Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Panyd

Panyd

Hello, my name is Fiona. I've been an editor since 2007 and an administrator for the past year or so. From November 2010 - February 2011 I helped organise the contributions team and since then I have done much outreach for Wikimedia UK. This work has connected me to our readership and new editors in ways I think few people have experienced, and shaped my views on interactions in our community, both newcomers and old hands. On-wiki I have befriended new editors, assisting them where necessary and pointing them in the direction of community-led projects which I feel are the heart of our encyclopedia.

Were I to become a member of Arbcom I would see myself as an open conduit for community consensus. As an administrator I have been open to criticism as well as the ever-flowing nature of policy as dictated by the community, and this is something I intend to continue should I be elected. Though arbitrators must sometimes make decisions based on non-public information, community input should be sought wherever possible and transparency should be key to any major decisions made. No one person is perfect (especially not me) and no body of users should be above the will of the community.

I have two points of disclosure with regards to my candidacy and I would invite interested parties to ask any questions they have. I aim for complete transparency. I shall however address them here in brief. One, I am dating a current arbitrator. I make no bones about this whatsoever. However, I hope that users will take the time to look at our history of interactions on-wiki and the complete disparity in the type of work we do and understand that the skill-set I would bring to the arbitration committee is completely different from his. As such our conclusions will be formed on a completely different basis and our decisions may wildly differ. There should be a strong line drawn between real-life and "professional" relationships and my avoidance of arbitration cases thus far can be attributed to this.

The second is my illness. I have an essay on hand for the curious (please see here) and hope that during my tenure on Wikipedia I have shown both the dedication and responsibility necessary to allay fears regarding it. Though please, do feel free to ask any question, I shan't be offended.

I have one alternative account for when I'm ill, it's User:All Hail The Muffin and I'm already identified to the Foundation. I have also just now created User:Fiona Apps just to avoid confusion and on the advice of the community. It's my name after all!

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.

Full warning - There is a lot of ground to cover here which means that I have made some points either broadly or briefly. If you have any concerns or feel I need to expand on something, please ask away! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 04:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General questions

Skills and experience:
a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
As I mentioned in my statement, I have a lot of experience doing outreach for Wikimedia UK. This has involved giving talks to women's groups in an attempt to help bridge the gender gap. This has also involved editing days and Wikipedia Lounges. This, I feel, has brought me closer to our readership and new editors than most people will ever get. I've also worked closely with volunteers who are current editors; both assisting in their "management" and listening to their concerns.

However, though I feel that real-life interaction brings a wealth of experience that on-wiki interaction lacks, I do not think it is the be-all-end-all.

So the question becomes; what else can you bring to arbcom? Well, I have OTRS experience, which I feel is another great way to listen to the concerns of users and our readership. My relevant real-life experience boils down to project management, which I feel shares many similarlities with on-WP work. I will elucidate more on these points if asked.

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.
Not a lot if I'm honest. What I do have experience of is dealing with new users, whom I often have to placate following a speedy deletion or decision which was against their wishes. I've also discussed my blocking behaviour with other administrators with regards to these issues with good results.

I have recently waded in on a request for comment as I feel very strongly about civility, but that is the extent of my involvement. Again, as I said in my statement, I have avoided arbitration cases; and this was to ensure that I did not get involved in areas my other half was involved in. However, that by no means indicates that I haven't been following arbitration cases, nor does it mean that I do not have conclusions on how they should have been dealt with. It simply means I have left the issues to those the community has already entrusted.
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?
I do not agree with the wording of this question. What I believe in most strongly is a good working relationship with other users. This means being courteous, this means respecting the idea that disruption of the project's primary aim (to build an encyclopedia) is not tolerated and this means appreciating the view of the community, as well as your place within it. I am currently an administrator. To me that means that I am in a position to serve with a mop. Were I to become an arbitrator, it would mean I was in a position to serve with non-public data, or elsewise serve with a view to respecting the community's wishes above all else, sometimes both. Every case should be taken on its own merits within this framework.
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.
Clarity, yes, but only by asking the community to clarify on points which may be ambiguous. The outcome of this should be clear community consensus on what is currently ambiguous and the community taking an active role in making it not so. Arbitrators should certainly be allowed to ask the question(s), but certainly not allowed to make any changes themselves. To deny them that right would be to make them arbitrators of policy interpretation, which I feel is wrong.

As for appropriateness and effectiveness, I feel this should be left to the community to decide.
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.
As someone who has very few content edits compared to other editors, I feel arbcom should stay well away from content rulings. Having said that, that by no means implies that arbitrators shouldn't be allowed to make suggestions. To me, the scope of a suggestion is a reasoned explanation as to how a person feels a seemingly intractable dispute might be resolved. That does not mean commenting on the content itself. That does not mean dictating what should or shouldn't be in an article. That simply means advising users on how they may resolve their disputes. Similarly, a suggestion is not binding and should not be taken as such. It should be taken strictly on face-value and based on its merits alone. Should a dispute then be taken to arbitration, the arbitrator who made the suggestion should recuse.
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.
I feel this should be reserved only for when the basic premises of the motion are not in dispute, with a view to ensuring that any concerns can be aired before the motion is passed. I feel the purpose of a motion is to reduce beauracracy in these circumstances and in some cases, ensure that arbcom rulings are made less ambiguous with a view to assisting the community.

