Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions

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?
One of my greatest strengths are diplomacy and people skills, mainly from working in customer services for a few years. During the role, I learnt to "empathise with the customer" and the importance of "managing expectations". Of course, these are just popular terms, but the sentiment behind them is sound and I believe that these are skills which the Arbitration Committee could do with.
On Wikipedia, I've spent my much of my time working with users who have been recently introduced to the encyclopedia, especially ones who do not know the system. As such, I'm acutely aware of the journey a new user would take in Wikipedia and so I would be focussing on transparency in the committee. Worm^TT(talk)

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.
Besides explaining it to each of my mentorees, most disputes I get involved with are solvable with a few choice words to de-escalate the situation. Having said that, I recently initiated an RfC and have participated in another one. I've not yet needed to take anything to Arbcom, nor felt the need to comment on any Arbcom cases. I do generally follow them though - thanks in part to the WP:Signpost. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
Being aware of my general mindset and how much stock I put in WP:AGF, I know I'm likely to tend towards lenience in general. Having said that, I do know when enough is enough and am willing to make the tough decisions - including blocking my own mentorees when I realise they won't reach the level required, or requesting the recall of an admin. I'm not proud of either of those two, but they were needed. Since Arbcom is the final level of dispute resolution, I am expecting to have to take the "enough is enough" line more often. Worm^TT(talk)
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.
Policy on wikipedia should and is written by the community at large and certainly shouldn't be changed by a small committee such as Arbcom. The committee does need to interpret how policy applies to a particular situation, but taking a position on the appropriateness of a policy itself should not be within the Arbcom remit. It is, however, plausible that an Arbcom decision could trigger a policy alteration - but that change should be based on community consensus. Worm^TT(talk)
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.
One of the purposes of Arbcom is to facilitate the collaborative atmosphere which ensures that the content meets the standards expected. The committee shouldn't rule on the content itself, but rather ensure that the policies of wikipedia are being adhered to, for example by stopping those who are editing tendentiously, promoting discussion and so on. The influence that Arbcom should have over content should be limited, which is sensible because they cannot have sufficient knowledge about every topic that could possibly come up. Worm^TT(talk)
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.
Since Arbcom has been around for a while, not every situation needs a full case, if the facts are known, the circumstances are not under dispute and so on. They make a great shortcut, under those circumstances, and a couple of motions can tackle the problem. The reduced amount of time required for a motion also allows them to be used in emergency situtions where time is a factor. Worm^TT(talk)

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?
In circumstances other than those described above, a motion would be inappropriate. If there's doubt over what happened in a case, then that should be looked into and shortcutting the process is not something that should happen. The Arbitration Committee is elected to help the community, not rule over it - nor overrule it. If the community has decided something by consensus - the very foundation of a collaborative environment, no, Arbcom should certainly not overrule that. They should also not go looking for issues to make decisions over. If an individual arbitrator wants to get involved, then they should - as an editor. Worm^TT(talk)

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.
I've looked through this year's motions and I broadly accept them all - there are certainly none I'd go so far to say are "inappropriate". There are a few difficult ones, but they generally seem to be the right decision to make with the information the committee had at the time. A couple went on to create more problems than they solved - for example Rodhullandemu's desysop should have had a case, though given the circumstances I understand why there wasn't one. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
We'd be naive to assume that every ArbCom ruling will be the end of the dispute, so information needs to be kept - including the non-public information mentioned. I don't see a way around doing so. Worm^TT(talk)

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?
Whilst the first part of the question is obvious to me, this is less so. I remember from some training I took on the Data Protection Act 1998 in the UK, that companies should not keep information for longer than is "necessary", but that there was a lot of flexibility on what "necessary" meant (perhaps a matter or months or for financial institutions something like 6 years). I wouldn't like to say how long is necessary for us to keep non-public information, as many ArbCom bans are for over a year, we'd have to be looking at periods longer than that. More important to me is the question of access - information must be securely managed offline (probably by the Foundation) and only made available to the committee when it necessary, by request. New committee members shouldn't be able to browse through old records, any more than old members should be able to browse through new records. Worm^TT(talk)

