Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Jclemens

Jclemens[edit]

As one of the two remaining arbitrators elected to a one-year term last year, and as the only one without prior experience on the arbitration committee, I am submitting myself for reelection as its most junior member.

During this year, I have done what I promised: been an advocate for the non-admin, the new user, the content contributor. If you review my votes on cases, I have advocated opening cases on incivil or abusive administrators as well as appropriately harsh penalties for those who seem to have missed their way and see themselves as the masters, rather than the servants, of the content contributors.

This has also been a learning year for me. At this time last year, I was just another administrator with two years' tenure. Throughout 2011, I've learned to handle the tools of the trade: Checkuser, Oversight, high-profile OTRS queues, and the other, non-public tools such as the arbitration wiki and various mailing lists. I've also just posted my first case decision as a primary drafter. While I've participated in others before, this one was more than I had imagined it might be, and the delay, too, was a learning experience.

While not visible to the public, I have remained active in arbitration proceedings even when my graduate medical education has been challenging, and even when I have been out of my home country for weeks at a time.

With the reduction in seats, the number of well-qualified incumbents running, and a few other dedicated functionaries throwing their hats into the ring, this election is shaping up to be about which candidates are the best among the field, rather than simply who is tolerable. If not retained as one of the top candidates in this election, I will bid good luck to the incoming committee, and work to alleviate their work by refocusing my efforts on high-sensitivity OTRS work and content creation.

The fine print: I am already identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. The sole other account I've used to edit Wikipedia is User:Jclemens-public, which I created myself after becoming an administrator.

Arbitration Committee Election 2011 candidate: Jclemens

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[edit]

Skills and experience:
a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
In addition to what I came with last year, I've added a year of active arb and OTRS work, which involved a number of diverse actions and topics. As an arb willing to work in such matters, I was granted access to OTRS queues that involved high-profile or high-sensitivity complaints. I've worked with Commons admins on matters that extended into the photographic realm, and done BLP repair work on a number of people of various prominence and importance. To say that this has given me an entirely new level of appreciation for the importance of BLP material being done right would be an understatement. At the same time, I've also been the "voice" (often in OTRS, sometimes in email) of the committee respectfully declining an appeal or the project explaining why we can't "fix" a problem in the desired manner. I've generally been well received in doing so, even if the message wasn't something the recipient really wanted to hear.

In my professional life this year, I've been treating patients since May, some of whom have been actively lying to my face. It's been something I really didn't have to deal with much--or rather, was often in a position to do something about--in my past professional life. Here, I still have to treat them, no matter how they're trying to manipulate me and game the system. It's been an eye-opening experience, such that I've found that while I never really took things on Wikipedia all that personally, the "selective truths" and whatnot that people tell me don't bother me as much as they used to.

b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
Of the ArbCom cases this year, Henri Coanda I assisted Newyorkbrad in drafting the case, and in Abortion I was primary drafter. There are a number of other cases where I have opposed passing measures and/or supported failing ones, including MickMacNee and AE sanction handling, and have contributed to the consensus-building process for the final outcome in Cirt and Jayen466. These are not the only examples, just some of the ones where the dialogue is in the publicly reviewable part of the record.
Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
My answer is essentially unchanged since last year.
ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
In internal discussions on this within the committee earlier this year, I opined that a "policy committee" or PolCom, would be the best way to handle policy diusputes. In a nutshell, such a group would be elected after public vetting, much like ArbCom is, and have precisely one function: closing RfCs on policy matters. That is, their sole job would be to be the community's "go to" body for ensuring that community-wide RfCs were closed in a consistent and fair manner. Such would have been an excellent body to have answered the WP:POVTITLE vs. WP:COMMONNAME dispute that in part precipitated the recent Abortion case. That would also take some heat off of ArbCom, in that people would stop looking at it as the de facto governance process for Wikipedia, when it's not and shouldn't be any sort of governance process at all.

Still, lacking such a body, ArbCom does our best, and rightly so, to avoid making policy. In the United States, courts are not supposed to make laws, but often do. I prefer to avoid that problem in Wikipedia, by keeping the community in the driver's seat. Within the committee, there is an essentially universal desire to push back policy or content rulings to the committee, sometimes by an ArbCom-initiated RfC process. Internal discussions are not "can we get away with changing policy?" but more "Can we make this decision without 'making policy'?". Likewise, the other arbs have the pillars firmly in mind, and I believe we do a good job as we review current policies and apply them to determining user conduct in cases.
ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
The first and primary way ArbCom aids in content disputes is by removing disruptive editors via topic or site bans. If that doesn't work, ArbCom can mandate structured, binding dispute resolution. This is because ArbCom should not be making content rulings of any sort. We affect content within the confines of existing policy--e.g., an individual arbitrator might fix a high profile BLP. It is interesting to note that the committee has "standard discretionary sanctions" for editor behavior, but we are still crafting structured dispute resolution motions on a one-off basis.
ArbCom and motions:
a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
Motions are for when the facts are not in doubt--when essentially everyone agrees on what happened, but not necessarily who was right (or more right) in a conflict. Temporarily desysoping a wheel-warring admin is a prototypical use for a motion.

b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
Motions should not be used to try and avoid a case, or hash out complex issues. The only circumstance where the committee would intervene in a community process is gross injustice--and then presumably to point it out and remand it to the community to "fix it"--or in the case of implementing a foundation directive, a la BLP. Foundation directives really aren't negotiable: they are our funding source and own the servers. If any individual or portion of the community can't abide by them, then they have the option of forking Wikipedia and working with their own money and legal risk to do things the WMF has said aren't appropriate.

c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
Closing the Rodhullandemu case was appropriate. It wasn't particularly popular, because a lot of people thought we were being self-serving. The leak of ArbCom emails gave insight into the underlying problem with this editor, and the consensus of those who opined once they saw the full information (that we'd sought to keep from the public record for the editor's own protection) was that we'd essentially done the right thing in the face of a rather difficult situation. On the other hand, the plethora of motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Unblocks and enabling are a jumbled mess. I held my nose and voted for the omnibus motion, but I haven't even bothered to revisit the subdivided motion--it's clear to me that a case is appropriate (and quite possibly needed sooner than later), but any time we try to deal with a requested case with multiple motions, it's a mess.
Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?

b) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?

c) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
d) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
Questions a-d are actually a pretty poor structure with which to set forth my thoughts on the matter, so I'm going to freestyle my answer.
Data are permanent. Once you put data on the Internet, they will never be removed. That applies to things where there are concerted efforts to remove it (c.f. Streisand effect) as well as things passively retained. For example, every mail sent to any arbitrator or the committee as a whole, is kept by an ISP somewhere. In most cases, that is that paragon of don't-be-evil-ness itself, Google. Likewise, anything distributed to any arbitrator, via web or via email, is kept on that arb's computer until removed.