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?
Based on my answer above, I would say it is not appropriate to start a motion if the premises on which that motion would be built are in dispute. If community has reached consensus, I see no reason for the arbitration committee to overturn it bar grave legal concerns which may threaten the project as a whole, or non-public data which is extraordinarily relevant to the issue. Even then, much like with OTRS, I feel the arbitration committee should at least inform the community on what basis they made their decision or took action. This should be true even if that basis is: Non-public evidence has been brought to our attention. Saying that evidence exists is not the same as violating privacy or releasing personal data, just as saying 'per OTRS, please see ticket number #' is not releasing personal data.

As for the last question, that very much depends on the nature of the issue and what processes have already been tried. There is a clear path to an arbitration case and editors involved in seemingly intractable disputes should be encouraged to follow it as they may find a solution waiting for them in community discussion rather than arbitration. Once the process has been followed, a full case can be opened with full accountability and evidence, which seems more appropriate than a motion.
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.
In no particular order and not by any means complete:
Omnibus motion amending past decisions - This was an excellent example of a motion being passed to assist the community and administrators in acting on past decisions. It seems to me that it was a simple clarification of rulings in line with what the 'reality was on the ground'. The fact that discussion was left open so long was also a positive step.

Request to amend prior case: Climate change - Editors were given a good opportunity to dispute the motion, I think the general summation of their findings can be summed up by Count Iblis: just like a broken leg is only fully cured when you can walk on it again and not when you have put bandage on it, one now needs to allow editors who are able to contribute productively like William editing again. Absolutely excellent argument given by a member of the community in support of the prepositions of the motion.

Motion regarding Arbitrator abstention votes - This one is a little iffy as it means that those who are not voting can still make comments which basically amount to a vote without accountability but it's good to see that it's being reviewed after three months. I know that's specifically discouraged in the motion but it's not banned! Personally I would've opened this one up more to the community.

BetaCommand - This should have gone to arbitration as a full case a lot earlier than it did. Motions are all well and good for enacting sanctions where there is no dispute but...well...look at the arbitration case, there's obviously a lot the community has to say and dispute with regards to this editor.
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?
I hope everyone can agree that if we don't need it, we shouldn't have it. Having said that, figuring out when you 'don't need it' can be more of an art than a science. However, I would propose having a time limit set on how long records can be kept to ensure not only that people are given a fair shot at a second chance (there's a historic record of the case on Wikipedia? Wonderful, why would we need your IRL name?) but also that data isn't being needlessly held on to 'just in case'.

I say the above with a strong caveat that says: I am not an arbitrator. There may well be a good non-public reason to hold on to data. I highly doubt it, but I can't answer that question with full integrity knowing that I am at least partially ignorant.

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?
How long all depends on the type of data. Perhaps there is a prolific sockmaster who likes to add malware to articles. Their records should probably be kept for a longer period of time than the person who was accused of chronic incivility. What would be an excellent idea would be to create classifications for different records based on the perceived severity of their "infractions". The logistics of this would be difficult and I have a sneaking suspicion arbitrators would need to discuss criteria for severity in private due to privacy concerns, but that doesn't mean that users couldn't be made aware of how long their private data would be held for once it was given to the arbitration committee/a case was closed. At the very least there should be the highest degree of transparency where possible.

How should it be kept? Well, AFAIK PGP encryption is very secure and if the encrypted data was held by, say, the WMF and arbitrators had to ask for a key in order to access it, that would also increase accountability.

Again, the same caveat as last time applies. All sounds good to me on paper but I don't have the experience or inside knowledge to make promises or 100% informed commentary.

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?
I aim for transparency wherever possible. If it is beneficial to the community for something to be publically addressed then I most certainly think it should be. Who decides though, what is beneficial to the community? At the moment it's the arbitrators themselves. Is it right for the community to put so much trust in arbitrators that they are free to make decisions like that? Seriously, I'm asking you, the person reading this. Is it?

Personally I do think arbitrators should be allowed a good measure of discretion when deciding whether or not to discuss something publically as they are the only ones with the whole picture for good reasons. However, the community runs the show and should they decide to take that away...well, working on Arbcom would probably be a lot harder but it's their choice and it's something for the community to seriously consider.

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?
I'm not a big reader of Wikipedia Review unless they're talking about me (vain I know but there are some great conspiracy theories in the older threads, hi guys!), so I didn't read the leaked emails. There are two reasons for this: if it's not my business to know something then I don't want to know it and as far as I'm concerned there's no telling how heavily edited those things were. I did however pay attention to the community's reaction and the overall sense of betrayal I found greatly disheartening.

So, what did they do wrong before? They didn't ensure that their extraordinarily sensitive emails were properly guarded with a system of good accountability. What did they do wrong in response? Well, as far as I'm concerned there should have been a highly visible public forum opened in which those with concerns and questions and suggestions could've spoken frankly and without fear of repercussion - and most importantly, have gotten firm answers and reassurances where possible, and thorough explanations where not.

e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
Oh god yes. I've already linked to what could generously be called "press releases" about me. My full name is on Wikipedia Review. Loads of Wikipedians have met me. I'm identified to the Foundation. I'm not really sure what more I could do short of changing my username to 'Fiona Apps'. - I just created the account User:Fiona Apps
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?
I think issues with serious legal ramifications for the foundation and the project (be they child-protection cases, stalking, or whatever, I'm not an arb so I'm not entirely sure what the nitty, gritty, non-public stuff is), should be dealt with by the foundation. This is partially because of the legal issues which are brought up in Tony1's questions (I will be answering those in short order), which is I know, saving my hypothetical own hide. Also though it's because if we look at the arbitration committee's record over the past year, there aren't that many cases being addressed and when they are being addressed it's being done in a timescale I don't think the community wants to see. The arbitration committee is primarily here to assist the community on request and dealing with things that would eventually be out of their hands anyway (unless arbs now hunt down peadophiles in their time off) seems counterproductive.

