View source for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/AGK/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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Selection_and_appointment|selection and appointment policy]], must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

===General questions===
#{{ACE Question
|Q=What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
|A=In respect of on-Wikipedia experience, I would bring two years as one of the committee's most active arbitrators, and many more years of experience as an editor, administrator, checkuser, and oversighter. Over the past few years, I have worked in countless different areas of the encyclopedia, and with a variety of people; I have been told – accurately enough, if it is not immodest to say so – I can be relied upon to be scrupulously fair. I try to be, in any case: I don't become invested in too many Wikifriendships, and I always try to keep the community and the encyclopedia in mind when making a decision. I think in my case off-Wikipedia skills matter less, but I do work very closely with large texts – just as arbitrators do when drafting a decision – and I regularly have to do a lot of textual analysis and reading in a short period of time. These skills are imperative to arbitrators, like me, who draft a lot of decisions.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=What experience have you had with the Wikipedia [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
|A=I am an arbitrator of two years' experience, a former Chairman of the Mediation Committee and mediator (in both the formal and informal mediation systems), and an administrator for the arbitration enforcement system. I have never participated as a party in an arbitration case or other substantive dispute.<p>I have participated in the following arbitration cases as an arbitrator:<ul><li>{{RFARlinks|Ebionites 3}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Manning naming dispute}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Infoboxes}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Tea Party movement}} ''('''drafter''' – I was installed as drafter some months after the case was opened)''</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Race and politics}} ''('''drafter''')''</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Argentine History}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Sexology}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|SchuminWeb}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Doncram}} ''('''drafter''')''</li><li>{{RFARlinks|GoodDay}} ''('''drafter''')''</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Rich Farmbrough}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Article titles and capitalisation}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Civility enforcement}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Betacommand 3}}</li><li>{{RFARlinks|Muhammad images}} ''('''drafter''')''</li></ul><p>I drafted around a third of this caseload. During this time, I was inactive in two or three arbitration cases, in most cases because they opened before I became a committee member and I was not able to catch up on the case background.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
|A=I do not think there is a place for "being lenient" or "being heavy-handed" in an arbitrators' mindset. We do not punish people, but select from a hierarchy of remedies the solution that is simultaneously least severe and most likely to work. However, I recognise that some arbitrators tend to decide – more frequently – that a lower sanction will be effective, and some tend to favour a higher sanction. I think I tend towards the higher sanction in many cases, though I am by no means a hanging judge, because in my experience the most problematic, perennial problems on the site came into being when the committee blew its chance to solve the dispute by being too lenient or not thorough enough in its decision. One arbitration decision tends to make the participants adopt sneakier tactics (like baiting and tag-teaming) in the future; ARBPIA provides many examples of this phenomenon. I therefore try to break the back of the dispute on first pass. However, I never try to punish people, or sanction them for the sake of it, and I always try to decide questions of sanctioning fairly and reasonably. I have not heard many complaints that I have been unduly harsh during my time on the committee, though as with all arbitrators there have been one or two.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
|A=I do not think there are any areas in which I need to recuse. The subject areas in which I have a professional interest are so uncontentious that they will never come to arbitration.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
|A=I promised I would serve the entirety of my previous term and I did. I make the same promise this year.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
|A=I believe the majority of the committee's decisions were effective, but in arbitration the failures tend to overshadow the successes. The ''Malleus Fatuorum'' clarification request was riddled with procedural improprieties, and should have been discussed off-list more thoroughly. The ''Tea Party movement'' case was delayed because the drafter did not have enough support, which was suboptimal; it ultimately closed well enough, after NuclearWarfare and I took over as drafters, but the case was an organisational disaster from the off (regrettably I was inactive when it was opened and was not able to volunteer to draft it myself).<p>I think most of our cases were conducted reasonably enough. With a better effort from the entire committee, and the avoidance of a few silly mistakes, certain cases would have been even more effective, and less contentious. The committee should be held to a high standard and should always strive to improve its performance, but I accept that, being made up of volunteers, it never can be perfect.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
|A=This trend is desirable because it reflects the increasing ability of the community to deal effectively with problems. I hope this trend continues and the committee, eventually, is scarcely required. I assess case requests against whether (A) the encyclopedia would benefit from committee intervention in the dispute and (B) the community would be capable, within a reasonable time and with a reasonable investment of editor time, of resolving the dispute without arbitrator involvement. Case requests tend to attract a lot of arbitrator comment these days, whereas formerly only a handful of arbitrators would weigh in when arbitration was requested (hence why case request votes use the "net four" and not "absolute majority" rule); this brings more votes to the table when arbitration is requested, meaning fewer cases are wrongly accepted or wrongly rejected.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
|A=For the reasons I articulate in my answer to the next question, I believe we need to refine our procedures in order to more clearly delineate what we will defer to appropriate community bodies in cases where something is sent to us but does not actually require committee involvement. I would also like the procedures to clarify the committee's timetable for handling open cases; timely case handling is something I have always treated with high priority (and all of my cases have run on-schedule), but many arbitrators do not do the same.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q={{anchor|flag1}}What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
|A=The community and the WMF were once too immature to be responsible for much of ArbCom's present remit, but both entities are now capable of taking back some of the committee's workload. ArbCom could narrow its mandate and proactively refer to the community or the Foundation any matter which it does not strictly need to decide.<p>In my opinion, '''ArbCom can be too judicially active and has too expansive a remit.''' In the future, I would propose that:<ul><li>We should refer allegations of sock-puppetry to our competent, sensible team of community checkusers. They would need their own mailing list (because raw checkuser data cannot be published on the functionaries' mailing list).</li><li>By agreement with the WMF Office, child protection investigations must be conducted by us. However, the Office have indicated they are willing to enforce our decisions in child protection investigations. We should let them do so.</li><li>Appeals of blocks or bans not imposed by the committee proper do not need to be heard by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC). We could appoint community representatives onto BASC, but better still the community could establish a public venue for hearing ban appeals to which community blocks and bans could be appealed. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Ban appeals|<span style="color: black;">Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Ban appeals</span>]] is a viable page name.