Given that data are permanent, two questions are spawned: 1) How can we best use it for its intended purpose, and 2) how can we minimize the chances of misuse? In the case of 2, that amounts to "very little", because the committee only has control of a few instances of the Internet-resident data. In the wake of the mailing list leak, there were any number of truly wretched proposals put forward that would have hamstrung our intended use of the data, failed to do anything appreciable to reduce the possibility of misuse, and cost arbs and other volunteers real time and money for no appreciable risk reduction. As someone who's worked for multiple years investigating how data has leaked from a Fortune 100 technology company, I am professionally competent to testify that none of those well-intentioned proposals would have amounted to more than security theater.

Data leak eventually. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday they will, and once leaked will stay leaked for the rest of our lives. This spawns two interesting sub-observations:
A lot of noise was made about the possibility of certain private information leaking, yet much of the work I did throughout the year on OTRS was about trying to keep false, defamatory, and/or non-reliably-sourced data out of Wikipedia BLPs. As one might expect, the individual person whose real name is known to the committee but not to the whole of the community would rightly be adverse to its disclosure. To the individual, that is the single most important piece of data the committee holds. The committee, on the other hand, is given hundreds or thousands of such bits of data, each most important to the owner--some owners are active community members, others are "merely" article subjects. Whose interests should the committee place higher: those who have voluntarily disclosed data to the committee and fear possible real world harm, or those who have had it involuntarily disclosed, and are asking our help in cleaning it up to ameliorate real world harm that is already happening?

The leaks were relatively benign. I know a couple of people have said this before, but it bears repeating: the information that was leaked to Wikipedia Review appears to have been intentionally crafted to harm some people and protect others, based on what was included vs. left out and the lack of selective editing to make the committee look bad. It's almost as if the data leaker wanted to settle some scores and then discourage the committee from pursuing the matter, knowing that we would know that more innocent folks could be damaged by the leaker in the future.

The committee has no "declassification" process. Some bits, like which editor happens to be in which repressive country at the moment, may have a sensitivity measured in hours, others will continue to cause real world harm, if disclosed, for years to come.

If you can't live with it leaking, don't put it on the Internet in the first place. Far from blaming the victims, this is good advice for all: if you can't live with the disclosure, don't share the information "privately" in the first place. Ben Franklin said something about this once upon a time, but s/men/people, servers, clients, routers, and search engines/ and you'll get closer to the current reality. By all means, if anyone knows of any information in ArbCom's possession which could lead to them being killed, beaten, or jailed, feel free to email me offline and I will block you: you have no right to expect that level of security protection from a set of volunteers--in such a case, our reasonable efforts are inadequate, and you should be kicked off the project for your own protection. Our level of protection is what I would consider adequate for embarrassment prevention for people not actively targeted, and I don't see higher levels of protection as either realistic or compatible with the volunteer nature of ArbCom.
So to answer the questions:
Data should be kept forever by the committee because copies exist elsewhere, and throwing away our copies simply eliminates the appropriate use of the data while doing very little to reduce the possibility of inappropriate use. If the current committee members cannot be trusted with past data in order to evaluate appeals or amendments to previous cases, then the community should never have elected them in the first place.

Deliberations, internal motions, and administrative overhead are kept private. In the latter case, just out of convenience, but in the former two cases, because deliberation and discussion are most free and unfettered when private. Of course, all of us have the knowledge that any other committee member could disclose our statements, but we don't have to deal with partisans interjecting themselves into the process, on wiki or off, while deliberations are ongoing.

The biggest error I think was in falling for the trap that was set for us falsely implicating Iridescent's account as "the one that was hacked". Ultimately, no evidence that any arbitrator's account or computer or the relevant WMF servers were hacked was ever found, despite thorough inquiries. Additionally, it would have been better to privately notify affected persons that the material had been disclosed--although per my above comments, most of their data have not been disclosed to the public. It frustrates me that this disclosure happened at a time where I was not terribly active due to real world commitments, because I failed to contribute to its resolution to the extent I should have been able to, given my professional background.
Feel free to pose additional questions if desired. The only thing off limits is my opinion on the identity of the leaker; I hope that my above rationale is sufficient.
e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
I am still considering it. My identity isn't terribly well hidden, and I was half-expecting to be outed last year... although I didn't expect that it would happen as part of the data leak. I'm leaning towards just making it official, since anyone who really cares to find out, can.
Division of responsibilities:
a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
WMF is responsible for the server and the software, the community is responsible for the content. Within the community ArbCom is designated as the final step in user conduct dispute resolution, and ends up being the community's voice to the foundation and vice versa.

b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
I think the community has done a much better job of handling individually disruptive users as years have gone by, allowing ArbCom to focus more directly on the thorniest and most intractable of cases. I believe that to be an appropriate maturing of our processes, but I wouldn't call our evolving processes inappropriate, even though we're seemingly always in transition of some sort.
Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
Somewhat, to the extent that the real world has a problem with factionalism (Yes, I stole that from Coren), and yes. I've just been watching Sue Gardner's presentation to WMUK on the topic (which I hear will be available online shortly), and it appears to be the most severe of the three. There's nothing wrong with vested contributors... until they start getting so territorial they drive away the newbies. Factionalism is just a team-NPOV problem, and is both omnipresent and stovepiped: there's measurable factionalism in at least a dozen different topics, as can be seen by past ArbCom cases, but it tends not to spill out beyond the borders of those topics.