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'm quite happy with the balance as it stands. Not only because there is precident with it but also because to my mind the community still holds the majority of the "power" and that's how it should be. If the community wants the arbitration committee to change their role, they can change it, and that's what's most important.
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?
I see no reason to expound on what I have already made clear to the community, so I will instead quote here and then explain the issues with my own conclusions.

What is a vested contributor? - The vested contributor is someone who believes they are entitled to a degree of indulgence or bending of the rules because of the duration and extent of their past contributions. In some cases, this view may be shared by other community members.

What are my views on what this means for the community? - There appears to be a cognitive dissonance within the project which says that if a user can contribute competently to articles (pillar 1), then they can completely ignore civility (pillar 4). This should not be the case. Incivility...is not something we should ever tolerate.....Editor retention is dropping by the month. New editor rates are also decreasing by the month. This issue is larger than simply the editor to hand but I must ask; Do we honestly think the allowance of continued incivility for the sake of one good editor is worth losing however many potential new editors are driven off by this behaviour?

What are the problems with this conclusion? - Well, who is a vested contributor? Who decides who is a vested contributor? How do you deal with? The short answers are: Anyone who meets the definition given above (IMHO), the community, the usual processes for dealing with disruptive editors. It is the last answer there that is the problem. If I were to open an RfC on a vested contributor in good standing for their content edits, but not for their disruptive and rude behaviour, those who support the person's "no bullshit attitude" would probably pillory me from here to Timbuktu (and can I go on the record and say that I hate the idea that a "no bullshit attitude", as commonly used, is laudable?). Now I do not care, I like to think I listen to the facts and ignore the pleas from friendship and likability, but we need to take a hard line on this as a community. I will yet again repeat the primary directive: We are here to build an encyclopedia. If someone is making it so that this goal cannot be achieved (by driving away hoardes of new editors or stopping collaboration on the improvement of existing articles), then I do not care if they are likable. I will take them out for a pint and enjoy their company. I will not tolerate their continued disruption of the project. Creating one or even ten FAs at the expense of new editors (each of whom may have gone on to make ten FAs themselves) or editor retention is not a good deal in my books.

All of the above is again said with a caveat. You (oh general questions template) asked for my personal views, you got them. My personal views do not override community consensus and never will.

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?
This is a funny one. I'm not sure we could have a systemic problem with factionlism. Of course people abuse the system from time to time, but there are so many editors and so many venues for inviting outside opinion that's it's impossible for a group of people to override the system entirely. Miscarriages of justice will happen and we should always be on the look-out for fresh ones but I am simply unaware of anyone who has so many friends/resources that they could override community consensus entirely. I tend to find that those who feel that the editing community as a whole is a giant cabal are simply upset about the community's decision.

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?
In short (for those who are bored of reading my answers already): Yes. Yes. Yes.

In long: Editor retention is going down, as are the number of new articles on the English Wikipedia. I used to think this was because we had "basically covered everything notable", but the more I look around, the more I see that that is simply not the case. Of course new articles aren't going to pop up with the same frequency they used to but I still think the number of articles being created per month could be improved.

Which brings me on to the next issue: We have just shy of 4 million articles and just over 100,000-90,000 active editors. In the interest of article improvement and maintenance that's just shy of ~45 articles per person. I have more than that on my watchlist but I have other things to do as well. Like help out at DYK or CSDs, or with the unreferenced BLP backlog. Some articles have no people watching them at all and others have many. How do we ensure everyone is on the case of the ~45 articles that are "theirs". We can't and we shouldn't. We need volunteers who are interested to come along and lovingly help to cultivate articles.

If anyone wants to look at where we're missing editors, or is just curious about how editors can be "broken down", this is awesome if not a little out of date.
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.
General reflections on this year - This is just to note that I am unhappy, and feel that the community is unhappy, with the timescales in which cases have been closed and the sheer dearth of cases which have been addressed this year. It is my hope that the incoming arbitration committee, whether I am a part of it or not, will correct this oversight.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee - There were two remedies proposed here to a problem which looked to have been fostered by two sides. One was MickMacNee who was banned for the period of one year minimum, which seemed reasonable to me, but the other was Δ. Now Δ fostered an environment which helped to create (but was not ultimately responsible for) MickMacNee's disruptive behaviour and as such I would personally have proposed that the community open up a RfC, rather than applying motions to Δ without further discussion. That also would have helped with the current case that this problematic behaviour has spawned.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466 - Cirt abused his position of trust within the community and committed BLP violations with regards to new religious movements. Jayen466 was understandably upset about this but reacted in an inappropriate fashion by hounding Cirt. They were interaction banned, Cirt was desysopped (with the option to be reinstated at any point the community wishes) and Cirt was told to stop editing BLPs. I think that due to the provision that Cirt could be reinstated at the community's wish, this was a very good decision.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket - I understand the frustrations of the users involved but I feel stricter sanctions should have been put into place to ensure that the underlying problematic behaviours could not be replicated.
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?
None, it wouldn't be my place to. It's up to the community to dictate that. I would however be supportive of the community's efforts in that arena and offer commentary or answer questions where requested.