</li></ul><p>'''We have already devolved or returned some of our power to other bodies:'''<p><ul><li>Article and content complaints from notable or semi-famous people are now routinely referred to the Oversighters (if suppression is needed) and to the "info-en" queue (if careful editorial action is needed).</li><li>Checkuser and oversight use is regulated by the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC), on which three community representatives are seated. Editors should continue to have the ability to complain to AUSC about an action by a checkuser or oversighter.</li></ul><p>We would do the community a disservice by closing up shop, and '''there are many things that we will still need to do''':<p><ul><li>Clean starts are regulated (and in some cases authorised) by us. We would need to continue to do so; clean starts cannot be requested on a public noticeboard watched by thousands of people.</li><li>Employer and family harassment is resolved through ArbCom investigation and blocks. We should retain this system, which works well.</li><li>Previous committee decisions need to be amended and clarified, as required. Upon community request, we should continue to accept requests for clarification and amendment.</li><li>New arbitration proceedings will undoubtedly be necessary in future. Like it or not, a wiki will always contain intractable editorial and community disputes. ArbCom should continue to make itself available to resolve such disputes (by motion rather than by a full case, if it thinks it appropriate to do so), but proceedings should only be opened as a result of a clear community request to do so. Judicial activism is bad for the encyclopedia.</li></ul><p>We would need an internal procedure for referring mail to other bodies, and a conscious effort on the part of our arbitrators would be needed if ArbCom's role is to be reduced.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
|A=The committee inevitably exerts an effect on policy and content disputes, but tries not to. As a body of experienced contributors, when the committee recommends that something happen, that something is often – in my experience – given the most earnest consideration by the community. I suppose this is a good thing: because the community has no government, it sometimes needs prodded in the right direction. However, some of the most outrageous committee decisions (and thankfully, these did not occur in my time) have been ones where the committee has made policy, or ruled on content, by fiat. For reasons that do not need to be articulated, these decisions were wrong. The committee influences some site policy, but does not in practice create it – nor should it.<p>The committee generally deals with content disputes by recommending community discussions to consider a specific content issue. It sometimes establishes these discussions itself, if they really have to happen, but such a remedy is used cautiously. Previous examples of these discussions can be seen in ''Muhammad images'', which I drafted; or the ''Jerusalem'' motions, the administrative paradigm for which I wrote and pushed through, and the closing administrators for which I recruited. The committee also maintains a standing system of "Discretionary sanctions" that help enforce policy on contentious topic areas that remain within the committee's jurisdiction (under the community arbitration policy). This system theoretically means the committee has a hand in regulating content, but in practice discretionary sanctions are used only against egregious editor ''misconduct'', rather than ''misediting'', and in any event the system is administered and operated by the community's administrators – not the arbitrators. The committee has an effect on a minute proportion of the encyclopaedia's articles – the vast majority of editors are completely unaware of the arbitration system, or take nothing to do with it – and in that proportion of articles, its effect is similarly minute. Arbitration is a system of resolving disputes, and therefore strives not to intervene in articles except when the community is at wit's end.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]] policy?
|A=The committee is not a Wikipedia government or a producer of site policy, so its role in the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy is limited. However, the committee has repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of BLP in its decisions – one case, ''Manipulation of BLPs'', actually mentioned no parties whatsoever and instead undertook a broad review of the state of BLP policy on Wikipedia. It regularly sanctions editors who misconduct themselves on BLPs, as can be seen in more cases than I could mention here without boring the community. The committee can play a role in enforcing standards of writing and sourcing on biographies, but actual improvements to the standard of treatment we offer to living people will come not from the committee but the community. The committee is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of articles it actually affects; the number of articles we scrutinise and rule on in a year might be affected by the community at large in a matter of seconds. I do not think ArbCom is well-suited to leading from the front on BLP standards.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the [[Wikipedia:checkuser|checkuser]] and [[Wikipedia:oversight|oversight]] userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
|A=I was permanently confirmed as a community checkuser a number of years ago. I have oversight access for the duration of my previous term as an arbitrator, and would request that the OS flag remain on my account for 2014–15. As one of the few arbitrators this year with significant experience with the tools, I used the oversight and checkuser tools largely to help the other arbitrators interpret CU/OS information; I imagine this would not change.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
|A=I have already been outed; when that happened, I confess I was supremely unbothered. However, the committee has had to deal with tens of instances of editors being harassed or outed while I was an arbitrator. I am acutely aware how painful and distressing an experience some of them find it, and I have done the most any one arbitrator can to ensure the committee protects editors who are the unwilling victim of having their personal information strewn across the internet. I do not think Wikipedians should have to lie in bed at night worrying whether the internet's vicious trolls are going to target them next, but sadly some do.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
|A=I tend to think the committee should not be retaining data on anybody; such a practice is unseemly, usually unnecessary, and prone to misuse. However, many users are perennial knockers of the committee's door, which means we must either retain relevant information about them or rely on Grandfather arbitrators'''*''' remembering that information. The committee's records storage is secure, so I think a limited degree of retention is appropriate and necessary for the committee to fulfil its purposes; the obvious requirements for it to be stored only as long as necessary, and to be stored in a secure manner, still apply. However, I cannot think of many situations in which "relevant information" would include information about a user's real-life identity; in that respect, the retention of information should not happen except when absolutely necessary.<p>'''<nowiki>*</nowiki>''': Iridescent uses the term "'elder statesman' arbitrator" here, which has the same meaning but is more pithy.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
|A=In the former case, this would be inconceivable and intolerable. The committee does not exclude "defendants" from its proceedings, and should not try to. In the latter, there are a very small number of cases where this will have to happen; I have been involved in an arbitrator in several, though as a general rule I will try not to discuss them – even if they were subsequently announced on-wiki to some extent – so as to reduce the attention such dead matters receive at election time. Broadly speaking, the community can only be excluded from cases where (A) legal reasons prevent the evidence from being shared on-wiki or (B) tangible damage would be done to a real-life person if the evidence was shared. I think it illustrates the seriousness of such situations, and the reluctance of the committee to exclude community editors from its proceedings, that closed hearings make up a tiny proportion of the hundreds or thousands of arbitration cases that have been heard. ArbCom does not do secret trials and should not try to; I think anybody who has ever served on the committee can attest that, when the "public gallery" of a case is closed, the committee takes even greater care than usual to hear the accused's side of the story.}}