But the decline in new editor retention is the most serious challenge. New editors replace those of us who burn out, and we need to review our processes, messages, and attitudes to make sure we're not being unnecessarily harsh and unforgiving. I'd favor a systematic review, based on the WMF's research, into what we can change to eliminate this problem.
Addendum the video is here and the slide deck is here. These are very worthwhile viewing for anyone interested in the project's long-term health.

Factionalism is kept under control by the community, with input from the committee when it doesn't happen effectively. Vested contributors and editor retention are a more serious problem (two sides of the same coin, perhaps?) and may need a rather drastic response that prompts the community to engage in some strenuous soul-searching.
Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
I'm going to pick the two I was most involved in, which I believe I know best, rather than than trying to pick most successful or unsuccessful cases.
- Henri Coanda was a great, textbook case. It was a footgun by the filer, who the review demonstrated had tried to argue a particular (probably nationalist) POV based on insufficient sourcing. It was actually so straightforward a case that it probably could have been handled by the community via an WP:AN topic-ban discussion, rather than needing a whole case.
- Abortion, on the other hand, was a pointed learning experience for me. The case was a juggernaut, and I'm still not sure the final result will be shown to have been optimum in the long run. Specific lessons I've learned from this case include...
  - Don't try too hard to engineer consensus on the committee before posting a decision. The disagreements about OrangeMarlin are there, and no consensus statement ever really worked, even given the option to enter findings without sanctions.
  - Don't be too elegant. There were a number of novel principles and remedies considered. Some of them, like the "public policy probation" are wonderful ideas... on paper. The devil's in the details, and the last thing a convoluted case like that needed was a raft of new wording to haggle over. A couple of new principles were plenty, in the end, and I wasted time trying to make half-baked ideas fly.
  - Work principles and behavior/sanctions in parallel. The principles were actually hammered out pretty early on, and then it was rather difficult to wade through the diffs and try and figure out who behaved badly enough to be sanctioned.
  - Add parties once you've decided to put forth a finding of fact on them, not once you've decided that they might someday face a finding of fact. This seems counter-intuitive to me, in that I would prefer to see each party to a case have their voice heard before the result has begun to be shaped, but in this case it complicated life for the clerks, put users "under a cloud" for a long time for no good reason, and did nothing appreciable to end
  - Avoid partial recusals. The fact that multiple arbs, myself included, were recused with respect to one or more of the parties, proved a hindrance. It would have been a better idea to have either pared down parties (see above) or found someone who was not recused with respect to any of the case participants.
  - Use the other arbs, not just your co-drafter, in order to move the case along. Personal advice from a couple of the more senior arbs up for election really helped me get things un-stuck and moving along when I thought I'd hit a wall and wasn't certain how to proceed.
Thus, I've learned something from our "successes", but more from my own failures.
Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
I'd like to see a few things:
- Workflow-based system. We need something that both deals with issues as "tickets" needing "resolution", much like OTRS or any other Helpdesk system, as well as something that allows structured, threaded discussion. It would have to be mobile-friendly (e.g. browser-based), adequately secure, and available worldwide. Tall order? Yes, it is, but we're dealing with so many appeals, ongoing cases, and other miscellany that doing stuff in email is both a security risk (Gmail? Really?) and an efficiency nightmare. This is something that is being jointly investigated between the committee and the WMF. We've considered and rejected piloting systems on arbitrator-owned, non-WMF servers for privacy and liability reasons, which essentially locks us in to a WMF-led systems develoment life cycle, and the WMF's needs are not the same as ArbCom's. They are looking for a CRM that deals well with donors, which is something we have essentially no use for.
- Formalized new arb training. I think Risker did a great job with what she did for us last year, such that I would like to see it expanded and augmented. There is a HUGE learning curve to being an Arb, and shortening it is going to be a beneficial both to the new arbs, and to the community as a whole. To help with this, I will be drafting my own recollections on my freshman arb year, for the benefit of new arbs, assuming that there will be at least some turnover in committee membership.
- I like the subcommittee structure, and served on the AUSC and incoming mail disposition teams this year. Even in the absence of better tools than a mailing list (see above) this is an idea that we all intend to mature and expand in the coming year.
There are all sort of other ideas floating around in my brain, some of which I've hinted at above, but those are specific, achievable efforts that can be done within the current structure of the committee.

Individual questions[edit]

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question: #:A:

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. 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, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