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?
Wherever possible, discussions should be taking place openly - the decision is only part of the puzzle, people should be able to clearly understand how that decision was made. Transparency is essential. Worm^TT(talk)

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?
Allowing too many people access to the information was problematic - sensitive information should only be available to the people who need to see it. I understand this is no longer the case. I think that the committee could have reacted faster when the leak was discovered, issuing a statement that the leak had happened and had been plugged (by shutting down access for everyone, then giving it back bit by bit). Besides the speed issue, I think they did the best they could in a bad situation. Worm^TT(talk)

e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
It's not hard to find out, with a little work. I don't intend to shout my name from the rooftops, but I have no problem with people knowing who I am. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
As I understand it, the foundation defers to the community on pretty much all matters (with the exception of the odd office action or legal matter). I think relying on the foundation, a group of non-elected individuals, to speak for the community would be severely problematic in the model that Wikipedia currently uses. I don't know of anything that ArbCom is handling that the WMF should be, or vice versa. Worm^TT(talk)

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?
The community has done very well in resolving issues earlier so they no longer reach ArbCom - which means that fewer cases are reaching the committee. If the community can take on a task, I think it should - even if it needs ArbCom to make it binding. So, I don't think there is anything that the community does that ArbCom should. The other way around however, something I'd like to see the community take over a bit more is a proper procedure for removing the sysop bit. It's something that ArbCom deals with at the moment, but the amount of work that is needed to bring a case is prohibitive. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
Absolutely and it's hardly surprising. The only way it wouldn't happen would require all editors to be treated equally, with editors who make changes "that anyone could make" being given no more credit than those who do work that others will not or cannot. Obviously we want to keep those who work hard and so the tendency is to gradually let them get away with more and it into the "vested contributers" (Note, this applies not just to those who write great articles, but also those who work hard in other areas...)
Unfortunately, it's not something that ArbCom can really deal with - we need to have an entire community attitude shift towards equality. How that can be done, I do not know. What can be done is that ArbCom can keep this equality in mind when cases come to them, trying to evaluate the situation and not let the user off because of the useful contributions they make. Worm^TT(talk)

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?
I think that Wikipedia lends itself to factionalism, with it's open anonymous atmosphere. However, I think we deal it fairly well, ArbCom has shown itself to be relatively effective with it restrictions that it has dealt out on nationalist issues. In general, I don't think there's a major issue regarding factionalism. Worm^TT(talk)

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?
Editor retention is a huge problem for Wikipedia. I've said before new users find it difficult to break in to wikipedia and old ones do leave through natural turnover. Looking at the stats, they've been going downwards for years, and I know the Foundation is looking at ways to improve the situation. Unfortunately, their inital efforts are centred around making Wikipedia a more pleasant place (like WikiLove or the MoodBar). I support these efforts, but I don't think they will make much of a difference in the long run.
Wikipedia does have a shortage of editors. Articles can go for weeks with subtle vandalism, the backlog in cleanup is insane, the number of editors signing up to be administrators is about a tenth of the amount from 5 years ago. On top of that, important areas such as WP:AfC and WP:NPP are often in backlog. Worm^TT(talk)
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.
Still looking at this Worm^TT(talk)
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?
ArbCom appears very detached from the rest of the community, in my opinion the communication from the committee leaves much to be desired. Whether true or not, the perception of ArbCom is that of hidden decisions and being separate from the community. I would work towards improving that perception. We all know that some discussions must take place in secret, as the information is not public. Whilst this is reasonable, the default attitude should be that the community should be aware of what's going on. In all honesty, I don't know exactly how I'd be bringing these about, but concepts like a "community liaison", who has regular office hours to discuss Arbcom decisions or perhaps a report written by an arb in the signpost would be a start.
Another area that I'd be looking hard at over the next couple of years (whether or not I get elected) is a decent community driven de-sysop process. Whilst not strictly part of ArbCom, it is an area they currently deal with almost exclusively and I feel this is something that is missing from Wikipedia. During my work at RfA reform, de-sysopping has come up a number of times, yet it is beyond the scope of that project. I'm not looking to make it "easier" to de-sysop but there should be a clear community driven method to request a de-sysop and not one that is just based in ArbCom. It's a perennial discussion and needs research, but it is something I will be looking at. Worm^TT(talk)

