case will be a member of that group being banned from Wikipedia. The finding of fact related to her focuses overwhelmingly on her comments about a specific editor. Many editors, including myself, feel she was being harassed by this editor and her comments were mild incivility in response, yet the other editor would be effectively let off with nothing more than a warning should the supported remedies be finalized. How do you respond to those concerned the ban in conjunction with the finding of fact, both of which you appear to strongly support, would send the wrong message regarding ArbCom's handling of harassment on this site?
I am sorry, but, since the case is ongoing and I am one of the arbitrators who are supposed to adjudicate it, it would be inappropriate of me to comment on it here.

Question from Altamel[edit]

Why does it take so long to even open an arbitration case? I can understand if the actual case drags out, but it seems that the four net votes rule is now rarely invoked. Why are the delays this year longer than those in previous terms?
Usually, before deciding whether to accept a case, arbitrators wait for a short while, to allow both the parties and the uninvolved editors who have an interest in the issue at hand to express their opinions, so that they can make an informed choice as to the necessity of a case. And, in fact, frequently the first comments from arbitrators after a new request has been posted, are something along the lines of "awaiting statements".
I have not researched this, so this is just my personal feeling, but I'd say that, in the majority of cases, the first phase doesn't last longer than a week. There are, however, cases where, for one reason or another, arbitrators take longer to voice their opinion and, so, the first phase lasts much longer. This is what has happened with the latest requests (on which I'd rather not comment here, because they are ongoing cases). It's not very frequent, but unfortunately sometimes it happens...
Regarding the four net vote rule, it was kept with an eye to opening cases more quickly, because it only required four arbitrators to vote in favour of accepting a case (assuming nobody else voted against it), rather than having to wait for the entire committee. In recent years, however, arbitrators appear to have becomee more likely to voice their opinion at the request stage and, so cases are more frequently opened on the basis of a majority of accept votes instead.

Question from Carcharoth[edit]

Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you responded to these and similar situations you encountered as an arbitrator and will probably encounter if elected to another term.

Questions from Bazonka[edit]

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?
My Wikipedia-related activities take place entirely online and, at the moment, I don't plan on changing that, though I don't necessarily rule out the possibility I may get involved in offline activities.
One of the Arbcom candidates is standing on a pro-pie policy. Whilst you may find that to be a flippant approach, many editors do appreciate pie. What is your favourite kind of pie?
Apricot crostata, hands down.

Questions from Fæ[edit]

I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?
I am male and, apart from that bit of information, I have tried not to share any more details about my identity; to be perfectly frank, I prefer it that way. After all, my opinions and votes as an arbitrator are on record.
Please define how you distinguish between unacceptable homophobic or misogynistic language during Wikipedia discussion, and that which is not.
Addressing the core, rather than the loaded, aspects of this question, homophobic and mysoginistic language is always unacceptable. The problem, as you probably know, is that some editors have been known to try and dismiss legitimate criticism by labelling it homophobic harassment... ArbCom should not allow these editors to succeed.
Apart from the case I was a part of in 2012, could you support your statement above to links to cases where editors were found by Arbcom to dismiss legitimate criticism by labelling it homophobic harassment? Your reply above makes it appear that LGBT editors have on several occasions been falsely making accusations of homophobic harassment during Arbcom cases. I believe you had in mind the case I was a part of in 2012, however this is a poor case study, as Arbcom unanimously found that I had in fact been harassed, and no doubt Arbcom's approach to cases where this type of targeted harassment has been claimed has moved on since then.
I have decided not to comment on individual cases on this page, so I'll just post a link to your case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others. Concerning the other half of your question, yes, there have been cases where editors (not only members of the LGBT community, however) have tried to label legitimate criticism as harassment, though the cases I can think of have been dealt by the community and not by ArbCom.

(Indentation seems impossible with the ACE template, so just indenting in the normal way)

Thanks for your reply, which at least does not attempt to dismiss the finding of fact that I was harassed.

You seem unwilling to supply any specific evidence for your general claim that "some editors have been known to try and dismiss legitimate criticism by labelling it homophobic harassment...", which many may read as a issue for anyone who feels that being openly LGBT is the reason behind harassment targeting them on the English Wikipedia. A basic rule of thumb for Arbcom cases is that extraordinary claims require substantial evidence, it is a shame not to see that in play during the election.

Unfortunately the impression you have given is this you are more interested in using tactics to dismiss my reputation (after 2012 I don't think I was left with any reputation on this project, so it seems pointless) rather than addressing the question posed, which might have actually helped to gain you votes if answered well. So let's just leave it, I have experienced this sort of political run-around on LGBT matters so many times, I can see this is fruitless.

I look forward to seeing the election results, let's hope the outcome is the best it can be to achieve a more welcoming and diverse project with Arbcom leading the way. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have used and defended language that others have found offensive, for example your use of "butthurt"[1]. This was notable because Russavia was criticised by Arbcom members for using exactly the same word on wikimedia-l and became subject to moderation for it in June this year. Has anything about your approach to civility on Wikipedia changed since then, or while representing Arbcom do you intend to use words like "butthurt" when describing your fellow contributors to this project, some of which you will be sitting in judgement upon?
I would reply if I thought you were really interested in a reply; unfortunately, I don't consider this a honest question and so I won't answer (but also see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Salvio giuliano#"Butthurt").