The first 9 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
A: It took too long, but having just been primary drafter on my own first case, I find it hard to fault Elen. In my experience, this happened in part because I knew the basics on how to run a case, but not the tricks and tips to make it run smoothly, break the logjams, and end up being delivered on time.
Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
A: Let me go one further than that: I'm not sure the "manual of style" should be as mandatory as it is. While there is value in consistent presentation, I've seen quite a few fights that I would put in WP:LAME territory over them. The professionalism and value in Wikipedia is in its information; colors, layout, infoboxes, en- vs. em- vs. hyphens are simply not that important. But that's not really an answer, so how about "Wikiprojects can influence standards on articles to the extent that interested wikiproject members participate in the relevant consensus process on each affected article."
An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
A: Some people can be coached to behave in a more collegial fashion, some cannot. While intuitively true, that's also been my personal experience in dealing with difficult Wikipedians over the years. I think it's unfortunate, since civility is what allows those of us who vehemently disagree to work collaboratively: one should be able to work with others of radically different views, and focus on the end product, the article that benefits from the diversity of inputs. In general, when inexperienced editors are ignoring consensus, I try to bring more people into the discussion, so that they can see it's more than just me disagreeing with them.
An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
A: Ignorant editors should be educated, reckless editors should be encouraged to be more cautious, and all should be reminded that they're part of an editing community.
Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
A: When the patience of the community has been thoroughly exhausted. That's a good indicator that a particular editor is a net negative producer who harms the project by driving away or thwarting the positive efforts of other editors.
Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
A: Quite the contrary: since it takes two to tango, the sanctions on each user should appropriately mirror each editor's level of misbehavior. Two wrongs don't make a right... on Wikipedia they make a toxic editing environment.
When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
A: First and foremost, when administrator (or higher level) tools are misused. Second, when administrators on two sides of a dispute have either wheel warred or otherwise used their tools in a manner that contributes to the problem, rather than reduces it (e.g., partisan blocks/unblocks). Third, when a problem has gotten so big and ugly that neither a community nor committee motion can make things right in one step.
When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
A: As often as reasonable. Since many arbitrators are, frankly, soft on protecting the community from disruptive editors, it's no miscarriage of justice to vote for a long-term ban whenever one is proposed. I do not plan on being a swing vote: my vote is almost always that if people have been unable to settle their differences such that ArbCom has had to become involved, sanctions are almost always justified. Since the community has much more often taken care of simple disruption, where one side is "wrong" and the other is "right", the cases before ArbCom are often convoluted messes with misbehavior on all sides.
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A: Yes. I was active throughout my current term despite personal hardship, and the community deserves no less in the future.
What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
A: I think the biggest problem is that we've outgrown consensus as a governance model. It still works somewhat, but there's no way near-unanimity can ever be reached in as large and diverse a community as we have now. Thus, decisions don't get made effectively in a timely manner. As a corollary, WP:CCC has been used recently as a WP:DEADHORSE-enabler: Don't get the result you want? Wait a week or a month and start the discussion again--when enough of your opponents have given up, you win! There are a handful of other major problems that the community should help address: civility to new contributors, how aggressively new corporate/shared accounts are blocked, and the like. I can expand on these or others in follow-up questions if desired.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification[edit]

Restraining aggrieved parties in emotionally charged scenarios is central to the Committee’s role, and arbitrators are in principle exposed to legal action by those parties in a real-world jurisdiction. It matters little whether an action is launched or merely threatened, and whether it's unreasonable: the costs for an individual arb to forestall a default judgment in a foreign court would be considerable (and I believe it’s not hard to transfer an order to the courts in one’s local jurisdiction). The risk is greater because as volunteers we can’t be expected to provide professional mediation as an intermediary between wiki and real-world judicial processes—mediation that might head off litigation in the first place.

Given the WMF's annual income of some $20M, what is your view on whether the Foundation should:

set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm not sure that "revenue" has a lot to do with it, but I agree that there exists much more that can be done to mitigate legal risks.

Number one on my list would be to staff up the OTRS team with mature editors, identified to the foundation, who can be trusted to help real people navigate the maze of our response system. As of right now, there are 33 unprocessed voice mails in OTRS, the oldest of which is three months old. Most of those are probably not legal issues, though. There are 91 different unresolved tickets going back 81 days in the English Wikipedia's "quality" queue, which are entirely likely to be issues that people feel strongly enough that legal action might be initiated at some point. By their very nature, these issues are quite sensitive. Some are justified, some are not, but each one of them deserves a personal, thoughtful response. We don't have the OTRS volunteers to do that right at the moment, which is understandable, since it's essentially an unrecognized role, and one that is not particularly pleasant (if not downright emotionally draining). Only after we've beefed up the OTRS process would I recommend funding formal mediation; many disputes simply don't need it if volunteer time is applied appropriately early.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. The possibility of arbitrators being sued is not lost on any of us, and the Arbcom/WMF discussions have touched on how to adequately protect all functionaries who might be sued. Still, since each of us are individuals of (to the best of my knowledge) modest means, there isn't any great economic incentive for anyone to sue any of us individually. Cyberlaw, especially as it applies to an international website like Wikipedia, is still evolving. All of us who have been arbitrators are essentially trusting that the WMF will "do the right thing" should the need arise, and that other entities might intervene on our behalf if we are individually sued for doing our jobs correctly.

Question from Russavia[edit]

There is a still open RfC at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. As evidenced at this request, there are numerous admins and editors who have serious doubts over the Committee's unblocking of what is suspected, with a high level of good faith and WP:DUCK evidence, to be a banned disruptive sockpuppet. Do you think it is appropriate that after nearly a month and a half:

the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.
Yes. We don't discuss detailed checkuser information, either, which was the primary basis for this unblock.
of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
If I were responsible for the issues in question, I would have publicly identified myself, even if my answer to the above question would prohibit a full and complete explanation. At the same time, it's not my responsibility to identify those who have declined to do so, but I will note that no one on BASC who had the option of running for reelection has chosen to do so.
there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
A notification to the committee is not "management". For a number of years, I had my CEO's private cell phone number in my possession: he made it known to me and a few other folks in an incident-response capacity, because he "never wanted to hear company news on CNN first". That's a bit of an extreme example, but just like that, those of us who're ultimately responsible for such unblocks have an interest in quickly finding out if something has gone wrong, but that doesn't imply micromanagement.
the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?
Are you looking for a formal motion in this regard? I'm not sure how else "the Committee" would explicitly acknowledge and error, but I've been quite open with my admission that BASC works with incomplete information, and probably errs on a regular basis, both unblocking editors to the project's detriment, and not unblocking editors... to the project's detriment. Only the unblocks are seen, because the declined appeals aren't seen by the community. I would hope that we get a balanced crossover error rate, and that it can be reduced equitably by reviewing how well decisions have worked.

The last question is especially important as there are numerous uninvolved admins and admins who have previously dealt with the user in question, who are too "afraid" of going over the Committee's head, even in the face of evidence; if one assumes ownership of a problem as the current Committee has, then surely the current Committee must also assume ownership of their actual ownership of the problem possibly being part of said problem. If one looks at the answers thus far given at the request from arbiters closely, one can see that there seems to be a theme amongst arbs to suggest that the Community block the editor for other current issues; all the while the Committee avoids answering Community concerns at the actual clarification request. However, the other issues have only strengthened the opinion of sockpuppetry amongst other members of the Community.

