Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Kww/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

1. Skills and experience:

   a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?

   Externally, I am a computer professional, and have a wealth of technical experience in that area. On-wiki, I have been generally involved dealing with socks and ban evasion.

   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.

   I've been involved with Arbcom several times. Memorably, there was the case where they refused to clarify one of their decisions, and, instead, turned on me for being impudent enough to ask for a clarification. My initial experience wasn't much better, where it took them forever to understand that an admin that unblocked a serial vandal wasn't doing his job very well. More recently, it was when Scott MacDonald misapplied BLP and blocked me for following consensus and moving articles protected with Pending Changes to either semi-protection or unprotected, as I deemed appropriate. Quite amusingly, they passed an injunction that attempted to force all admins to semi-protect all articles that had been under Pending Changes (an injunction which no administrator obeyed). As you can see at the end, they never did desysop Scott Macdonald, despite the fact that he had wheel-warred and blocked another administrator during the course of his wheel-warring. As I said in my statement, I believe that Arbcom tends to miss the point of everything brought before it.

2. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?

   • I tend towards fairly literal readings and strict interpretations. I'm reasonably inclined to grant second chances, and I'm adamantly opposed to granting third chances.

3. ArbCom Practices:

   a) ArbCom and policies:

   i) 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.

   I certainly think that Arbcom can take positions on policy. One of the reasons things get to Arbcom is because our policies surrounding the events are unclear, and it would be ludicrous to expect them to explain decisions without making reference as to what portions of policy they found irrelevant, unclear, or impeding what they perceived as a just result. Based on my general distrust of Arbcom's ability to get the point of the material laid in front of them, I don't trust them to directly modify policy. I have no problem with Arbcom starting RFCs that recommend changes in policy, and that's generally how I would like to see it done.

   ii) 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?

   Explanatory. In general, I find that discussions that devolve down to being based on the five pillars are discussions where people are simply convinced they are right and are unable to provide any meaningful evidence to support that belief.

   iii) 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?

   The primary issue that Arbcom needs to emphasise is that nothing in our current policies should be construed as restricting the introduction of well-sourced material into biographies, and they should not be used as a pretext for removing material simply because the subject no longer wants that portion of their life reported or emphasized. While Arbcom can't make policy, it can take steps to make certain that people don't use egregious misinterpretations of policies as an excuse for misbehaviour.

   b) 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.

   I don't foresee a practical fashion for Arbcom to impose content decisions. The closest that I would feel comfortable with would be Arbcom crafting an RFC over a topic, but I can't see them effectively forcing a consensus. The way the Muhammad dispute earlier this year was handled made sense to me, despite the fact that I think the community got the answer to that RFC wrong.

   c) ArbCom and motions:

   i) 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.

   It seems reasonable when the facts are not in dispute, policy is relatively clear, and a full case is unwarranted. The time they are used that I think they should be strictly forbidden in when a request for clarification is made. I've been bit by that, as was Malleus. The community asking "hey, precisely what did you mean by that?" is not an appropriate trigger point for new law.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   ii) 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?

   Without an active case, Arbcom is powerless. If they can't even persuade someone to open a case, there's obviously not enough support for their entry into the issue to warrant them taking any action.

   iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 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.

   First of the recent motions that was inappropriate was attempting to keep Mathsci from dealing with people that enabled the constant sockpuppet attacks against him. I can understand that the interaction caused disruption, but the message should have been an extremely strong one that all Wikipedia editors are expected to assist in preventing banned editors from editing, and that intentionally restoring a talk page edit from a banned editor is completely unacceptable. There's a contingent of Wikipedia that insists on helping banned editors edit, and there are even Arbcom members, such as Risker, that don't seem to understand why edits by banned editors need to be be reverted. It was an opportunity so send a strong message of intolerance for proxying, but, instead, it was used to subtly undermine our banning policies.—Kww(talk) 03:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:

   i) 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?

   Yes.

   ii) 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?

   No reason to destroy it, and it should be available to future Arbcoms.

   iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?

   I don't know of any body similar to Arbcom anywhere that has been successfully forbidden to have private sessions. It's a noble goal, but impractical.

   iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?

   I'll have to research this one more to provide an answer I can defend.

   v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?

   I'm known.

   vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?