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: I accept that sometimes Arbcom cases will go on a bit, I take care over what I write on Wikipedia, and expect others to as well. However, since that was a narrowly focussed case, with a fairly simple outcome, I'd say that it took too long. Worm^TT(talk)
Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
A: As long as the standards they use don't contradict wider community standards and they respect wider community input. Editors are given quite a lot of leeway in general and if a WikiProject creates a standard within that leeway to ensure consistency in articles, especially where it does not affect other WikiProjects then I have no issue there. Worm^TT(talk)
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: Productive edits are not a get-out-of-jail free card, nor is adminship nor any other factor. We do have a multi-tier community, where there is insufficient respect between the different groups with different interests and that is something we should work to improve on all sides. You say the user has not broken policies, I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment.
I've had a couple of people ask me about this question, so I thought I should clarify. The important factor here is how the editor is behaving, especically regarding "ignoring consensus". Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy, and ignoring it is therefore against policy. The rest of my comments were meant to point out that no one should be able to get away with behaviour which is disruptive, no matter how much they have contributed to the encyclopedia. By "contributed to the encyclopedia" I don't just mean content but also doing tiresome behind-the-scenes work or being the most helpful/friendly editor out there - no matter what their interest, no matter how they excel in the area they work, no one deserves "special treatment". Worm^TT(talk)
An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
A: As someone who's done a lot of mentoring, I see WP:COMPETENCE thrown around by users when they mean "this editor is too hard for me to deal with" and giving up on the situation. Now that's fine, we're all volunteers here, and no one should have to help a user who doesn't "get it". If there are editors willing to help that editor be a productive member of the community, then that should be allowed. There are however, some editors who are beyond help - and in those situations, they should be directed away from the encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk)
Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
A: Depends on a number of factors, how long it's been going on for, how much help has been refused, the amount of problems it's causing for the community, resilience to address the problem and so on. It can happen for either situation, yes. Worm^TT(talk)
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: I'd rather judge each situation on it's merits, rather than subscribing to general rules. If, however, you look past the "who's right and wrong" at the behaviour of the participants then you often find that yes, both sides deserve the sanctions. You should of course take into account the context, the adherance to wikipedia policies and whether the users in question have a history of the behaviour. Worm^TT(talk)
When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
A: Generally, when all other forms of dispute resolution have been tried and failed or when the other forms of dispute resolution will clearly fail. Also, in cases cases where the community cannot deal with the issue, for example, administrator misconduct. Worm^TT(talk)
When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
A: As an admin, I'm lenient, I try to find ways for users to rejoin the community and be productive members. As an arb, I'd take the opposing view - if users cannot settle their differences with the plethora of dispute resolution routes available to them, then often removing the user from the community will be necessary. It's not a decision I'd take lightly though, as I am well aware that there is no easy way back for those users. Worm^TT(talk)
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A: I wouldn't be running if I didn't. I fully expect my edit count to fall as I spend more time reading cases and doing background research, but I fully intend to be active for the foreseeable future. Worm^TT(talk)
What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
A: Wow, that's a question and a half. I think the biggest problem I see is that editor numbers are falling, and there are a number of plausible reasons for that. A large part is natural turnover, long term editors retiring for whatever reason, but the newer editors seem to want to write one article and leave. It's rare that I find a new editor with the enthusiasm for the project that they'd want to start editting regularly. Whilst mentoring, I've found the users I work with fall into two categories, those who are new editors and those who are problematic. The new ones may or may not carry on, it seems to be about 1 in 3 who do, partially due to the steep learning curve, partially due to the lack of incentive, also due to the many barriers we put up to make things easier for ourselves.
I'm not saying that's the only issue. We've become so large that it's difficult to judge consensus on major issues. Every editor seems to have a different measure for civility. Many editors forget that when dealing with WP:BLPs, they're actually writing about real people, and there are real consequences for those people. I know there are more, but those ones are ones that stick in my mind. Worm^TT(talk)

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

Questions from NuclearWarfare[edit]