As an arbiter who is seeking re-election, I would also request a response to the following:

did you play a role in the unblocking in this particular case? If so, please explain your role, and whether you involved or not in the unblock, were you in favour of the unblock in subsequent discussions?
Per Wikipedia:ARBCOM#BASC, I am not serving on the BASC currently, nor have I in the past, so I am really not the best arb to be answering these questions. The answer to your first question is "no", but as a non-BASC member, that is not atypical in that I generally do not comment on ban appeals unless the BASC asks for wider committee input. I will look at the rest of the questions, review the record, and provide you the best answers I can in the next day or two.
depending on the outcome of that clarification request, and of course your re-election bid, if re-elected what will you do as an individual arbiter to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
Directly? Not likely anything, as I don't intend to serve on BASC if elected. I enjoyed my time with AUSC, and would gladly rotate back into that role when the regularity and predictability of my availability settles down a bit more. But I do support properly balancing transparency and privacy, and am willing to look at options to do that. Appointing community members to BASC, like AUSC has, might be one idea to try. Likewise, a periodic review of what went right, and what went wrong (just had one of those today...) in the BASC's practice is never a bad thing. Ban appeals are no more static a process than anything else in Wikipedia is, and the desire to continually grow and improve to match is a good thing, in my opinion.
absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?
Generally not. Based on the emails that I see, the BASC gets a lot of requests that are denied. If those are published, that creates (or enhances) a stigma on the failed appellant, which fixes the "banned" status in everyone's mind. In the case of truly abusive persons, this violates WP:DENY, and in the regrettable case of editors with potential to return, but not currently fit to rejoin the editing community, it makes a future return that much less likely. If we made the posting of unsuccessful ban appeals an appellant option, only the former group of appellants would chose it; those who have any hope of returning would be better off if interim unsuccessful appeals were kept between the appellant and the committee.
Thanks for your answer above Jclemens, I understand what you are saying, and respect that stance. Obviously your answer covers unsuccessful appeals, but could you opine on successful appeals, and whether the successful BASC appeals should be published on-wiki with a clear rationale? Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, a successful appeal should result in an appropriate on-wiki posting. The rub with that, though, is that some part of the basis for appeal may be private--if someone has made an appeal on the basis of improved mental health, should that be public? If there's a checkuser finding that exonerates a person, (e.g. a sockpuppeteer trying to impersonate a recently blocked user just to cause problems--don't laugh, it's happened) it's not appropriate to present that evidence, lest in doing so we help the sockpuppeteer do better next time. There's a fine balance between being transparent and accountable to the community... and revealing all the technical and social details that may end up ultimately harming either the successful appellant or the integrity of future appeals. Again, I'm not on BASC, so I'm speaking from observation, rather than participation, in these sorts of decisions.
how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?
I'm a big fan of a conscience clause, so I have a two-part response:
- In the case of a straight-up error, yes, admit, fix, and move on--and "moving on" includes incorporating the learning into future encounters with the same situation. At some point, good faith is exhausted by repeated "errors" in the same manner.
- In the case when an action is overturned by consensus, but the editor (or admin) making the action did it in good faith and believes in the correctness of his or her original action, I wouldn't compel that editor to undo the change him or herself, while I do expect the editor to abide by the community's consensus in future actions. This is a pretty rare circumstance, but one I've seen before.

Questions from Skinwalker[edit]

Please comment on the expectation that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Does this also apply to arbitrators? I am concerned about this because you recently ignored questions about your vote on an amendment to the climate change case.[1] When the questioner followed up[2], you responded by explicitly accusing him of dishonesty[3] and ignorance, and you asserted that his parents had been deficient in his upbringing.[4] Do you feel that your behavior in this situation met the expectations of promptness and civility I quoted above? Is it appropriate for arbitrators, as you put it, to "publicly socialize" editors who displease them?
In what way was that a query about Wikipedia-related conduct and/or administrator actions? It was explicitly an invitation to "revise your comment" (not conduct, not an admin action, but my reasoning behind my input to an ArbCom decision) in the requestor's own words which is an attempt to influence ArbCom proceedings that I initially chose not to engage in.

If you look carefully at your first diff, you will see that the question was revisited by the questioner on October 17, October 23, October 28, and November 4th, and no one else commented upon it at any time. Each time it was revisited it was a day or two before the auto-archiving of the page, and I started to feel a bit like Lois Griffin (Note: copyrighted media, presumably licensed to Hulu), at which point the two alternatives clarified themselves: either this individual does not know when he's never going to get an answer and drop the stick, or this was intended as a Have you stopped beating your wife? question. Normally, when people want to bring something to my attention, they use the "email this user" link, which I have had enabled since before my prior ArbCom candidacy, something I pointed out in the second diff you include above, and to which I never received an answer.

So... when an editor asks a question, won't take "no answer" for an answer, and as soon as any response is forthcoming, the very next edit is from the party facing sanctions, that's the nail in the coffin on AGF. Thus, my question (not assertion, contra your statement above) is whether the original poster was being dishonest or obtuse, to which he never gave what I would consider a satisfactory answer [5], but I would never blame another editor him for failing to fall into a trap like that, would you?

So you tell me: do you think asking (or calling attention to) the same question four times in four weeks, and then berating the person asked because it was archived without answer, accusing them of intentionally setting Mizabot "to do your dirty work", is appropriately civil? I think the evidence and conduct shows that it was intended to provide, one way or another, fodder for exactly this sort of question. So no, since the editor maintained that the question had been asked, re-asked, re-asked, and re-asked in good faith, pointing out that such behavior will get one sanctioned in a number of other contexts was appropriate--you'll note that I preemptively apologized for that comment in the case that he had, in fact, been lying to me about his motivation. Jclemens-public (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt and detailed responses. I have a few follow-up questions. If you like, I can "de-thread" these to make things more readable.
To respond to paragraph 1, are you claiming that arbitration-related activity - votes, motions, and the like - are not Wikipedia-related conduct nor administrative actions and thus are not subject to an expectation of accountability?