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question: #:A:

Questions from NuclearWarfare

Note to readers and respondents

These questions are partially my own and partially derived from a set of questions Lar asked in the 2009 and the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections.
The Arbitration Committee may not ever be required to directly rule on some of these matters. Nevertheless, I believe that they should impact the Committee's thinking significantly and am interested in the candidates' thoughts. The responses will likely influence significantly my voting guide for this year.
To those who have answered these questions in the past, please feel free to reuse old answers. I would however appreciate a comment about how and why your views have or have not changed in the past few years.
Candidates: I would request that you please make an attempt to answer the core questions at the least. If you have the inclination to answer the additional questions, please go ahead. Depending on your answers, I may ask follow-up questions.

Core questions

Please describe your opinion on the following proposals in relation to Wikipedia's BLP policy: an expanded version of opt-out , "targeted flagging", and a more permanent version of the old pending changes trial. In your answer, please discuss your personal views on the pending changes trial: what you thought of it, whether we should ultimately implement some form of it (and if so, what form?), whether the community failed to come to a decision about it, and what you believe the role of the Arbitration Committee should have been.
I'll take this answer in 'chunks'. So, opt-out. Should we take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted and what weight should that request carry? - My conclusions on this matter are mostly informed by my work with OTRS and dealing with non-public data, so I apologise that I cannot elucide much on from whence they came. However, what I can say is that I agree that the request should carry a reasonable amount of weight where there is good reason to believe that either real-life harm is being done to the article's subject or where basic human decency is a driving factor. However, I feel it is also important that we ensure that notability is ambiguous in these cases before taking these things into account. We should not bow to the wishes of those who would have an article about themselves deleted simply because they do not like what is in it. There is a third option in these cases though, which is to have the BLP subject agree to have it known that they have corresponded with us and begin the AfD process on their behalf. I have done this before on numerous occasions. Sometimes the BLP subject asks you to say why they want the article deleted. Sometimes all you're allowed to do is say: Per OTRS ticket #. Nevertheless I feel this is a good third route which allows both the BLP subject and the community to have their say.

As for targeted flagging and pending changes, my thoughts can be summed up thus: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. It's right there on the pillar, plain as day. However, it's not up to me as an individual editor, and it's not up to Arbcom, to decide whether or not this is implemented. It's up the the community as a whole and the decision taken by the community in RfC to remove pending chances (and the subsequent lack of concensus on targeted flagging) to me show that this is not something we should currently have. Look to the future, the ambiguity of it is once again clear as day: The removal of pending changes does not prejudice reinstating it in the future, in some form, based upon consensus and discussion. That is consensus. Not a ruling from "on high". If the community wishes it, it should be done, but when it comes to changing something as fundamental as our third pillar, I think as much community consensus as is humanly possible should be sought.
Please describe an experience you have had with a significant content dispute. If you have had any disputes where you felt that either yourself or another party was either not acting in good faith with respect to the neutrality policy or with regards to source gathering, I would be especially interested to hear about your experience. What do you feel you did incorrectly and how would you have realistically fixed that for future situations?
I have only been involved in mediating one content dispute and that was due to one of the involved editors coming to me and asking. I was however, not there to judge content, I was there to help interested and involved parties reach an amicable conclusion on their own. What I actually did was assume too much good faith of my parties. I gave them opportunity to discuss amongst themselves, not realising that one of the involved parties was flaunting the terms of their unblock in such an incredible manner as to be brazen (to put it kindly). When the dispute became seemingly intractable without administrator intervention, I brought it to AN/I as I then considered myself to be an involved party and community consensus was overwhelmingly: Why aren't these people blocked?

The final result was one party being indef blocked per violating the terms of their unblock, and another being blocked for 24 hours for edit warring after many, many warnings. I invite editors to judge my actions at the relevant archive but am saddened that my efforts at good faith were so thoroughly lost on the editors in question and consider that a personal failing.
In my 2010 voting guide, I highlighted several quotes by other editors. Please select two from "On Administration" and state why you agree or disagree with them. Bonus points if you give reasons for your answers
JzG was actually a role model for me when I started here, because he had a real knack for seeing through bullshit and grasping the essence of a dispute...I can think of a number of other admins who used to work that way - that is, WP:CIV doesn't mean you have to endlessly tolerate obvious bullshit. Those people are all completely burnt out, if they're still here at all. And they've been replaced by people who are equally high-handed, but without the saving grace of underlying clue - the worst of both worlds. At some point, "the community" made a decision that rudeness was a greater threat to the project than blatantly partisan, agenda-driven, or batshit-crazy editors. Honestly, if you're capable of staying superficially civil (emphasis on "superficially"), avoiding edit-warring, and avoiding sockpuppetry, you can basically stay here indefinitely pushing whatever nonsensical, pernicious crap you choose. The end result is that we constantly hemorrhage good editors when they burn out, but the real bad apples stay with us forever.
— User:MastCell, 04:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow oh wow do I ever disagree with this quote. Please do tell; how do you differentiate between a 'bullshit' editor and a 'good faith' editor? When do you throw WP:AGF out the window due to your own personal interpretation of an editor's actions? How do you judge when an editor cannot be taught? Are some people incapable of clue but still capable of basic competency? Are you sure there isn't something in our infinite number of tasks that they wouldn't be suited to and couldn't be driven towards? - disruption, certainly, "batshit-crazy" (much as I cannot tell you how much I loathe that term) editors, sure, but both those terms imply that that editor is interfering with the pillar 1 and as such is unsuited to the project. Breaking pillar 4 because of your own frustration/judgement calls/"low tolerance for bullshit"? Surely that makes you just as unsuited to the collaborative nature of this encyclopedia?