===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:

<code><nowiki>#{{ACE Question
</nowiki><br><nowiki>|Q=Your question
</nowiki><br><nowiki>|A=}}
</nowiki></code>

----

====Questions by Sven Manguard ====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=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?
|A=I have been on record in the past as disapproving of the committee's propensity to making decisions by motion, and I only support doing something by motion when the facts are very clear and nothing would be gained from opening a full case. One recent example of a committee decision by motion, the Malleus Fatuorum clarification request, is a prime example of the dangers of deciding something by motion. Motions are simply abridged versions of a full case, so their purpose is to make a decision when a full case is not necessary or appropriate. Since they do not have the weeks-long submission period that a case has, they are more prone to being hastily proposed.<p>Motions are also used for changes to committee procedures, which is appropriate (obviously a case cannot be opened for decisions that do not relate to an actual dispute) or for formalising the decision in an amendment or clarification request, which is also usually appropriate (because clarification/amendment requests are inherently narrow in scope, and therefore suited to decisions by motion). }}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=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 ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
|A=I generally think disputes that have never come before the committee should be heard as a full case. There is simply too much background to be sorted and understood in a "new" dispute for a motion to be used. The exception may be when, in cases such as ''Jerusalem'' (which was presented as a case request but decided by motion without a full case), a new dispute is intractable ''but'' clear-cut ''and'' related to, though not fully under the scope of, a previous case. ArbCom should not be overruling community consensus on an already-decided issue; the committee exists to make decisions when the community cannot reach a consensus, not when the community reaches a consensus that some arbitrators think is wrong.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Please identify a few motions from 2013 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. <small>Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.</small>
|A=I think the following motions from 2013 were generally well handled: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=&oldid=576964713#Motion_.28Mathsci.29 ''Race and intelligence (Mathsci banned)''], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=551547710#Motion_regarding_GoodDay ''GoodDay''], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=531829580#Motion:_Hex ''Hex'']. ''Race and intelligence'' was an efficient reaction to clear harassment by a long-term editor that should have known better. ''GoodDay'' amended the original case decision, which gave GoodDay a "final chance", on account of the concerns of GoodDay's mentors and in response to GoodDay's clear failure to learn his lesson from the original proceedings. ''Hex'' codified the community's (and the arbitrators') disapproval of Hex's acting while involved, without overreacting in an instance of isolated misconduct by an administrator.<p>I cannot think of any decision reached by motion in 2013 that was mishandled, but most mishandled motions are unsuccessful and the arbitration system does not keep records of unsuccessful motions. If there are any you can think of – I may have forgotten them, since I have voted on so many in my time on the committee – that you would like me to consider, please feel completely at liberty to ask me a follow-up question.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.
|A=ArbCom historically has encountered a lot of difficult in enforcing the outing policy, because "outers" are rarely Wikipedians in good standing with the community. In this case, we enforced the policy – and were seen to enforce the policy – on an administrator who basically should have known better. In terms of what could have been done better, the ban motion could have been heard separately from the desysopping motion, and in public.<p>An important addendum to this question: Phil was banned for posting the location of another contributor, not because he refused to take down the offending information. The act of outing itself is separate from the damage caused by it; the committee, largely, cannot do much about the personal damage outing causes.}}
# {{ACE Question
|Q=In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?
|A=I don't think we can explain our reasoning in detail without also correcting misunderstanding of the situation in the ensuing discussion. I think arbitrators should treat as a high priority the tasks of explaining their position and responding to criticism (these indeed were, I believe, the reasons the committee noticeboard was established). I have always taken care to be responsive to concerns about committee decisions, as I hope my engagement on the noticeboard and my record of responding to criticism during cases will prove.<p>In the Phil Sandifer noticeboard discussion, I gradually withdrew – several days in– from the conversation, when it became clear nothing was being gained by it; I think knowing where the line lies between responsiveness and horse-flogging is also an important skill in these situations.}}
# {{ACE Question
|Q={{anchor|flag2}}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?
|A=I will simply reiterate here my previous position that the committee should be discussing more of its business on-site. I think there is a lot to be said for providing a private area for sounding out ideas for cases; I suspect that, if the committee were deprived of its mailing list, drafters would just thrash out the general direction of a case decision by private e-mail – therefore reducing transparency among the committee. However, the problem arises – in drafting decisions – when a proposed decision arrives out of thin air, with all of the discussion prior to voting done off-site. I have tried to solve this problem by floating my proposed decisions on the workshop before it goes to final voting. Also, in ''Muhammad images'', I experimented with an "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Workshop#Proposals_by_AGK|outline]]" of the proposed decision that was published for comments before the proposed decision was written. I think involving the disputants more extensively in committee discussion is important.<p>Unfortunately, some topics are not suited to public discussion (paedophilia concerns, harassment, suppression and checkuser issues, and a number of other items come to mind).}}
# {{ACE Question
|Q=The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue. 
#::- If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?  
#::- If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do? 
#::- All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue? 
|A=I do not think the issue was discussed this year. It was discussed in early 2012, because me and another new arbitrator both ran on "more openness" platforms. We were outnumbered at that time.<p>As for specific proposals, I suggested during the first year of my term that ArbCom use forum software to create a discussion space that is editable only by arbitrators but viewable by everybody. In my view, such software would resolve all of the concerns that were raised at the time; unfortunately, as I have already stated, I was outvoted at the time.}}

====Question from Mark Arsten====
# {{ACE Question
  | Q = What role should Arbcom play in exercising oversight over and regulation of the [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet investigations]] checkusers and clerks? 
  | A = On a general level, ArbCom doesn't have anything to do with the clerks, and shouldn't really have; overseeing their work is within the area of expertise of the checkusers. Similarly, when it comes to SPI, the checkusers are as close to professionals as we can get; I therefore do not think ArbCom should oversee the checkusers – that is properly the role of the Audit Subcommittee, if it is anybody's.
  }}

====Questions from [[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]]====
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in [[User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2007|2007]], [[User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2008|2008]], [[User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2009A|2009]], [[User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2010|2010]], [[User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2011|2011]], and [[User:Rschen7754/Arbcom2012|2012]]; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