   I think we've made a serious mistake by confusing the concept of privacy with the idea of editing a public website. We never should have made any assertion that we considered a person's identity to be private. That said, we did make that assertion, and we are bound by it. Having made the commitment to keep the information private, we cannot reveal evidence that would reveal an editor's real life identity. The cases that seem to be the most controversial are the ones that are also the most trivial: if an editor's identity is already public, there's no reason to keep some pretense that it is private.

   e) 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?

   I don't know of any judicial system that permits stare decisis to be a straightjacket, so, in that sense, previous decisions should not be binding. That doesn't mean that subsequent decisions shouldn't be informed by previous decisisons, and, when a new decision represents a major break with the past, Arbcom needs to figure out what to do about the past.

4. 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?

   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?

5. 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 "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   Absolutely. My experience with them has been over parapsychology, homeopathy, mysticism, and, most recently, imagery of Muhammad. In a perfect illustration of my earlier statement about how referencing the five pillars is usually a sign of a personal belief, I've gone on record as stating that the very fact that we are an encyclopedia (note the cunning reference to the first pillar) means that we should ban all editors that attempt to portray any form of pseudoscience as true, and that we have to absolutely ignore all religious objections to material that isn't intended as an attack. I don't think either of those steps should be undertaken unilaterally by Arbcom. As for the general problem, it's situational. One can't ban someone for being civil, and it's difficult to get consensus that someone's POV makes them unsuitable for editing an encyclopedia.

   b) "Factionalism" 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?

   To ignore factionalism is to ignore reality. I think it has two impacts:

   I) We have to recognise that some conflicts will never be resolved. An Arbcom resolution will do nothing about Palestine or Macedonia.

   II) We have to recognize that some "evidence" is produced through highly selective cherry-picking, and expect Arbcom to do due diligence in collecting the whole picture.

   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?

   I'm not so convinced that we do. The nature of a project with nearly 4 million articles is that it needs to be paying attention to reduction and consolidation of material, which is different from the "pile it on, faster and deeper" that characterised the project in its early days. It's natural that we will lose editors in that process. One man's "problem with retaining editors" is another man's "success at weeding out problematic editors".

6. Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   The Muhammad images case was interesting, and not badly handled. I firmly disagree with the final result, in that I think that as an encyclopedia, we are obligated to give no consideration to religious-based objections to our content. The process used was not that bad, though: the truly obnoxious editors championing censorship were admonished or banned, those of us that talked about it a lot were cautioned not to be like those two, and the fundamental question was thrown to an RFC. That the community failed to get the right answer in the RFC isn't Arbcom's fault, and I'm not certain that I would want them to be more forceful about generating the right answer. Strangely enough, it was one of the few times that Jclemens and I were in alignment: I tend to disagree with his positions on most things.

7. Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

   I think it's more a case of doing what Arbom is supposed to do sanely, rationally, and without losing sight of the ball than it is of any fundamental change in the processes.

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question:
#:A:

---

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. 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, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

   A:10 weeks? A little slow, but not unacceptably so. This doesn't seem like a situation that is going to endanger Wikipedia's existence or anything, so its priority was probably a bit on the low side.

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A:To bring together a group of users with a common interest with an eye towards improving coverage of an area and coming to a consensus about how Wikipedia guidelines and policies shape coverage of a topic area. Some work pretty well, some attempt to subvert policies and guidelines to favour inclusion of material.

3. 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:Absolutely. I don't think it is curable: too many people believe that the addition of valuable content provides a free pass on other areas. We have editors that lie and misrepresent sources that cannot be stopped because of a large contingent of supporters.

4. Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?

   A:Hard to imagine that I would do something that warranted it. There are, at times, mistakes made that are too big to heal and prevent actual work from getting done. I hope I would recognize that I had made such an error if I had.

5. 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:Certainly there are editors that have been provoked into misbehaving. Not everyone can stay cool, calm, and collected in the face of insults. I'm somewhat inclined to cut younger editors a bit of slack in this area, because it really is hard for a teenager to understand that everything passes, that they will look back at their current infatuation with Demi Lovato/Selena Gomez/Lady Gaga/Adele/whoever with a sigh and a chuckle someday, and that nothing that happens on Wikipedia is really of grave importance.