To respond to paragraph 2, you are again emphasizing non-public communication. Could you please provide a direct answer as to why you prefer to discuss topics of public interest by private email, a non-transparent and possibly unsecure form of communication?

To respond to paragraphs 3 and 4, isn't a query about whether someone is being either obtuse or dishonest itself a loaded question? Is it your position that WMC and TenOfAllTrades (and myself, for all I know - though I assure you I haven't talked with either of them about this beforehand) conspired to ask you questions that you were not comfortable answering, with the intent that this would be brought up during your Arbcom candidacy?

As a general follow-up question - I note that you have taken a laudable stance against incivility in your arbitration duties, going so far as to call out other arbitrators as being "soft on incivility".[6][7] For the sake of argument, let's assume that TenOfAllTrade's questions were incivil. Do you think that your reacting to perceived incivility with accusations of lying and poor parentage is a civil and proper response for an arbitrator? In a hypothetical case before the committee, would you sanction yourself for this? Would you sanction both TOAT and yourself? Neither? Skinwalker (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) No, reasoning is not conduct. Tool usage, forwarding evidence, and any of a number of other sorts of actions are conduct. Attempting to extend conduct expectations to compel arbs to answer questions is a novel approach unsupported by policy.

2) You were looking for an example of a loaded question? That's gotta be a prime example. If you don't understand the different purposes behind private and public discussion, I'm afraid no explanation here is going to satisfy you. Feel free to rephrase the question in a neutral manner on my discussion page.

3/4) Yes, it's a loaded question, but not loaded inappropriately: it was a conditional question, with TOAT free to pick the appropriate rationale--calling it an accusation mischaracterizes it. Is there a third explanation for TOAT's conduct that you think I should have included? I don't think TOAT's questions were incivil; I think they demonstrated an inexplicable refusal to let a question that I didn't feel like debating (which I was not obligated to answer, as he himself admitted) go unanswered. We have any number of editors who edit productively with Asperger syndrome or other causes which might prompt an editor so simply not understand that asking a question repeatedly in the face of non-response is, in fact, rude. Absent his aggressive follow-up, was I supposed to assume that TOAT doesn't have such an issue? At any rate, no, I won't delve into hypothetical, nuanced realms of incivility when there are plenty of clear-cut cases that the community deals with on a regular basis. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a number of occasions you have asked parties in an arbitration to directly email non-confidential evidence to you in lieu of posting it on evidence pages or submitting it to the mailing list.[8][9] Upon request you have declined to make this evidence public.[10] Can you elaborate on your reasons for this? Do you believe that participants in cases you are hearing should be allowed to examine and respond to evidence presented against them? Please discuss your general views on the transparency of arbitration proceedings - excluding situations that involve confidential information.
No private evidence has been solicited or accepted in email. Per Wikipedia:ARBPOL#Admissibility of evidence, "admissible evidence includes [...] All Wikipedia edits and log entries, including deleted or otherwise hidden edits and log entries"; note that private evidence is distinguished as not including this set of information later in the same paragraph. In general, private evidence has to do with mitigating factors like the health or travel status of one or more case participants, but it absolutely does not include public diffs. Per Wikipedia:ARBPOL#Conduct of arbitrators, I am to "Preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee", which would include any submitter commentary on the public information highlighted in email. Thus, the diffs in question are already public evidence, and any commentary that accompanied them is not releasable.

To the latter part of your question, all diffs (public evidence) contributing to the decision were posted to the workshop page weeks ahead of the proposed decision. At least one editor (MastCell) chose to point to other private correspondence that modified my interpretation of that public evidence. So yes, the record demonstrates that each editor being sanctioned had access to read and rebut all public evidence that was submitted via email. (As a side note: Cas Liber added some additional findings with diffs, not supported by any of the evidence sent to me in email, that do not appear in the workshop. To the best of my knowledge, that was all his own legwork, but others may feel free to ask him directly). Jclemens-public (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. I'm satisfied with your specific explanations of the Abortion case evidence. However, in general I still have concerns about your approach to transparency - again, excluding confidential matters such as personally identifying information, health/travel/checkuser data, legal issues, and so on. I reiterate my question above regarding email, phrased somewhat differently: My diffs above (8 and 9) directly contradict your claim that no private evidence was solicited by you. So, why do you routinely ask for evidence (and commentary, apparently) to be sent privately to you, not to the Arbitrator's mailing list, and not to the relevant case's evidence page? Skinwalker (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs are public evidence. Public evidence, submitted in email, is not private evidence. I accept email from everyone in good standing (that is, those without email access disabled), just like every other arbitrator does. Advertizing the fact that I can be contacted individually is not particularly remarkable, in my mind. Arbitrators routinely receive mail to their individual accounts from editors on a wide variety of case and non-case matters. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to preclude extended dialogue on this page, Skinwalker is welcome to post additional follow-up questions to my discussion page. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your responses. I have no further questions. Skinwalker (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)[edit]

Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
A: Disputes on articles I've been involved in, regardless of age. For example, I got involved in rescuing Unification church related topics about four years ago, and would still remain recused on those. Likewise, disputes on areas where I've expressed opinions, such as the various deletion processes, sourcing standards, and similar policies, although with ArbCom's limited remit in those areas, this has not been a problem.
If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?
A: I would generally beat them to the punch. For example, in both Abortion and Cirt and Jayen I offered, and no one accepted. Recusal is something that an arb should be proactively thinking about as soon as a request for a case is posted. If someone comes up with a good reason for recusal that an arb didn't foresee, it should be given appropriate consideration by the committee, with "no consensus" defaulting to recusal.
If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?
A: If I saw the merit in the late request, I would recuse promptly, but otherwise would defer to the rest of the committee on whether I should or not. The committee often has internal discussions on the necessity of a particular arb recusing for a tangential, non-clear-cut reason.
What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?
A: I invited Chase Me as a party to Abortion, because he played a non-arb role in mediating one of the disputes antecedent to the case, and since he'd already recused on that basis, I saw no point to not officially requesting his input and perspective as a presumably neutral, community-trusted party. At the same time, arbs are always "parties" to a case. We've experimented with having an Arb take on a prosecutorial role, although that experiment failed for other reasons. As an arb, I have yet to encounter a situation where I would file a case request myself, although others have done so in the past. I can't see that happening with me; I'm simply not involved in arcane enough areas of the encyclopedia such that I would ever be the best person to bring a case.
If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
A: I haven't been in such a situation and don't envision any case where I would be, but when we have arbs recused on a case, they are removed from the "secondary" arb mailing list, which is where such email discussions are conducted. I've not yet been removed from the secondary list for any reason, since I haven't been recused on such a case.
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
A: I generally don't get involved in lower-level dispute resolution, but that has more to do with time availability than anything else. Arbs should be among the most helpful editors in lower-level disputes, but the risk of burnout is real, and a bigger concern for me than the need to recuse if their efforts fail and the dispute escalates to the committee.
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
A: Not especially. ArbCom doesn't oversee policy, in general, in that even in a dispute on policy, the only thing that will be reviewed by ArbCom (absent applicable Foundation directives, that govern the whole project) is editor conduct. Arbs are long-term users with an extensive history in making this project work; silencing our voices from policy discussions would make them that much poorer. On the other hand, arbs should probably not be the ones driving large changes irrelevant to the committee's purview. It might be appropriate, for example, for the committee as a whole or individual members to start a policy discussion on how we engage with good-faith violators of our account naming guidelines, since ArbCom sees a bunch of "What did I do wrong?" messages from such accounts who are blocked without advanced warning. Thus, I favor participation in policy discussions, but not extensive advocacy unless it has a committee-relevant reason.
In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
A: Incivility is never excusable, but neither is it always actionable. Cultural definitions of incivility differ, as I experienced myself recently by using the term lame duck to refer to another arb from a different country who is not seeking reelection, giving offense where none was intended. On the other hand, I've seen any number of editors whose definition of incivility varies depending on the factional alignment of the editor in question... Incivility is complex topic, though, and one question does not do the nuances justice.

Questions from Joe Gazz84[edit]

I would like to apologize for the late questions, I've only just gotten the time to write them. If you see a question that you've already answered or one that is similar, please proceed to answer it, you may think of a new way to explain your idea/answer. Please answer all of these questions, they will weigh in heavily when I vote.

Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?
A: The elephant in the living room is that "consensus" is broken as a governance model. The project has grown so large that it is impossible to involve every interested (let alone affected) editor in a meaningful way in community-wide decision. "Per X" comments abound, and after a while, even the non "per X" comments are mostly rehashing arguments already made. If people aren't even listening to the other editors whom they nominally agree with, then who is actually listening to those not in agreement? Thus, things are moving more and more to a voting model, even though there is much historical and cultural resistance to "voting". In reality, there are more and more processes that used to be consensus-based, that now are votes in all but name. Rather than pretending that consensus is an appropriate governance model, we ought to be looking at more of a direct democracy approach, and implement it with the strength of our historical consensus-based model. The alternative would be representative consensus, where the community elects people who they trust to do the right thing, and those folks try and gain consensus amongst a smaller, diverse set of trusted editors. ArbCom isn't that, but I've heard and participated in discussions about setting up such a body to handle policy issues, much like ArbCom handles user conduct issues.
Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the community to set a policy if it sees a need for one?
A: Of course the community can set policy. Policy grows organically, as the community sees a problem, discusses possible solutions, and hashes out what the new or revised policy should say. There are debates going on right now on WP:V and WP:NOTCENSORED, and whether the wording of our existing policies reflect the best possible phrasing. Our principles draw from the community-created policies, and are the link between the community's policies and the decisions of the committee; they are the blueprint for how we got from the body of policies and guidelines that existed at the time, to the decision which was actually reached.
An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and it's surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?
A: There's a problem with that statement: editors do not "one day [come] to ArbCom for breaking a rule", and that's intentional. The community has plenty of other dispute resolution mechanisms for dealing with one-off misbehavior by anyone, much of which is a stern admonishment to "don't do that again", especially in the case of contributors who have a track record of good content creation. Editors only come before ArbCom when they have violated community expectations egregiously as administrators (e.g., unblocked themselves and then blocked the admin who blocked them), or repeatedly. This is why I do not favor leniency in arbitration cases: the time for gentle course correction is past by the time any editor is brought to ArbCom as a named party in a case. By all means, the community should use the least disruptive means to restore harmonious editing. In many cases, a polite "You know, that wasn't the best thing you could have done there" is the most appropriate--I know, I've received several of those over the years. But once things have progressed to Arbcom level, they've generally gone through multiple intermediate steps: noticeboards and RfCs, at the very least, and there's no more surprise involved: it has become a protracted disagreement with no one willing to back down. So yes, there is a time and place for quiet counseling to give an editor a course correction.... but once things have escalated to an ArbCom case, that time has long since passed.
How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)
A: The first sort of limit is involvement, which is dealt with by recusal. I think I've addressed that adequately above. The second sort of limit is case size: one arb can only handle a case that's so big, and I ran headfirst into that at Abortion. Rather than holding a ton of tiny, interrelated cases, like past ArbComs might have done, I'm wondering if there's going to be a time in the near future where we move to "nested" cases, with teams of arbs collaborating on, for example, the threefold (that could have become fourfold if we'd let the scope expand) problems of Abortion were not particularly well suited to a one-man show. The third sort of limit is one I'm just theorizing about, although I suspect some of the candidates may face it: Limit of vision. In order to effectively run a case, there has to be a vision about how the outcome is going to implement the community's will, educate the administrator corps on how to deal with similar cases in the future, and promote the end result of a high-quality, free as in freedom encyclopedia. Absent a vision of why Wikipedia needs to grow and thrive and how a particular case represents a threat to that growth that needs to be resolved and removed, Arbs risk losing the plot and acting like nothing more than referees.
If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
A: Complexity. Things are intertwined in Wikipedia in an interesting way. Like many complex systems, Wikipedia is full of second-, third-, and higher-order effects. In the context of the election, I have people both supporting and opposing me that have nothing to do with the actual business of ArbCom. For example, writing GAs: it's part of the encyclopedic mission, but it has nothing to do with reining in problematic editors. Likewise, the assorted cast of characters here hasn't really coalesced into general political parties or factions. There are many folks who I will completely agree with on one topic, and disagree vehemently with on another. Policies and guidelines are intricate, such that an innocuous-looking wording change in one guideline can affect something in an unforeseen manner. Wikipedia is a challenge to understand: one can get lost in the details, but I enjoy seeing how the individual parts make up a whole. Really, since the history of this project's evolution is all freely available, it will be interesting to see how many Ph.D.s in game theory, complexity studies, social dynamics, or the like come from our efforts here.