# {{ACE Question | Q=What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping]]?
  | A=Some arbitration cases require a period of time in the region of three months to resolve. Looking over the case pages and the old mailing list threads, it is clear to me that ''Tree shaping'' should not have. It took so long because many arbitrators failed to vote promptly, which I have found in my time on the committee is very obstructive to closing cases in a timely manner.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and [[WP:OWN]]? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
  | A=a) WikiProjects provide an area of the encyclopedia where editors with similar interests can go to discuss their subject, compare notes on articles, provide assistance with articles, co-ordinate efforts to expand articles or reduce backlogs, and work in a unified manner. If Wikipedia was a university (college), WikiProjects would be a little like co-curricular clubs – respected by the university staff for their passion and expertise.<p>b) WikiProjects can summarise site policy relating to article layout and other standards, for the benefit of their members. However, such projects should not be taking an active enforcement role: that would be akin to a [[book club]] telling its members what book to read, and how quickly to read it. The entire community should be involved in formulating policy, and if a wikiproject member is taking on the role of enforcing community policy, they should not do so in any capacity other than as a community member, because the project would come to be a cabal. One great aspect of Wikipedia is that non-experts can become involved in the development of almost any article; I do not see how we can reconcile that principle with project members becoming regulators of their pages. I would go so far as to say that such a practice is no better than tag-teaming.<p>c) The solution is theoretically very simple: bring the project members or experts together in a focussed discussion, identify which of their points have clear merit, and decide how to reconcile their position with the will of the wider community. In practice, things have not worked out this way in the past, but I think that is the fault more of Wikipedia's style of governance than anything else. Whenever a wikiproject or its members have a position that conflicts with general practice on Wikipedia, the quality of the encyclopedia should be the first priority; part of the difficult is that both sides probably think their position ''is'' best for the encyclopedia, which results in entrenchment.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
  | A=For brevity's sake, I will interpret this question narrowly, and to refer only to vested contributors vis-a-vis civility and decorum. There may well be other respects in which vested contributors are arguably problematic; if you want me to answer this question in one of those contexts, feel free to ask a follow-up question.<p>I by no means fall into the "civility police" camp, but I think Wikipedia does have a problem with some vested contributors who do not adhere to our policies on interacting politely with other contributors. When somebody has been on Wikipedia for a long time, they naturally know more about the project than most people with less experience do. Unfortunately, some vested contributors tend to think that, when another contributor says something they think is wrong, they have license to condescend or be rude to them. I think this is suboptimal. Being rude or condescending to other contributors is demeaning and hostile, and may reduce their enthusiasm for the project. It is a little like a gruff records keeper, who knows his job inside-out and has decades of experience, having such a fearsome reputation that the office staff fear to withdraw records because of how he might treat them; this reduces the ability of the staff to use the records facility, and contributes to a decline in the quality of work. Vested contributors on Wikipedia are the same: valuable as they are, they have a tangibly negative effect if they choose to act not in accordance with the project's expectations regarding conduct. It seems naive to say "if everybody were only nice to one another, Wikipedia could work so much better"; but theoretically that is true, and your question demanded a theoretical response.<p>Difficult and regrettable thought it may be, the only realistic reaction is to ask the vested contributor to act appropriately – and, if that is unsuccessful, to take remedial action so as to demonstrate that nobody is entitled to treat other contributors with disrespect.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
  | A=I don't think that's a reasonable perspective to hold. ArbCom isn't a criminal court and does not take into account "mitigating circumstances" like one party being made to be abusive by another editor. That said, if an editor was obviously baited by another, the resulting discourse may not be an accurate representation of how the first editor routinely behaves, and I would imagine that the cause of the disruption would be held to be the second editor—not the first. It would depend on the specific case; the purpose of ArbCom is to resolve disputes and end disputes; it must do whatever is necessary to achieve that aim in any given case.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
  | A=There are several recent examples of ArbCom desysopping by motion. One is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=511378498#Motion:_EncycloPetey_desysopped EncycloPetey] desysopping motion, which I proposed, happened because of a clear misuse of the administrator tools in a situation where the facts were clear. Desysoppings by motion tend to happen when the only complaint is the actions of a single administrator. Desysoppings otherwise happen in full arbitration proceedings, usually when a wider dispute surrounds the administrator misconduct, and that dispute also has to be examined. I have tended to take a hard line as an arbitrator on administrator misconduct, because I think administrators who act disruptively – and who know they are acting disruptively – should be reprimanded. Administrator abuse is taken to arbitration basically whenever it occurs, because ArbCom is one of the only venues that is empowered to decide complaints about administrator actions. I vote to accept cases about administrator misconduct whenever it appears to be taking place – a position that accords with the voting habits of my fellow arbitrators – but there needs to be clear evidence that such misconduct is occurring. I think the committee and community is getting better at dealing with administrators who go "off the rails".}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
  | A=The English Wikipedia ArbCom essentially has no relationship with other Wikimedia sites, because our jurisdiction does not extend to them. The same situation applies to IRC, and the attempt by a previous committee in the ''IRC'' case to create such a relationship was unsuccessful and, in my view, misguided. The committee can take notice of IRC conduct in certain exceptional cases, but this does not constitute a "relationship" as such. The committee has no relationship with "bad sites", except inasmuch as it has to take notice of Wikipedia contributors using those sites to treat other contributors in an unacceptable way.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=What is your definition of "outing"?
  | A=Outing is easy to define. It is the publication by one editor of another editor's personal information where that other editor has not previously made that information known. When it comes to dealing with instances of outing, the devil is in the detail.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
  | A=The checkuser and oversight tools are used to protect the encyclopedia. The policies governing them are drawn narrowly and clearly, and the teams that use the tools take their responsibilities seriously. The tools are also monitored by the Audit Subcommittee, half of which is made up of non-arbitrator, non-functionary contributors. Lastly, the Wikimedia Foundation has an Ombudsman Commission that monitors checkuser use.<p>The cross-wiki checkuser team works together very well too. The checkuser-l mailing list provides a venue for efficiently co-ordinate with checkusers on other projects, and with the stewards.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Have you been in any ''content'' disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any ''content'' disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes [are] not amicably resolved?
  | A=I have not been involved in any content disputes, but I did mediate many disputes when I was active within the mediation system. In my experience, most disputes fester simply because people do not understand each other's positions (misunderstanding) or refuse to accept the merits of the other editor's position (stubbornness). Misunderstanding requires an impartial or more open-minded person to intervene and make the parties listen to each other. Stubbornness requires the parties to be coxed around, or encouraged to defer the decision to another set of editors. Both misunderstanding and stubbornness can descend into misconduct and abusive behaviour, as all people tend to do when frustrated. It is at that juncture that the community tends to employ harsher solutions, such as administrator blocks or even topic bans. Disputes of this nature and on a large scale are often so difficult to resolve that they come to arbitration.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
  | A=I hope that the committee will become less necessary, and eventually no longer need to exist. Other Wikimedia projects that used to have Arbitration Committees now keep them in abeyance, or have even disbanded them. Hopefully the English Wikipedia will mature enough that it no longer needs binding, final decision-making.<p>In the nearer-term, I set out a potential improvement in the committee's work triaging in the ninth standard question.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Have you read the WMF proposal at [[m:Access to nonpublic information policy]] (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
  | A=Yes, I will be able and willing to meet the new requirements.}}