My primary criticism of the committee is that it is generally so focused on our conduct policies that it ends up leaving the actual encyclopedia behind. This is a direct consequence of the committee's refusal to adjudicate content disputes combined with the lack of any other available form of binding content dispute resolution. The model in use seems to be that if we keep editors in line with our conduct policies, the content will fall into place. This is absolutely not the case. The idea seems to be based on the entirely false notion that editors with conduct issues and those who advocate inappropriate content on Wikipedia are the same people. Absolutely not so. Wikipedia has many editors highly devoted to neutrality and verifiability who, alas, are also prone to behavioural lapses (often during the course of their attempts to improve or maintain the encyclopedia's neutrality or verifiability), and many highly civil POV pushers. The effect of this conduct-only focus of arbitration is to sanction editors advocating neutrality as harshly, nearly as harshly, or even more harshly than POV-pushers. As an example: two editors enter a long-term edit war over a matter. The one seeking push a POV is exceedingly civil, while the other, who seeks to enforce neutrality and verifiability, lashes out with four-letter words from time to time. In an arbitration case, who will be sanctioned more harshly? That's right: the second, because he violated our conduct policies more. That this is completely wrong and that an editor who compromises the integrity of our articles should always receive more severe sanctions than one who violates conduct policies while seeking to uphold content policies is abundantly clear for both practical and principled reasons, but this is not how our ArbCom is set up. Even in the case that both editors in the dispute are about equally civil and both receive similar sanctions, we have still sanctioned an editor trying to enforce our content policies. Such a person is likely to be discouraged from advocating neutrality in contentious areas in the future when they see that POV-pushers and neutrality advocates are treated exactly the same by the committee (indeed, they're likely to say "screw this" and leave the project completely).
— User:Heimstern's essay on the Arbitration Committee

I agree more with this statement as it brings up a big problem that I feel the community should discuss. Namely the committee's refusal to adjudicate content disputes combined with the lack of any other available form of binding content dispute resolution. I don't think the committee should weigh in on content, but I also think there are editors far more qualified than even the most active administators/arbitrators to weigh in on content disputes who just aren't given a forum in which to formally and finally adjudicate issues. I don't think it would be unreasonable to create such a venue but I think the community should be the ones to make it.
Do you believe that the policy on involved administrators using the admin tools should ever be relaxed to any extent? Does your answer change depending on whether general or discretionary sanctions are in place?
In a word no. In a series of sentences explaining that short answer: No editor/administrator/arbitrator is an island. We're all a team here and as such there should be no reason why an involved administrator would need to use their tools when there are plenty of uninvolved people who would be perfectly willing to help. In fact you'll notice that point number two in the summary of discretionary sanctions specifically says: Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning (emphasis mine). This isn't just about appearances, this is about fairness in practice.
Wikipedia:No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Wikipedia, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?
In the past I have worked closely with legal threats as I have access to the legal queue on OTRS, so again, this has shaped my conclusions regarding these matters. I have found that most legal threats can be easily changed into 'conversations with satisfied "customers"' so long as you listen to people's concerns and explain policy. Doesn't always work of course but more often than not as long as you show a willingness to listen, people are very responsive.

If actual legal action is taken though, then I feel both users should be taken out of the community until such a time as the legal matter is settled, in line with the conclusions reached in the no legal threats essay. If a user is being sued, rather than the foundation, I think both arbcom and the WMF should stay out of it except to perhaps pass a motion to temporarily ban the users (strictly without prejudice) once there is precident for the action.

Additional questions

What is your opinion of specialized content guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Do you think it is a practice that we should encourage with other guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)?
Firstly, let me defer to a few of my favourite thinkers (it'll become clear why in a moment):

When we say 'science' we can either mean any manipulation of the inventive and organizing power of the human intellect: or we can mean such an extremely different thing as the religion of science, the vulgarized derivative from this pure activity manipulated by a sort of priestcraft into a great religious and political weapon.
— Wyndham Lewis, 'The Art of Being Ruled'. Revolution and Progress (1926), 4.

All the sciences have a relation, greater or less, to human nature; and...however wide any of them may seem to run from it, they still return back by one passage or another. Even Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Religion, are in some measure dependent on the science of MAN; since they lie under the cognizance of men, and are judged of by their powers and faculties.
— David Hume, A Treatise on Human Nature (1739-40), ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge (1888), introduction, xix.

Tis evident that all reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on the relation of cause and effect, and that we can never infer the existence of one object from another, unless they be connected together, either mediately or immediately... Here is a billiard ball lying on the table, and another ball moving toward it with rapidity. They strike; and the ball which was formerly at rest now acquires a motion. This is as perfect an instance of the relation of cause and effect as any which we know, either by sensation or reflection.
— David Hume, An Abstract of A Treatise on Human Nature (1740), ed. John Maynard Keynes and Piero Sraffa (1938), 11.

Personally I love the medicine guidelines. When it comes to medicine there are clear outcomes of a treatment's efficiency and good off-wiki standards put in place to ensure that these outcomes and measured in a neutral manner which has high accountability towards those researching those outcomes. That the medicinal community long ago established these guidelines for evidence help in the assumption that evidence presented under their guidelines is within reasonable assurance of being correct.

With regards to the natural science however we fall under Wyndham Lewis' trap. How do we distinguish between sciences which are established and where off-wiki checks and balances have been firmly established and tested over time; and those which, due to their emotive or new content, currently fall afoul of any balance or procedure? Should our trust be implicitly in the establishment to weed out these issues (I would argue not, for as I hope I've conveyed with my David Hume quotes, all natural sciences ultimately fall under the falliable interpretations of man) or should we take an active role in weeding them out for ourselves in the interests of neutrality and verifiability? If we take the latter option, then how would we go about establishing base rules for a subject which is continuously under flux?