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.
Having worked in OTRS and seen some how articles have affected people, I do think that opt-out should be expanded. It should be a viable option for the majority of BLP articles we hold, for example - those with inaccuracies which are not caught, who's articles are written as puff pieces then decimated to be neutral leaving them as near stubs, or where minor indiscretions are given undue weight because it's all the tabloids will write about. I supported pending changes, as I support targeted flagging. It was a major factor in getting me involved in wikipedia, I had been a light user when I was given the reviewer flag and it opened my eyes to the number of articles which had issues. I certainly think it has a place on Wikipedia, something similar to targeted flagging, using it to get more eye on BLPs which are rarely looked at. The trial was a mess, because it was a "trial", which seemed to be the only way to get it turned on and then it took a big discussion to turn it back off. Arbcom, however, shouldn't be involved - it was a community issue, which should be decided by the community. I can understand one of the more experienced editors on the committee closing the discussion, but that's as far as it should go. Worm^TT(talk)
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've struggled with this question, because I don't believe I've been in any significant content disputes. As I mention in my statement, I pride myself on my diplomacy and since the areas I work in are generally uncontroversial (food articles), large content disputes don't happen often. On top of that, I generally don't hold strong views on content, I don't believe I've ever edit warred as I subscribe to the concept of Wikipedia being finished "eventually" and discussion being more important. In fact, a number of my good articles are written about food topics where there is strong nationalist feeling (the independence of Cornwall) yet whilst there have been some issues - problems are few and far between. Worm^TT(talk)

I'll give you a "hypothetical" then, the same that I gave Hersfold: you feel that you have done your utmost to provide exemplary secondary sources. You have gone down to your local specialized and general libraries, looked for authoritative sources from major secondary sources, and so on. On the other hand, you believe that the other parties are cherrypicking old, partisan, unrepresentative, or otherwise poor sources. Noticeboards and Wikiprojects have been unhelpful in providing meaningful input, and there are sufficient editors on both sides to block any change either way. All parties are behaving perfectly, at least if you ignore what you believe to be tendentious editing, and therefore you feel that ArbCom isn't going to be that helpful. What do you do? NW (Talk) 11:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I'd be surprised if all those previous methods of dispute resolution had failed - but it does happen. If we're talking about a situation where one side is taking a partisan point of view, whilst the other is taking a neutral point of view, and both sides are large enough that the community cannot solve the issue, then it's something that I think ArbCom should look at. As I said before, pushing an agenda is a behavioural issue. I don't subscribe to the idea that if users are being polite, a blind eye will be turned. So, I'd take it to Arbcom and explain the situation - I'd have faith that my neutrality in the matter would be clear. Worm^TT(talk)
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
I found Heimstern's essay to be a very interesting read and certainly can see that point of view - but overall I take a different stance. Civility is a problem. Just because a user is doing a good job adhering to WP:NPOV, doesn't mean they should be blowing their top (or even making snide little remarks) at those who aren't. That's not to say that the sanctions shouldn't be harsh for the user who is pushing a POV - POV pushing is a conduct issue and should dealt with. The difficulty comes when deciding which is more problematic - as both issues are subjective, the NPOV editor who is uncivil will likely see their comments as unproblematic just as the civil POV editor will see their POV as neutral. It's natural human instinct to rationalise your own conduct, otherwise you wouldn't act in that way. Both NPOV and civility are required under the WP:Five Pillars, both should be taken into account by Arbcom.
Mastcell's quote deals with a similar issue suggesting that if you edit within some behavioural norms you can get away with content issues (in slightly more colourful language). I personally haven't seen that happening, but certainly the way Wikipedia works would allow it to happen. Again, I point out that user conduct guidelines go beyond being civil to what is actually being added. If a user is pushing agenda, they need to stop - and if sanctions are required to make them stop, then so be it. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
WP:INVOLVED is important for two reasons, firstly that the correct outcome happens and secondly so that it is clear to all the correct outcome happened. Most involved admins can make the right decision - but since we have 1500 admins, why should that involved admin be the one to make it? The policy already accounts for situations where time is important so no, the policy should not be relaxed. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
Well, the policy is pretty clear, "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels" (emphasis mine). So, in your example, editor A should be blocked and depending on the circumstances, so should editor B. I'm sure the lawyers in the case would advice the editors to keep off wikipedia anyway, to ensure issues are not exacerbated. As for what role Arbcom should play, if it's got to the courts, I'm not sure there is much they should be doing. Interfering in the case could lead to legal problems for the Arb in question and may well lead to issues for the foundation - users have the right to sue and the policy does not remove that right - they just forfeit the "privilege" of editing Wikipedia in doing so. Worm^TT(talk)