Thank you. '''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

====Questions from [[User:Collect|Collect]]====

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

# {{ACE Question | Q=An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?  | A= Yes, and it seems rather clear to me that this quote is misrepresented and taken out of context (voters will definitely want to read the comments halfway down [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision/Archive#Basta|this thread]]).}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?  | A= I will answer this question from a general perspective. If you want me to answer specifically in relation to the case in question, please feel completely at liberty to ask me a follow up question. Yes, I think a minimum amount of evidence is required for all findings of misconduct, and I do not think there should be remedies without findings.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?  | A= You are not sure whether this is or is not a quote, but no, evidence and workshop pages are never ignored by the committee or by me.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?  | A= Today, arbitration decisions take a fairly predictable pattern – the committee has a very limited number of crude remedies available to it – but I do think it is still the case that previous decisions are not binding on the committee; we certainly do not treat them as binding. Former cases may have to be considered if one problematic contributor subsequently comes before the committee again, for similar misconduct as the last time; that would indicate that the problem may be with the contributor himself or herself, rather than with their views on a particular topic area's substance or other users.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?  | A= The Five Pillars are a codification of the essence of Wikipedia's site norms and values. They are at the heart of nearly all our policies. However, they are probably too broad to be used in committee findings; I do not think I would be satisfied if I were topic banned on the basis that I "did not adhere to the fourth pillar, 'Editors should treat each other with respect and civility'." Factual findings require more detail than that.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?  | A= I talk about the committee's ability to affect BLPs in [[#General questions]] #11. When a BLP question does come before the committee, the committee should weigh damage caused by the editor to BLPs very heavily: editing to the detriment of a BLP, and in contravention of our expectations of edits to BLPs, is not acceptable. By weigh heavily, I do of course mean by accounting for such misconduct in drafting and passing findings of fact (and related remedies).}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?  | A=People naturally gravitate towards groups that support their own view. This can help dispute resolution: it is easier to find a middle point between two groups than to achieve consensus among, say, nineteen positions across the spectrum. However, interpreting disputants as sitting in factions can be problematic for several reasons: (A) guilt can then more easily, but wrongly, be assigned in a simplistic manner, with the dispute being seen as ''good guys'' versus ''bad guys''; (B) the actual positions of each editor may then be misunderstood.<p>Nevertheless, when editors band together in factions, they can also exert a negative influence on the article that cannot be rectified without accepting the existence of factionalism in the given dispute. Editors behaving in this way are prone to: (A) entrenchment of their positions; and (B) unbecoming or underhand tactics, such as relying on each other to neutralise opponents who slip up.<p>Editors who engage in factionalism that is disruptive are tag-teaming, and probably need to be sanctioned. Editors who are simply working with like-minded colleagues are probably better evaluated as individuals, with evidence of one editor engaging in disruptive behaviour or unbecoming conduct resulting in a sanction for that editor alone. I tend to take the view that editors who behave disruptively will generate enough evidence to form a basis for an individual sanction; everything else – including what faction they may or may not be aligning themselves with – tends to muddy the water.}}
:::''Interim reply:'' Could you define factionalism? I don't want to answer the question without being very clear as to what you mean. I always treated it as ''tag teaming'', an issue which I am very aware of. Thanks! [[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 11:35, 18 November 2013‎ (UTC)
::::The question is meant as a "thought requiring question" and if I were to explicitly state what "factionalism" could mean to anyone at all, the question would be several pages long.  Think of it as an essay question in high school -- the question seeks to look at your ''own'' Weltanschuung (Wikianschauung) and consider how your answer would look to a teacher asking the question.  I have found that it is best to ''answer'' the question and ''not'' to attack the teacher <g>. Cjeers [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC) 
Thank you. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
::::: Now answered (see box immediately above). [[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 15:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

==== Questions by Gerda Arendt ====

Thank you, [[User talk:AGK/Archive/78#Precious again|precious]] candidate, for volunteering.
# {{ACE Question | Q=Question 1 of 3: Please describe what happens in {{diff|Peter Planyavsky|542355419|542307159|this diff}}. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC) | A= An infobox is added and a shorter overview table (titled 'metadata') is removed. }}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Thank you for a short and precise answer. - Second question: imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC) | A= If my colleague presented that diff and I had to analyse it in a vacuum, I would oppose the proposal. But nothing is without context.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=You are right, let's look at the context then. Under which condition would it be contentious to follow the MOS in that way, and if, how could it be a reason for banning? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 23:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC) | A= It could be contentious if the infobox was added systematically to an article, rather than on an ''as-you-go'' basis. It would be a reason for banning if such addition of infoboxes was accompanied by battleground conduct – as tends to happen with strong views about conduct (or anything, really). However, most people don't really do enough addition/removal of infoboxes to deserve any sort of criticism, let alone a topic ban. That was one reason the ''Infoboxes'' case surprised me so much.}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=Thank you, but still not quite the answer to the question. Let's try not to talk about a specific case. (Did you look how the infobox got into the article?) - What you do (in general) if you notice that a colleague presents a diff that actually improves Wikipedia to support his vote to ban, THAT is the question? | A= I would not deduce from an edit that improves Wikipedia that the user making the edit is disruptive, and therefore I would not consider that edit to be a legitimate basis for a site ban.}}

==== Question from Kanguole ====
# {{ACE Question | Q=In the Infoboxes case, in response to criticism of the proposed decision you issued a request for new evidence against two of the parties,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed_decision#Request_for_evidence_relating_to_Kleinzach_and_Smerus] which was then used to modify the decision.  Is this something you would do again, and do you feel that the usual structure of a deadline for evidence before drafting of the proposed decision is inadequate? [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 11:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC) | A= At the time, people were claiming it was a mistake for the committee to overlook the two parties' conduct in the draft decision. If there was anything in those claims, not investigating them would be a dereliction of the committee's duty. If there was nothing in those claims, allowing them to fester – and not be conclusively proven or disproven – would be to do a disservice to the two parties in question. I would therefore happily issue the same request again, though if it were my case I'd like to think there would be no parties overlooked in the draft decision.<p>There is no usual structure of that nature: arbitrators have full latitude to write a proposed remedy or finding that includes diffs not formally entered into evidence, and they frequently use it. I think I'm one of the few arbitrators that, when writing a finding or remedy about a named editor, offers that editor the chance to rebut it beforehand.}}

==== Question by Wizardman ====
I am shocked that this question hasn’t been asked above, as I feel it is simple yet says a great deal about any candidate. No wrong answer to this question aside from “I don’t know”.
# {{ACE Question | Q= As an arbitrator, what would you do? In other words, would you primarily work on cases, subcommittees, another arbitrator responsibility? (Since you have served as an arbitrator, you're free to simply note what you felt your primary contributions were to arbcom during your term)| A=I actually did all of those things, and a little more. I drafted around a third of the decisions for the caseload I was active on (excepting the handful of cases I was inactive for or recused on). I have sat on BASC for the entirety of my term, and am the most active arbitrator on that subcommittee – most BASC case management is handled by me, and I write and send most BASC decisions or acknowledgments. I do a lot of other miscellaneous stuff, which – as a previous committee member, I'm sure you know – is very important and takes up a lot of time. I'm active in most mailing list threads, though I limit my involvement deliberately because I don't think any one arbitrator should be dominating our discussions or leading from the front on everything. One niche I suppose I've carved out for myself is keeping the committee on-track; I tend to be one of the arbitrators who chases up discussions that are stagnating or items of business that have went unresolved. Without wishing to engage in self-flattery, not acknowledge the other difficulties the drafters in this case had, or not acknowledge the work that everybody else (particularly NuclearWarfare) did on this case, I do think it is telling that the one case that was taking place while I was on an extended vacation – ''Tea Party movement'' – was also the one case in our term that was badly handled and took the longest to resolve. I would continue this work.}}