Unfortunately for history I think this option is completely out of the question. It is a purely interpretive area of the humanities for which no neutral or factual ground can be firmly established without consensus/discussion. After all, history is written by the winners.
Do you think we should have a policy for medicine and health in the same manner that we have WP:BLP for living people? What about for corporations?
Yes actually (for medicine). We have the sourcing guidelines in place that that seems most reasonable. It should also assist in content dusputes, especially those regarding emotive subjects such as vaccines. Anything to make the project's aim of building an encyclopedia easier.

No actually (for corporations). We do not currently have the sourcing guidelines in place specifically for them, and although I know that in some senses they are legally "people", I'm not sure that extends so far that we would require taking the time to create a policy for them. However, as I said to Tony1, I am not and have never been a lawyer.
Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy (1, 2). Do you agree or disagree?
For number 1 I don't think that any of the core considerations were in dispute and as such I feel it was appropriate for a motion to be passed.

As for number 2, these actions appear to be in line with number 1.
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big (e.g. for major policy or software changes). Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it?
I completely disagree with this statement. People have been crying that the "Wikipedia-model" is failing for years (and before that they said it would never work) and after all of this we are still here and we are still going strong. Are there issues? Yes, but they're not insurmountable and issues will always be around in one shape or another. It's simply about having the willingness to address them head-on.

Will we make mistakes? Yes, because we're all human and we're all subject to the limits of that condition. Will we correct them? Heck yes! </motivational speech>
Some editors enforce the banning policy in a manner perhaps best described by {{BannedMeansBanned}}; others take a more lenient approach and only enforce the ban on what they believe to be "bad" editing. What is your opinion on this? Does the reason why an editor was banned have any impact in your analysis?
A site-ban should be considered when the user's behavioural patterns are such that their presence on the project is inherently disruptive. For that reason, allowing the user to make edits, even edits which appear to be in good faith on first glance, should not be done. However, that doesn't mean that a removed edit cannot be reinstated if the community feels it would add something substantial to the article. I just think its initial removal is warranted.

Questions from Rschen7754

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: Utterly ridiculous. That it took until the end of June for any arbitrators to vote is either an indication that that case was insanely complicated behind the scenes (in which case some notice to the community would have been proper) or there just wasn't the driving force to carry it along. Either way is unacceptable without full engagement with the community (there wasn't even an acknowledgement of the time in closing).
Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
A: No. Not even WikiProject Military History owns articles on their given subject and besides, if all of the WikiProjects were able to enforce their own specific standards with regards to articles we'd be creating a hierarchical mess. Whose opinion is more important? WikiProject Military History or the Guild of Copyeditors? The answer is of course; we're all editors here, and there are overarching policies and guidelines covering standards for all articles. Let's form a community-wide consensus if we feel they need improving.
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: Engagement and a willingness to listen is key, closely followed by proportional rather than emotion-based action. Who knows, maybe the FA-writer is right about what's being disputed but no one will listen due to their rudeness. It happens.
An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
A: I actually have a track record with this one. When a user fails WP:COMPETENCE due to mental illness I am usually the person people come to. Sadly, these people must be blocked. They disrupt the project and are unable to understand attempts to reason with them. Heck, if anyone takes a look at my block log they'll notice I had Courcelles do the same thing to me when I felt an especially bad day coming on, just to be extra safe. We are primarly here to build an encyclopedia - we must remember this.
Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
A: Failing WP:COMPETENCE most certainly does as some people are simply unable, for no reasons of their own doing, to contribute to the project productively. WP:NOT#Therapy comes to mind here. I of course realise there are reasons other than mental illness, such as learning difficulties, which contribute to someone failing basic competency. However, I have yet to see reasons other than severe mental illness in action more than once. As for number 3, only if every avenue has been exhausted. The community should not be expected to have infinite patience but we should value our content contributors and attempt to have them engage with the community. Of course, if an editor is rude, goes against consensus and then utterly refuses to engage with anyone (very different from ignoring advice) in anything but unpleasant namecalling, there isn't much the community can do.
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: Of course it takes two to tango but no, one person's actions do not mitigate another's. There is always the option to disengage, seek outside assistance and of course get up from your computer and go for a nice walk. Unless the user came to your house and held you at knife-point, you are responsible for your own actions and should be judged on them.
When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
A: When the community feels that everything else has failed. There are many, many avenues for achieving community-led consensus and these should be explored in their entirety before handing an issue over to a body such as arbcom.
When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
A: There are too many variables to consider for me to give a concrete answer to that question, but I can certainly give an example. I would consider, but not immediately jump to, banning an editor in the long-term if they, in full control of their faculties and knowingly, continuously disrupted the project to make a point or out "the truth", harrassed other editors and systemically ignored the collaborative and communal spirit of the project in favor of advancing their own agenda. This would have to have gone on for some period of time and mediation should have been attempted to its fullest. A long-term ban is a serious thing. However, I feel a user who fit into those behavioural patterns would qualify for ban consideration, regardless of the "goodness" of their content edits.
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A: I most certainly plan on it. What I do not do is garuntee it. With my health that would be an extremely silly promise to make. However, I always ensure the community is informed when I am unwell.
What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
A: FWIW I think our biggest problem is our treatment of new users. It's tough to differentiate between someone with an agenda who is simply here to spam/disrupt and someone who might be a great editor one day, but the treatment of new users is where WP:AGF comes into its own. There's also an excellent statistic floating around somewhere which points out that minority users (specifically women) are reverted at a statistically-significant higher rate than men for their first 10 edits. I think this is a syntax issue above all and that if we just used a little more good faith and a few fewer templated messages, our editor retention rates would soar and our gender gap wouldn't be so huge. I've felt the frustration of seeing my 20th G11 of an evening but when that happens it's time to step away and do something else.