Who enforces the block if the user continues to edit? NW (Talk) 11:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any uninvolved administrator should be able to. Worm^TT(talk)

Where might a user find one of these mythical uninvolved administrators? Should they have to go to ANI and spill-all the details of the legal dispute? NW (Talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you're getting at. Well, yes, ArbCom certainly has a role it can play there - as currently they're all administrators and trusted by both the community and foundation to handle sensitive information - any could be contacted. I'd suggest ANI is a bad idea, but I don't see why there would be a problem with emailing an admin who's not involved or emailing OTRS to ask someone to deal with it. There's quite a few options open to people who don't want the case plastered over a high drama board, even besides ArbCom. Worm^TT(talk)

Another hypothetical: Following an extended content dispute that has grown acrimonious and bitter at time, Editor A sues Editor B, claiming that B has negatively affected A's real life job by doing something or another. It's a frivolous lawsuit, but one that is almost certain to take up much of A's time and money. Neither mention the matter onwiki. Editor B, who has done nothing wrong, continues to edit onwiki. On advice of counsel, he stops editing his old topic area (18th century religion) and moves on to other things (20th century law). B also avoids A like the plague. Nonetheless, A begins editing Nuremberg Trials and Brown v. Board of Education just days after B edits them. ArbCom, and the Foundation via a request from ArbCom, look into it but decide for liability issues that they shouldn't get involved.
I would appreciate it if you would write out what specifically you would do in this circumstance. NW (Talk) 18:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming those are the full facts and I'm aware of them all - I'd block A whilst the lawsuit was in progress under No legal threats, allowing B to continue editing. Once the lawsuit was over, I'd unblock A, whilst strongly suggesting that to A that he avoids B. I would certainly look at the edits that both A and B made to the articles before looking to impose an interaction ban - as it would have to take place either at the administrator's noticeboard or via ArbCom. I'd probably take it to ArbCom first, as an interaction ban shouldn't be something they'd turn down in those circumstances, and it can be handled without plastering details of the lawsuit over wiki. Worm^TT(talk)

That's admirable of you. I think this question has reached the end of its natural life, in any case, and I thank you for being willing to entertain my...discussion with you. NW (Talk) 20:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this comment with regards to trying to rehabilitate banned/troublesome users: "We take a fraction of the time and effort we're willing to spend on this rehab project, and instead spend it on supporting, encouraging, and retaining constructive editors"?
I think I'd like to read the whole discussion! Both attempting to rehabilitate blocked users and encouraging new constructive editors are areas I'm passionate about. At the moment, I believe that there's insufficient support for both - Wikipedia has a lot of information for users but it expects those users to digest it all on their own - there is little or no training given and if you are given a link, you're expected to read through it completely, including many of the salient sub-links. It's not surprising that there are people who don't have the patience to read everything, yet they to get involved.
Encouraging constructive editors therefore should be more of a priority - we do a good job at the help boards, IRC help, WikiLounges and so on, but there's always more to be done. Having said that, I believe it's a long term issue for the encyclopedia and not something that can be fixed overnight. I don't think, however, that we can just take effort from one area and apply it equally to another. With a volunteer community, people work in areas that interest them - the idea that they'd be as productive in an area that doesn't interest them is just wrong. But I digress...
Rehabilitation is a difficult concept - and it comes down to how we deal with long term disruption. Long term disruption is obviously an issue for Wikipedia, but I do not see outright blocking as the best way to sort it out. For one thing, if we were to block outright - leaving a troublesome user blocked for say 6 months (per WP:OFFER), he could sit it out, come back and return slowly to the same behaviour. People will have forgotten how they found that annoying, and the cycle will repeat. On the other hand, if we focus on rehabilitation we may actually be able to stop the issues long term.
This was why I looked into the unblock and mentoring of TreasuryTag. TreasuryTag was teetering on a knife edge, he'd managed to escape being blocked by agreeing to mentoring by Dweller. Dweller asked TreasuryTag to work under restrictions for a while, which TreasuryTag wholly rejected - saying he'd rather "take his chances". He was very quickly blocked, and rightly so, the only reason the community let him carry on was that he agreed to mentorship. I agreed some restrictions via email and took it back to the community, unfortunately despite it being a close call, the community turned the request down. Now, I believe TreasuryTag will be back one day, perhaps under the standard offer, perhaps just generally unblocked - but since the matter will no longer be fresh in people's minds, the benefits of mentorship will be reduced.
Having said all that, were I on ArbCom, I'd take a different view on rehabilitation. If the case has got to ArbCom, it is likely that mentoring would be futile - other methods of dispute resolution should have already happened and mentoring (if appropriate) would have been suggested and possibly tried by the community. I'm sorry this has turned out to be quite such a long answer, but like I say you've hit an area I feel passionate about! Worm^TT(talk)