==== Questions from Hawkeye7 ====
# {{ACE Question | Q= In your candidate resume you did not state what content work you have done. Since that is the whole point of being here, what article work are you most proud of, and what what content do you intend to create in the near future? | A= I do think non-content work is an important secondary endeavour on the project, because a website this size and with no professional staff generates a huge backlog of administration that needs to be kept at bay by our contributors. However, I do outline my mainspace interests on my userspace. I recently did some work on [[Vespasian]], specifically by improving the functionality and layout of the references for that article, and getting rid of an ugly navigation box that was ruining the aesthetics of the article (readers do not want to read an ugly article). I added some badly-needed references to [[Exile of Ovid]]. I did a lot of expansion on [[Golden Retriever]] and [[Donald Dewar]]. I am proud of my work on [[Geopolitics]], for which I won the "Copyedit of the Month" award from the [[WP:GOCE|GOCE]]. I co-wrote [[Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom]] – a good article which is a polished piece of prose about a relatively obscure topic that would probably not be known by the average man on the street. I also co-wrote [[Portal:Scotland]] some years ago – a featured portal – that has stood the test of time and continues to be used by [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Portal:Scotland many] of our readers. I'm not most proud of my work on any one article, because thinking that a single article is anything other than a drop in the ocean seems misguided to me, but I would like to think any one of my improvements – small or large – to the aforementioned pages has made a difference to the encyclopedia and helped many of our readers find the information they need. I don't really go in for featured credits (FA, GA, FL, etc.), though I have done in the past, but that's mainly because I'd rather make small improvements to many articles than to work ferociously on a single page – that's best left for our expert article writers, I think :-).}}
# {{ACE Question | Q=In the ''Civility Enforcement Case'', ArbCom admonished an administrator ''for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee.'' How does that uphold the [[WP:NOTCOMPULSORY]] policy? | A= I don't think editors are ever required to do things they don't wish to do, but I do think administrators accept – when appointed – that they need to explain themselves when asked to do so by a reasonable person. Administrators who choose not to do so are not necessarily punished – so their response is not "compulsory" – but they must expect to have their administrator access revoked, or to be informed it will be revoked if it happens again. Your question does, however, raise an important point: even though ArbCom is the only body that can regulate administrator misjudgement and misconduct, it is important that we not nanny our administrators. If we do nanny them, they'll just resign in disgust; I think the committee in general strikes a good balance between doing its job and not violating the spirit of "NOTCOMPULSORY".}}

==== Question from [[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the [[WP:ARBCOM#LISTS|arbcom-l e-mail list]], as proposed [[User:Risker/Mailing list draft#Internal discussion emails|at the bottom of this draft page]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 15#Seeking feedback on draft language about the mailing list|in this discussion]]?
|A=The ''draft page'' is the committee's own initiative (drafted by Risker, a current arbitrator). I would like to see it implemented.}}

==== Question from [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=First off, let me thank you for running. Now, here's my question. If you had to explain what the job of an arbitrator was to someone who was vaguely familiar with Wikipedia but not the Committee, what would you say? And if that answer's changed since you first ran for the Committee, how so?
|A=You're welcome, but I guess the subtext here is "better you than me" ;-).<p>I'd say: The committee is an organisation of elected, senior editors that issues binding decisions in [[wikt:intractable|intractable]] disputes among the community or editors. The committee is in a strange Wikiconstitutional position, because it also has jurisdiction over: administrator conduct of any kind (it's the only Wikipedia process that can actually result in an administrator having their permissions removed); many situations with real life repercussions for real people; and situations that involve evidence or data not suitable for discussion on a community noticeboard. And they'd probably be bamboozled as to how a single body can have its fingers in so many pies – I wouldn't blame them. Or if they wanted me to be more concise, I'd just describe it as the decision-making body that acts in the community's place – at the community's request or direction – in certain situations.<p>How has that answer changed? Not very much. The committee was largely what I expected it to be before I took my seat, and as a body it has evolved probably the least of everything on Wikipedia. I'd probably say that the job of an arbitrator is a lot more thankless – and unpleasant – than it appears to be from the outside, but that it's also more rewarding than I ever thought it could be. It's quite sad that I do enjoy being part of a committee decision that's done right, particularly because it's just so easy to mess things up as an arbitrator…}}

==== Questions from [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]] ====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in ''Sexology'', the massive embarrassment of the ''Manning'' dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), why do you think you deserve another term as an arbitrator?
|A=If you are referring to JC, I proposed he be topic banned in ''Sexology''. In the ''Manning'' dispute, I was the arbitrator who voted most liberally aside from Kirill (whose votes were obviously too liberal). In the third matter, I have had no involvement to date. I have outlined why I would be a good arbitrator in my candidate statement.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=In the third example given above regarding the undeletion of a libellous BLP, what role did you have in the arbcom-l/oversight-l discussion?
|A=I had no role in the off-site discussions.}}

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

#{{ACE Question
| Q=when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?| A=Briefly: whenever the editor being sanctioned has fundamental behavioural problems that are not merely brought out by a particular group of editors or a particular topic area.}}
#{{ACE Question
| Q=numerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find [[Punishment#Possible_reasons_for_punishment|this]] of interest in framing your reply) | A= I don't think we're saying "this project doesn't want your help", though our decision in that case would amount to saying such a thing. What we're really saying is "thank you for offering, but it is with genuine, sincere regret that we have decided we don't think you are quite the right fit for Wikipedia at this time." The clinical appearance of an ArbCom remedy does not do justice to what I think crosses the mind of any arbitrator worth their salt: that this person we're banning probably loves spending time on Wikipedia, and is actually incapable of reforming – rather than that they refuse to do so. I wouldn't dare read the Punishment article for inspiration in this answer, because I don't think arbitration remedies are at all about punishment, and if ever they are it would be a sad day on a project I wouldn't want to contribute to. Arbitration remedies are about protecting the project, often from its own contributors.}}
#{{ACE Question
| Q=to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to...?) | A= It seems akin to the Ancient Athenian system of [[ostracism]] (loosely to be understood as 'banishment'), a little-used system that worked well for the Athenians. I don't think it is very similar to any existing legal concept, because legal remedies inevitably incorporate some degree of punitiveness – and Wikipedia remedies are supposed to be strictly practical.}}
#{{ACE Question
| Q=The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world ([[List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate]]). Is something to applaud or criticize? | A= The incarceration rate in the United States is on the decrease; see [http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/08/economist-explains-8 here] for a treatment of this trend by the ''Economist.'' I do not think pointless incarceration is something to be applauded, and the consensus among the social scientist and criminologist community is that it is in fact to be actively criticised.}}
#{{ACE Question
| Q=a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see [[User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#When_to_use_the_banhammer_-_and_when_not_to:_a_simple_math|here]]). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?| A= "do a simple math and consider whether the encyclopedia will be better of with a ban or without it. Do consider the ripple effect of the ban, not only the immediate consequences": I absolutely agree. Bans are about doing the best thing for the project, in both a narrow and wide sense.}}
#{{ACE Question
| Q=I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why. | A= Most relevant information is on my user page, and anything else that people need to know about my competence and ability as an arbitrator can probably be derived from my on-site contributions.}}