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

Questions from Sven Manguard

Looking over ArbCom cases from the past few years, it is clear to me that many times, editors involved in the dispute being heard in a particular case use the Workshop page as a platform to continue their disputes. These Workshop posts tend to take the form of 'finding of facts that the people on the other side of the dispute have committed heinous acts, heavy sanctions for the people on the other side of the dispute, and people on my side of the dispute get off without even a warning' (it's usually less transparent than that, but barely).

Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.
Yes, I agree with your observations simply because I've ever read a workshop page. However, I don't think that it's universally true, nor do I think that this is necessarily a bad thing. Arbcom are there to hear the evidence, opinions and conclusions given by parties involved in a case and those who wish to weigh in on it. Sometimes that means listening to aggrieved parties, even when their emotions are getting in the way of their sensibilities, and their proposals. What is great about the workshop page is that any user can edit it and it's an excellent place to get outside feedback even in the context of an arbitration case. That means that those who are aggrieved have a place to vent and have their voices heard and frustrations aired, and the community and arbcom have a place to reply and critically assess the factual merits of the proposer's conclusions. Not everyone can be appeased but at least everyone can feel heard and engaged with and what more can you offer?
If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?
I'm just running on from my last answer now. The rules and spirit of Wikipedia should be followed even in the context of an arbitration workshop page. It's understandable for someone to vent their frustrations and we as a community should understand that many people who are caught up in the heat of the moment will see things or put weight onto things that aren't really that heinous. However, civility is still a pillar, WP:DICK is still excellent advice and the rules don't change simply because you've moved on to arbitration.

Questions from Russavia

Comment from Panyd - Did you know that my partner is the one who made the unblock of the user in question? I don't think it matters but you, the reader/asker might.

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.
I'm looking at the unblock statement now. It quite clearly states: We do not feel that the evidence against you is is strong enough to justify an indefinite block as a sockpuppet, and we are willing to assume good faith on your part - I would presume that that evidence involved non-public data such as is collected using the Checkuser tools. However, seeing as members of the community are asking for confirmation of that assumption, I see no reason for Arbcom not to at the very least explicitly say: We based our decision on non-public data.
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 work off the assumption that my previous preposition is correct (that the unblock was based on non-public data), then a simple statement from Arbcom confirming this, and maybe even an invitation for functionaries to reevaluate evidence should a body of users feel arbcom may have been mistaken (with good reason), seems appropriate.
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...
I can't read your emails but I'll tell you the exact same thing I said off-wiki the other day. If you have evidence that someone on the committee is acting inappropriately, or that someone is a sockppuppet, but the evidence itself is a privacy concern, send it to the committee or an individual arbitrator who is not currently involved.

If you have reasonable doubts about whether or not someone is a sockpuppet; open up an SPI. If your request for an SPI is denied without good grounds (by which I mean a simple explanation which is as transparent as it can be, not a complete disclosure if inappropriate), then raise it with the community.
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?
I'm confused, JClemens specifically says that the arbitration committee may have erred in this case (in light of the disruptive behaviour, not sockpuppetry). It's at the very bottom of the page. The Committee discussed this, though not at great length, and my interpretation of their conclusions is as follows:
a) We may have erred with regards to the user's unblock.

b) Yes, there are issues with this user's behaviour but it doesn't appear relevant as material evidence against the user in the case of sockpuppetry

c) If the community has any more material evidence relevant to the sockpuppetry allegations, please present it to us

d) The user in question appears disruptive, perhaps the community would like to take action on that, we do not feel it is appropriate for us to do so at this time

Again this leads me to the conclusion that the arbitration committee based their decision on non-public evidence and are saying so, just not explicitly.

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.

Although you are not a currently sitting arb, I would also request a response to the following:

if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee 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 :)
Lol to the idea of permabanning you for asking a question. If I was involved in the case as it stands now I would have some questions for you though: What do you think Arbcom would gain by protecting a sockpuppet, or do you think they're simply protecting their own pride? Where is good faith in this? Why aren't you putting forward other actions against this user for their disruptive behaviour in a community-led setting, rather than going to the arbitration committee? If someone on the committee explicitly said to you: There is non-public data which suggests this user is not a sockpuppet - would you believe it? If not, why not? If an SPI was conducted which confirmed this, would you then believe it?

Similarly, those questions would be asked in the spirit of communication and mutual growth, not as a form of hounding you. I would hope you would assume good faith enough of me to answer in a similar spirit, with the understanding that it may become an instance of having to beg to differ, given different sets of evidence available to us as people with different sets of tools. I would also, as a community member rather than acting in an official arbitrator capacity, be encouraging you to bring up the issues of the user's apparently disruptive behaviour in a community-driven environment.
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?
For Community review? Perhaps not. Even when private information has been removed from official reasoning, that doesn't mean it wasn't part of the decision making process and you cannot always explicitly say non-public data was used (though I feel that in the case above it quite obviously was and it wouldn't hurt to explicitly say so). For transparency's sake and to ensure there is a clear record on who made what decision of course it should be done where possible, but the community should always be aware that non-public data is often essential in these cases and likewise the arbitration committee should be prepared to state that this is the case whereever possible.
how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?
It's essential to learning, good working relationships and collaboration.