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)?
When looking at something like this we have to weigh up the difficulty users have navigating the vast labyrinth of policies (WP:CREEP) and guidelines against the value of the specialized guideline. Medicine is certainly a place where the value is clear - it's a place where wrong information can have dangerous real-world consequences and we should strive to ensure we get our information right. On the other guidelines mentioned, they're helpful if you're writing many articles in the topic, but for the average user they're less important - so neither encouraged nor discouraged. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
We should of course do all we can to make sure that information on Wikipedia is correct, neutral and reliably sourced. I can see the benefit of a medicine and health policy, as medicine/health articles do have the potential for real-world harm, but I don't believe it has the same devastating effects that an incorrect BLP can. When weighed up against the massive amounts of information and new backlogs it would create, I'd say that no, a medical policy is not necessary. A corporation policy, even less so - the theory is that no one will be personally harmed if a corporation article has incorrect information, just fiscally. Obviously that's not actually true - key staff members often regard their company as part of their life, but the theory is accurate enough that the harm is less direct than BLP harm. As long as we strive to make sure our information is correct, neutral and reliably sourced, we shouldn't need an extra policy for these situations. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
If you start to think of BLP as a topic area where people will have strong views despite it being an on-wiki problem, as opposed the real world issue that seeps onto Wikipedia, then the actions that the committee took in those instances are just the same as any other ArbCom outcome. They're not actually mandating policy change, but instead ensuring the policy is followed. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
It's not a view that I subscribe to myself, though I do see how the evidence can be interpreted that way. Just in the past few weeks, a change to the focus of one of our core policies has caused a lot of comment and the difficulty in closing it is almost palpable. However, thanks to certain members of the community, it is being closed. I believe that the approach may need tweaking (perhaps one person shouldn't close contentious large-scale discussions alone), but it is scalable and whilst difficult changes are needed, they're not insurmountable. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
Assuming a decision has actually been made to ban the user (under one of these) then the ban should mean something. Removing edits which appear to be good edits is not something I would do myself but I do understand it is sometimes necessary, otherwise some editor will have to go through the edits and decide which are disruptive and which are not. If things have got as far as a ban, then it's for a reason and the disruption may well be very subtle. Worm^TT(talk)

Questions from Sven Manguard[edit]

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.
From what I've seen, yes, that certainly seems to happen. The workshop is there to go over old ground, "analysing evidence" and so on. They have their use - flagging up key issues which may be missed elsewhere, but in general it appears to be a place to further the dispute and increase the problem. On the other hand, the pressure may well cause one side to "reveal a true motive". Worm^TT(talk)
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 not sure to be honest. I'm waivering between them being a "necessary evil" and totally useless and should be removed. In the short term, I'd suggest that the committee monitors them carefully, and shuts down the workshop if it's no longer productive. If this happens regularly, then dropping the step all together would be in the best interests of the process. Worm^TT(talk)