Thank you, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 06:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

==== Question from [[User:MONGO]] ====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.|A=I work solitarily most of the time, so I must cite {{icon|GA}} [[Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom]] as an example of teamwork in improving an article.}}

====Question from [[User:Sjones23]]====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=As an arbitrator, what steps do you take to help appeal Arbcom bans on BASC (for example in [[Wikipedia_talk:BASC#User:Will_Beback_appeal_voting_results|the BASC discussion on Will Beback's appeal]] back in April)?|A=I am probably the arbitrator who is most active on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (as I believe a guide written by NuclearWarfare, who sat on the committee this year, will verify this). I propose the majority of BASC decisions, and write and sent a majority of them too. David Fuchs, WormThatTurned, and I are also generally the only arbitrators who send the "acknowledgement" messages the BASC uses to let appellants know their appeals have been safely received. To put this into context, we receive anything between a few and 10–20 appeals in a typical week. Without meaning to be immodest, I am confident in saying I do a majority of our work on Ban Appeals.<p>In Will Beback's appeal, I was one of the first arbitrators to publicly set out the rationale for my vote on his appeal, when asked to do so by the community.<p>Does that answer your question? I hope it does, but if it doesn't please feel completely at liberty to ask follow-up questions.}}

====Question from [[User:The Four Deuces]]====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=In the Tea Party movement arbitration case, which lasted 6 months, you added a number of previously uninvolved editors at the very end and recommended topic bans, even though you provided no evidence against them, and none had been presented in the proceedings.  Do you think that evidence and process are important in deciding arbitration cases?  [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 08:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
|A=Thank you for your questions. Yes, I think evidence is of overriding importance. Volunteers should never be sanctioned unless there is very good reason; only a minute proportion of our community are ever even threatened with a sanction, let alone receive one. When they are sanctioned, I think the encyclopedia and its stability are the most important concerns – if somebody needs to be removed from a topic area for the good of our articles, we probably need to do so one way or the other. However, due process is important so that people do not feel mistreated. Sanctions can be proposed against an editor after the original proposed decision is written – as happens in nearly every case, because proposed decisions are never perfect and complete. However, such sanctions still need to take into account the sanctioned editor's view; they still need to be asked for their response to the sanction. I always give people the opportunity to respond to proposals I make, and I always follow up on their response; the Tea Party movement case was no exception.<p>Don't forget that, although the case lasted six months (as you say), one month of that was spent in abeyance, and I was only appointed the drafter to the case in the last couple of months. The case was going in a completely different, and incorrect, direction beforehand. I think the case should be considered in relative terms. Sanctions were proposed at the end of the case, and passed in a matter of weeks. This appears rushed to people used to the previously glacial pace of the Tea Party movement case. However, if those sanctions had been proposed by a community member – say at the administrators' noticeboard – they would have been decided in a matter of days. I think ''that'' would be a lack of due process.}}

==== Question from [[User:HectorMoffet]] ====
[[File:Enwp retention vs active editors.png|thumb|Number of Active Editors has been in decline since 2007.  See also [http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm updated stats] and [[:File:Graph of Wikipedia's active editors and admins, 2000-2012 (July 2012).png|graph]]
]]
The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007. 

This decline has been documented extensively:
:* In our own [https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Trends_Study/Results "Editor Trends Study"]
:* In popular media ([http://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipedia-editors-decline-wikimedia-fellows/ "Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore"])
:* In scholarly literature ([http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf "How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline"])

This raises several questions:
{{clear-right}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?  
|A=Yes, it obviously is a problem. There is still a great amount of work to be done. As all the low-hanging fruit is now picked, much of the work will require more skilled hands, which compounds the problem: we don't just need to attract more contributors, but also the right type of contributors.
}}
# {{ACE Question 
|Q=In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by '''the EnWP Community'''? 
|A=It needs to become more friendly to newbies, and design a website that newbies can more easily follow.
}}
# {{ACE Question 
|Q=In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by '''the Foundation'''?  
|A=It needs to do better at designing a website that newbies can easily follow. MediaWiki, the software that Wikipedia runs on, is archaic and outdated. Forays into overhauling MediaWiki, like VisualEditor, have not been great.
}}
# {{ACE Question 
|Q=Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by '''ArbCom'''?
|A=ArbCom is insignificant to most contributors. I don't think ArbCom has much of a role to play in new editor recruitment; we are largely a reactive body that deals only with the "inner community" of very experienced users. In my experience, the only interaction I have had with newbies as an arbitrator is when a confused user writes to us thinking we are the contact body for Wikipedia (e.g. "I do not like the edits made at article X; please change them to say ABC instead"). We simply handle them any other person would, by gently saying we don't deal with that sort of thing as a committee but as an individual editor who happens to sit on the committee – and therefore received your message – I will be happy to assist.
}}

:: ''Interim response'' {{ping|HectorMoffet}} These four questions are the only ones I haven't answered. I'm going to delay a little longer in answering them, because I must do a little more research first. I'll certainly have your answers up long before voting ends, and probably by tomorrow or the next day. I hope this is acceptable. [[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 18:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
::: Now answered. Thanks, [[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 23:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

==== Question from John Cline ====
# {{ACE Question 
|Q=If you were empowered to grant a pardon for one Arbcom banned user, Who would you choose to pardon? 
|A=I do not think I'd use such a pardon. Editors should not be pardoned, or in other words unbanned without the committee conducting due diligence – e.g. checking the appellant will comply with site policy, will not repeat the past misconduct, etc. Even a system as fickle and complicated as arbitration has, so far, avoided banning a user who we could unthinkingly take past such due diligence.
}}

==== Question from [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?
|A=Any website as powerful as Wikipedia needs to be criticised, just like large corporations should be held accountable by the media, so Wikipediocracy (WO) is theoretically valuable to our community. In practice, its value is diminished. Some of the criticism WO raises is valid. Some of what its users say or do is less useful, or not useful at all. In a way, it has the same problem as Wikipedia does: WO is the sum of its parts. Wikipedia cannot do anything about what is said on WO, and cannot regulate what websites our users choose to frequent, so I do not propose the project "do" anything. However, users that circumvent our harassment policy (or other site norms) by using an intermediary such as WO are still, clearly, answerable to ArbCom.
}}

: On the lateness: that's okay. Questions are welcome at any point. [[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 23:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