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification

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 is 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
I don't agree with this proposition. We already have a system in place to assist and mitigate risk when legal threats are made and a full OTRS legal queue where uninvolved volunteers or WMF legal council can make their own impact on an aggrieved party. Arbcom are specifically here to settle seemingly intractable disputes at community request and I think self-governance in this form is only right and proper. We should not be shying away from difficult discussion on the off-chance that they become legal. Of course the WMF should be aware of all litigation made and again, there are processes in place to ensure this happens.
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) 13:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an arbitrator has followed the law in the relevant jurisdiction, followed procedure as defined by the community and the WMF and has otherwise behaved in an appropriate manner, I see no reason for them not to have the full backing of the WMF, be that legal or monetary, behind them.

Having said that; am I a lawyer/trained in law? - Nope. So again I answer from a position of some ignorance. I would of course hope that when a decision is reached on this, that people will be given a thorough explanation in plain English and legalese as to why a decision was reached as well as an opportunity to ask questions regarding the consequences of any decision.

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
A: Abortion. I have in the past (off wiki) been heavily involved in these areas in what I would call the women's rights movements and as such do not feel it appropriate for me to weigh in on subjects I have such strong feelings for and a long history with.
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 ask the party or observer why they felt my recusal was appropriate, perhaps ask for further opinion from the community on their reasonings (assuming they could be made public), or the committee (if they couldn't be) and then act appropriately. In this case appropriately means as consensus as decided.
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:This one is slightly more tricky because nothing that is posted on-wiki is an island. What if my conclusions have already heavily influenced those of other people commenting or voting in the case? Should they all recuse too? Should the entire case be scrapped and worked over again from scratch with my leaning being struck from the record? Could this be used to manipulate a case? Is this being said in light of new evidence that I have a COI or is this being said because the party in question does not agree with my conclusions?

These are all questions which need answers before going forward in this case. However, as I said in a previous answer engagement and listening are key, followed closely by proportionate...action.
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 think there are enough people on the committee that a sitting arbitrator being party to a case does not immediately present a COI, though it should be that those who feel too closely tied to the subject should recuse. Similarly, the level of involvement prior to the case does matter.

I indicated in an earlier answer that an arbitrator should recuse from a case if they had made a suggestion on how a dispute may be resolved before it reached arbitration. That arbitrator may well then be named as a party, but all they have done is made a suggestion, which is unlikely to have made major changes in the path the dispute took up until the point it was brought before the committee. Though it is only proper that the arbitrator who made the suggestion recuse, their involvement is minimal and as such does not seem to present an instant COI to other committee members (IMHO).
If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
A:If I am a party to a case I will of course recuse. If someone I am close to on the committee is a party to a case, I will of course recuse. Other than that all I can do is ensure the involved party is not privilege to private information or deliberation regarding the case.
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
A:Not if they feel they can be of assistance. Although I repeat, arbitrators should be free to make suggestions to parties as to how they might solve their disputes at a lower level. What an artibitrator cannot do is go around 'swinging their weight' as it were and acting as though they have any juridiction outside of arbitration proceedings.
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
A:Yes unless their opinion is specifically sought, as arbitrators are not here to dictate or change policy in any way. That should solely be left to the community.
In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
A:Civility can't be excused, but we can use common sense. If someone has been incivil once in their wiki career and even then it was only because another editor made rude comments about their mother, a block or a ban isn't appropriate. Systemic incivility is a huge problem though, and something we should be taking very seriously.

Questions from Joe Gazz84

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:I said it was inappropriate for me to suggest improvements to Arbcom as they are a body whose functions should be defined by the community, though I did suggest that the WMF consider taking some of the more sensitive and off-wiki work off of arbcom's hands. That would benefit the community in that the arbitration committee would have more time to focus on cases rather than dealing with things which will eventually be taken out of their hands anyway.

As for what needs changing in the community, I suggested that we use fewer automated templates when dealing with new users and more personalised language as my experience speaking to new editors has enforced in my mind the need for personalised communication in order to retain editors. We need more editors and we need them to stick around. There is so much work to be done and too few people to do it.
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 committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?
A:No. Though I think it would be appropriate for the committee to suggest a change is required to fix an issue, that by no means means they should suggest that change takes the form of a policy, or word any policies, or in fact, give opinion on policy unless the communittee has explicitly asked for their input. The arbitration commmittee is here to arbitrate not dictate.
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: I have no idea because I don't know what rule they broke. Did they take something off-wiki and harrass a user in real life? Well, that's not forgivable. Have they been creating an environment of systemic incivility without breaking letter of the rules? Well what has been the impact of that on the community? There are so many variables.

I will again repeat what I have said above though: Content creators are to be respected and encouraged at all possible opportunities. The community should not extend infinite patience to someone simply because they have created X number of FAs but meditaion and respectful listening should be practiced to their fullest extent before considering harsh measures.
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: I know I've reached my limit when I take something personally. I take some pride in the fact that I have never entered into a discussion where I did take the "opposition's" comments personally and this is a track record I intend to keep up; but should I take something personally, that's it for me, I need to step back. For the record, I've had much abuse thrown at me and have yet to take any of it personally.
Q: 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: Delightful. Why? Because I've learned, I've contributed to something that I feel is highly beneficial to the world and I've joined a wonderful community. I wouldn't keep coming back if these things weren't true.

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

Question from Martinevans123

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) 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About six hours left for voting? Is my question worthy of your attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]