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 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
That's an interesting concept, but I am not sure how practical it'd be. $20M isn't a lot of money for a corporation, and I believe the legal budget is around $0.5M - so setting up something like that might be financially prohibitive. Having said that, I like the idea, and if it was possible I certainly wouldn't object. Worm^TT(talk)
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) 10:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I doubt the Foundation could afford to offer legal indemnity to arbs, however much they'd appreciate it! I do wonder if it would be worth taking out some sort of professional indemnity insurance (or extending their staff one) to cover certain roles, including Arbs, stewards and so on. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified enough to comment further, it's not an area I know a lot about. Worm^TT(talk)

Thanks for these responses. Also, do you have a track-record of content writing? Tony (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a little while since I've done it, but yes, I have written content. I've got 7 good articles to my name, 2 written from scratch (Doom Bar and Bacon ice cream), 4 expanded greatly (Clotted cream, Stargazy pie, Squab pie and BLT) and 1 rewritten (Pasty). I've also worked on a number of other articles, which I've listed at User:Worm That Turned/Articles. Doom Bar is probably the article I'm most proud of, though it does need some more work. I don't believe content creation is my strongest area, but I do enjoy it. Worm^TT(talk)

Questions 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 led 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 must say I'm a little confused in this situation. It doesn't help that I'm not the strongest on technical evidence. It appears that ArbCom has reviewed the evidence and decided there is insufficient evidence that the user is a sockpuppet. I don't have a problem with that - there may have been non-public information which throws sufficient doubt, there may have been technical data - I have no idea. It would, however, be helpful if ArbCom explained to users who are in the dark what information they used to come to that decision. This would allow further evidence to be presented and would allow editors at least rationalize the decision. Without a clear statement, the editor in question will always be under a cloud of "possible sockpuppet" and how he can edit with that in mind, I do not know. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
This was done by the Ban Appeals Sub Committee, wasn't it? So that committee should be regarded as "responsible for the unblock". I'm not sure what you're looking for beyond that. Worm^TT(talk)
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...
This is where I have a problem. If the committee has evidence that the rest of the community does not, which throws doubt upon whether the user is a sockpuppet - they should not be passing it back to the community to deal with - since the community cannot act without that information. The user will always be under a cloud, as I mentioned before, so how far does the user's protection by ArbCom go? It's a very difficult situation, and it should be up to ArbCom to put some measures of clarity down. Worm^TT(talk)
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 haven't seen enough evidence to say whether or not the Committee has erred, but I think that further clarification from the committee would be helpful. Worm^TT(talk)

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 :)
I think that this is again an issue of communication issues, something that the committee could do with improving. As I mentioned in an early question, communication between the committee and the community is an area I'd be looking to improve. In this case I'd be looking for the committee to put down something that's more clear, as what they have stated is clearly not good enough. Worm^TT(talk)
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?
A clear rationale is essential, yes. Generally, the rationale is clear, but if it's questioned, clarifications should be forthcoming. Worm^TT(talk)
how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?
Essential. Talking more about the general case - errors are made by all people everywhere. If you are not willing to accept your mistakes, you are doomed to repeat them. Whether they should be the one to fix it, may not be appropriate - but they should be willing to do so. Moving on, always a good thing. Worm^TT(talk)

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)[edit]

Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
A:
Not that I can think of. I will of course recuse if I'm involved with an editor who is a party to the case or if I have been involved in previous discussions, but topic areas are not something I feel strongly about and I do not believe I have acted in a partisan manner on any. The only topic area which I have worked in depth on is food, especially Cornish food and bacon. I'd have to have a think if those topics came up, though I find that unlikely and it would depend greatly on the case presented. Worm^TT(talk)
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 take any request for recusal seriously, though I would require a reason as I would have already weighed up my involvement and decided to not recuse. I would probably consult with others regarding the request and would err on the side of caution. It is important that the group of arbitrators looking over a case is not only fair but seen to be fair. Worm^TT(talk)
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:
It very much depends on the reason for the request. If it is a good faith request, then I would behave in the same manner as above. Worm^TT(talk)
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:
It is sometimes necessary - if a case is brought against a sitting arbitrator for example, or if they are heavily involved in the dispute. There is a plausible conflict of interest, to an extent, the difficulty lies in any behind the scenes discussions which the arb may be party to. I would expect the arb to have recused and looked at ways of minimising this. Worm^TT(talk)
If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
A:
Well, if it was me, I'd be removing myself from mailing lists and any other methods of discussing with the other Arbs for the period of the case. It would mean that I effectively could not act as an arbitrator any other parallel cases, but that would be a necessary evil. Worm^TT(talk)
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
A:
Certainly not. Arbs are editors first and foremost. They should act as editors and if they see a way of resolving disputes, they should do so. Worm^TT(talk)
Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
A:
As above - if an arbitrator wants to participate in policy discussions, they should do so, they are still editors first and foremost. Worm^TT(talk)
In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
A:
It shouldn't. It's essential that incivility should not be excused so that we can maintain a collaborative atmosphere. Sanctioning incivility is difficult as it is subjective and working out the right level of admonishment is something we need to be better at, but it should not be excused. Worm^TT(talk)