Thank you, JoeGazz ♂ 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gimmetoo[edit]

How should one identify when an arbitrator speaks as an individual rather than "officially"? How and when is it appropriate for an arbitrator to say what "the arbitration committee thinks"? Is it appropriate for an arbitrator to speak as an individual in a way that affects future arbitration?
A I think it might be worth clarifying that when an Arb speaks anywhere except an arbitration-related page, they are speaking as an individual, trusted community member... but not as an Arb unless they explicitly state such. That should be the default. Arbitrators do take turns speaking for the committee, which is usually based off of 1) obviousness, or 2) previous discussion amongst the committee. One thing the BASC has done to streamline responses is to issue presumptive declines with "if any of my colleagues has a concern, we will contact you for more information" (or similar wording) and circulate the decline to the entire committee. For the third question... yes, arbitrators should avoid "speak[ing] as an individual in a way that affects future arbitration", but sometimes that future is not at all clear. As I mentioned above, I participate in policy discussions, that, should a dispute on the matter come before the committee, would prompt my recusal. The closer a dispute is to requiring committee input, the less individual arbs should be involved, if possible.

Question from Martinevans123[edit]

If an editor creates multiple accounts to edit articles in different subject areas, not realising that this is in breach of WP:SOCK, how should he or she be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify in precisely which manner this editor is violating WP:SOCK, as it's not clear from the information provided that any violation is taking place. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor did not make it clear that he was editing with multiple accounts. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a requirement for such notification when the socks are being used in a policy-compliant, non-abusive manner? While per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, notification is encouraged, I don't see where it is ever required in such circumstances, which appear to fall under the "privacy" clause of WP:SOCK#LEGIT and where publicly linking the accounts would defeat the purpose. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy seems to suggest that one legitimate "undisclosed account" is permitted. But it's not totally clear, is it? Would you expect such an editor to be immediately blocked indefinitely with no explanation of any kind asked for? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific case in mind? "What if's" are not nearly as concrete as real instances. I agree, that no, an indef without warning or explanation is not an appropriate response to a policy-compliant sock use. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may do, but I would not wish to get bogged down in specifc cases. A general response, such as you have given here, is quite sufficient for my purposes and gives me a very good idea of your stance. I thank you for being so clear, and for being the first candidate to respond to my question. Perhaps I could post another case for your consideration? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll field more questions. The more specific the question, though, the more specific my answer can be. I'm sure that you're looking for something more than regurgitated policy, and at the same time, I tend to either give very general or highly qualified answers if the questions don't articulate relevant material facts. Jclemens-public (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Apologies, but once again I wish to present this as a general case. Alas, no material facts. Let's imagine, in this second case, that an editor suspects another "two editors" of in fact being the same person, because of the similarity of their interests, and the fact that they often support each other on various talk pages, including their own. So he takes a look at their pattern of editing over the course of a month, and finds that their editing never overlaps, i.e. there is one stretch of Editor A edits and another of Editor B edits, but they always alternate. His suspicions seem to be confirmed. But, of course, they could simply be a husband and wife, sharing the same computer. The editor is reluctant to make his suspicions known, as both accounts make a large number of hugh quality contributions over long periods of time. So should he simply assume they are indeed two users who, for some reason, time-share access to the internet? Or should he bring his suspicions to the attention of an administrator? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are they collaborating to advance a POV; support each other at RfCs, AfDs, or other areas; or participating in other areas where consensus is evaluated? If so, then it would be more important to ferret out possible inappropriate collaboration to preserve the integrity of our consensus-driven process. If not, then I don't see an obligation on an editor to act as an inquisitor to ferret out possible wrongdoing: AGF applies. Still, you've done a good job of picking out a grey area where it might be reasonable to run a check, or to not run a check, depending on the specific circumstances. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. In this purely hypothetical case they are, in laymans terms, just "ganging up on other editors". Yes it is a bit of a "grey area" isn't it. Unless, of course, an editor were to get personally burnt in the gap between these two situations, in which case it might turn into a "nasty bright red area", for him (or them), mightn't it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would call "ganging up on other editors" a bright line violation of SOCK. It's certainly possible to edit in a topic area without doing so, so I would expect that if any contested edits were being made, SOCK should be followed especially carefully. Jclemens-public (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you. But would it make any difference if one of those "two" editors was, in fact, an administrator? And if so, how? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

Per policy, no, but based on my observations, the community tends to expect exemplary behavior from administrators in all aspects of conduct. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd expect that, as well. Many thanks for your replies. You are a very worhy candidate. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To give some general answers while I'm waiting for the clarification, if the editor is making an innocent mistake, then no checkuser should ever have been run to link the accounts. If I can tell that A likes to edit trains, B likes to edit comic books, and C likes to edit high-energy physics articles, and they're all using the same sort of innocuous, non-disruptive but identifiable "style"... on what basis would I legitimately request a checkuser, or call WP:DUCK? Having served on the audit subcommittee, I know that our functionaries don't fall for flimsy justifications, and the times I've looked into accusations of improper CU's, the functionaries who have done the challenged CU's did so with an articulable suspicion that they would find an actionable policy violation, and merely editing different topic areas from different accounts is generally well covered in WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]