::Thank you. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 01:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

==== Question from [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=You and Roger Davies are the only two incumbents who are up for re-election, and you both think I've been excessively harsh in my voter guide. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, so I'll ask a quick question: What accomplishments are you most proud of from your last two years on the committee, and what are your ambitions for the next two years? How would you try to achieve them? There is some overlap with a couple of the questions above, and I realise you've already answered an absurd number of questions, so I'm not looking for something the length of ''War and Peace''.
|A=My accomplishments? Most of these two years have been about finding my feet. There's a steep learning curve to being an arbitrator, but I'd like to think I've navigated it well. I suppose I'm most proud of the fact that I can look back at my old votes and, with only a couple of exceptions out of hundreds, say "I made the right call". I've also been quite diligent about mail management: the famous abyss of arbcom-l is not quite so impenetrable as it was, and messages that receive no acknowledgement or response are now the exception rather than the norm. I've contributed a lot towards that improvement in responsiveness. In "bigger picture" terms, I've consistently voted to take cases about administrator misconduct, and I think I've therefore did a lot to reverse the previous perception that the committee won't touch bad administrators. Today, people can come to arbitration if an administrator has went off the rails and expect to have the committee do something useful. That's not something that happens without real effort by the arbitrators.<p>For the next term, I have outlined a plan for paring back the agglomeration of responsibilities the present committee is labouring under. In order to do "not a lot, well" we need to stop doing "lots, not very well". This is something I spoke about in [[User:AGK/Functus Officio|a userspace essay]] I wrote earlier in the year, and have reiterated in my [[#flag1|answers above]].
}}

====Questions from [[user:iantresman|iantresman]]====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=How important do you think is transparency and accountability for Admins and Arbitrators, bearing in mind that: (a) Checkuser and Oversight have no public logs, even though we could say who accesses these features (without necessarily giving compromising information)? (b) ArbCom has its own off-site discussion area.
|A=Transparency and accountability are very important.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=I see lots of ArbCom cases where editors contribute unsubstantiated acusations without provided diffs, and often provide diffs that don't backup the allegations. Do you think ArbCom should do anything about it? (ie. strike though allegations without diffs).
|A=Yes, I think we should direct unsubstantiated allegations to be withdrawn. I usually do this in cases that I draft. Being in an arbitration case does not give carte blanche to say whatever you want about enemies.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Incivility on Wikipedia is rife. Sometimes it is ambiguous and subjective. But where it is clear, why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?
|A=Where the incivility is clear, I think policy is well-enforced. However, civility is subjective, and it seems to me that the problem lies with comments that some people say is civil and some say is uncivil.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Editors whose username lets them be identified easily in real life, are frequently subjected to "oppositional research" by anonymous editors who can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY. Do you think this double standard is fair, and should anything be done?
|A=I don't think the double standard is the problem, but the outing, sleuthing, and harassment. That one user uses a pseudonym is a red herring, and the best solution is to come down hard on people who try to coerce other editors into backing down in a dispute.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=I see lots of ArbCom cases where Arbitrators appear to ignore the comments of the editors involved. Do you think that basic courtesies should require Arbitrators to make more than just an indirect statement, and actually address the points being made?
|A=I think arbitrators are required to engage with the disputants, yes. If you look back at cases I have drafted, you will see that I have made tens or hundreds of comments to the disputants; I always make a point of engaging with them, and think it is essential not just as a courtesy but to ensure the resulting decision is as good as it can be.}}

: {{ping|iantresman}} Lots to answer here – I will respond soon. Thanks for your patience. [[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 23:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
:: Now answered. Thanks, [[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 20:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

====Question from [[user:Bazonka|Bazonka]]====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?
|A=I do not wish to specify where else I contribute, if anywhere. Arbitrators are too prone to harassment for such an explicit reference to my real-life activities to be safely made. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but as you say – whether I do or don't do real life, off-line Wikipedia networking, outreaching, or volunteering – in either case I have ample company :-).}}

====Question from [[user:Ykantor]]====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Should "Petit crimes" be sanctioned? and how ? <p>The present situation is described as [[User:Wikid77#Wiki opinions continued]] says: ''"some acting as "inter-wikicity gangs" with limited civility (speaking euphemistically)...Mob rule: Large areas of wikis are run by mobocracy voting. Numerous edit wars and conflicts exist in some highly popular groups of articles, especially in recent events or news articles. In those conflicts, typically 99% of debates are decided by mob rule, not mediated reason...Future open: From what I've seen, the Wiki concept could be extended to greatly improve reliability, but allow anonymous editing of articles outside a screening phase, warning users to refer to the fact-checked revision as screened for accuracy (this eventually happened in German Wikipedia"''<p>At the moment there is no treatment of those little crimes. i.e. deleting while cheating, lying, arguing for a view with no support at all against  a well supported opposite view, war of attrition tactics, deleting a supported sentence, etc. The result is distorted articles and some fed up editors who discontinue to edit.  I can provide examples, if asked for. <p>In my view, each of these small scale problems does not worth a sanction , but the there should be a counting mechanism, such as a user who has accumulated a certain amount of them, should be sanctioned. What is your view?<p><p>In my very limited experience, the arbitrators has ignored those small misconducts. In my opinion, they might have consider it, if they could know the accumulated misconducts. [[User:Ykantor|Ykantor]] ([[User talk:Ykantor|talk]]) 16:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
|A=I agree that small incivilities can together have a large disruptive effect. However, in most cases the arbitration process is good about identifying and remedying diffused disruption.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Does Our NPOV policy mean that an editor is violating the policy if he only contributes to one side?<p>The issue is discussed her: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Gilabrand].<p>In my opinion, the view that every post should be neutral leads to a built in absurd. Suppose that the best Wikipedia editor is editing a group of biased articles. He is doing a great job and the articles become neutral. The editor should be sanctioned because every single edit (as well as the pattern of edits) is biased toward the other side. !|A=No, the policy does not mean that. The hypothetical editor should not be sanctioned.}}
#{{ACE Question
|Q= Sorry to bother you again with one continuation question<p>There are ignored rules. Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how? <p> e.g. <p> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone]<p> [[wp:IUC | lying]] <p> <p>I can show that those 2 rules were ignored in the [[wp:arbcom]] but those are just an example. There are more ignored rules. So, Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
|A= }}


====Questions from [[user:Martinevans123]]====
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Should articles ever use The ''[[Daily Mail]]'' as a reference source? Should articles ever use ''[[YouTube]]'' videos as external links? Is there still any place for a "[[WP:civility]]" policy, or does it depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes? Is humour now an outdated concept at Wikipedia? Thanks. (p.s. you're my favourite [[Astronomische Gesellschaft Katalog|astrometric star catalogue]]). [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
|A=}}