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:
I think the only area that I mentioned that changes were needed is was when I was discussing the scalability of the consensus based model. I think the most obvious change would be that for larger decisions, more editors should be involved in assessing the consensus. I think it should be based on order of magnitude - say for discussion between 10s of editors you need 1 editor to assess the consensus, 100s of editors you need 3, 1000s get 5 and so on. This would ensure that the personal opinion is less likely to get in the way of larger decisions. But hey, that's just my thoughts.
With regards to ArbCom itself, I do think we need to change how accessible it is to the community. I've seen many comments in the past regarding transparency and so on - what really matters is that people believe that ArbCom is fair. If ArbCom silos itself away from the community, then there becomes a perception of secrecy and even a cabal! I would suggest that whilst full transparency is impossible, openness something that ArbCom should strive for, answering questions which are asked, clarifying whereever possible. This would give the community more faith in the committee and ensure that the committee can do what it needs to. Worm^TT(talk)
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. The committee cannot set policy. The committee is just a group of elected individuals who deal with certain issues on behalf of the community. They are not the voice of the community, nor should they be regarded as above the community. They should certainly not be setting policy, in any circumstance. Worm^TT(talk)
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:
Breaking a rule? Once? The only time that that should come to the committee is if the rule is regarding admin tools and that's only because there's no other way to deal with it. There are many different dispute resolution methods which should be followed first in other situations. If the rule is "abuse of admin tools", then the circumstances should be looked at. If the user did actually abuse the tools, then the tools should be removed, the community has enough problems with this concept of "abusive admins" without ArbCom sanctioning it.
If however, you're talking about the general case - should an editor's good work offset the bad, I don't believe it should. We have a code of conduct on wikipedia, and if you are not following it, it shouldn't matter that you're doing good work elsewhere. Worm^TT(talk)
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:
This is actually a very difficult question. My gut instinct is to say "You just do". I'm constantly assessing situations, looking at possible outcomes, thinking about how things can turn out well. If a situation has no (or very few) constructive outcomes, I've reached my limit. Worm^TT(talk)
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:
Fulfilling. Wikipedia seems to tick many boxes for me. I've learnt so much whilst being here, from articles and from meta discussions. I subscribe to the values of the encyclopedia, making knowledge available for all, working in the copyleft movement. I feel I'm actually helping, that I add value to the community, to the editors I mentor, to the users I advise in multiple help fora. More than that, I've met people I'd consider friends. Worm^TT(talk)

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

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) 20:31, 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]

Hi Martinevans123. You will have to excuse me, as I dont have access to a computer at the moment, see my edits in the past 24 hours. Im therefore writing this on my phone. Quite simply, this is a situation where discussion is key, explain what the user did was wrong and why, and that they should choose on account and stick to it. There shouldnt be a need for anything more, unless the subject areas overlapped, or the accounts interacted. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for replying. Your answer seems very fair. Perhaps all administrators should be required to reply by phone - it might make discussions a lot shorter! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind terribly but i really get annoyed having to scroll down as far as I do! This sentence would have only taken me seconds to type but using this phone it takes quitea few minutes Worm^TT · (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even with a computer, it's often awkward to fit everything on if you have to use zoom! Thanks for your resilience. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]