   I've noted some comments on the above statement, so I'm going to clarify and expand. I didn't say that all teenagers are Demi Lovato fans, or even mean to imply it. What I do believe is that as one gets older, the intensity of a person's attachments to external things fades. For most of us, the things that got us really excited and passionate when we were younger become things that are interesting later, and eventually become fond memories. It's hard for me to really even remember how it felt to be as excited and charged up about things as I used to get. What I can remember is that I did get so excited and charged up, and things that I can shrug off today as "meh ... that's his opinion" would have been fighting words that I couldn't let go of. It's because of that shift (which I think is an inevitable part of aging) that I'm inclined to be more lenient with younger editors when it comes to disputes. Show me a 13-year-old that thinks Lady GaGa is worth fighting over, and I'll understand it as a part of the normal maturation cycle, and be willing to believe that given time, that same editor will be able to be productive in many areas. Show me a 50-year-old that thinks Lady GaGa is worth fighting over, and I'm quite willing to believe that he hasn't got sufficient detachment from the topics he edits to ever be effective.

6. ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?

   A:Jacobellis v. Ohio clearly applies. People attempt to bring WP:INVOLVED into the picture at inappropriate times to bolster cases of admin abuse, and it's generally an effort to turn an unpopular action into an abusive action. Every admin is accused of it, fewer of us actually do it. When it does happen, corrective actions short of desysopping are generally available.

7. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?

   A:I think of it as a one-way street. We can't police what happens on other sites, but we certainly can read them. If an editor is spending his time on other sites insulting and reviling another editor, he can't reasonably come to Arbcom and explain that that other editor was misinterpreting his good intentions on English Wikipedia. Similarly, if he has publicly linked his account to his identity on another site, he can't cry about outing here.

8. What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?

   A:Fear and trepidation. I have, however, been a fairly unpopular person using my real name for a number of years, so my other safeguards must be having sufficient effect.

9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?

   A:Yes.

Thank you. Rschen7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Jayen466

1. Do you still stand by the following statement you made last year on my talk page? "Muslim scholars are not reliable sources about Muhammad, no more than they or Christian scholars are reliable sources about Jesus Christ as a historical figure. Anyone that believes someone to be a prophet, divine, or blessed by supernatural beings is capable of being disinterested or objective about the factual nature of the person's life or historical impact. It's an insurmountable obstacle.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

   A: Did I really say "capable" instead of "incapable"? Apparently so. With that obvious correction, yes. Issues like this cannot be dispassionately examined by adherents, and that makes statements made by them inherently suspect.

2. If the answer to 1 is yes, and this issue should ever come up in an arbitration case, would you seek to sanction people who have cited a Jewish scholar on Moses, a Muslim scholar on Muhammad, a Christian scholar on Jesus, a Buddhist scholar on Buddha, etc., for violating sourcing policy?

   A:Using a bad source is not usually a reason to sanction anyone. Insisting on using a bad source when it has been objected to could be, depending on circumstance. Use of biased sources is endemic in Wikipedia, and disputes over them rarely rise to Arbcom level.

Thanks. Andreas JN466 04:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from SirFozzie

First off, thank you for running again. Last year, you ran, and finished well down on the list of candidates (with 38.3% support). I'm curious to see what you feel has changed, either with yourself, or with the people you expect to vote, that leads to believe that you will be successful this year? SirFozzie (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Last year, my position on BLPs was misconstrued and I was unable to get that corrected. That misapprehension appeared in several of the well-respected guides, and my candidacy was finished. I'm not some child that wishes to put unsourced material into BLPs. Quite the opposite, in fact: given free choice, I would make all articles require the level of source quality that we require of BLPs (not that that would be within the scope of an Arbcom member).

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

1. How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?

   A: Replacement with the next lower qualifying person from the most recent election comes to mind. Long absences should not be tolerated.

2. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team? Why?

   A:Please phrase the question in the form of a question.

   Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee. Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?

   Primarily Case Management and Ban Appeals. Case Management because I believe it is the most important work, and Ban Appeals because the vast majority of my work is block and ban enforcement.—Kww(talk) 21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from The Devil's Advocate

1. How would you define "civil POV-pushing" and what would you examine to determine if there has been civil POV-pushing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

   A:Jacobellis v. Ohio applies again. MartinPhi was a master at this, and Ludwigs2 certainly tried. It basically consists of politely clinging to a generally ludicrous position, refuting all efforts at reasoning with skewed versions of policies and guidelines, and attempting to wear your opponent down by attrition. If the opponent goes away, fine. If he doesn't, but finally gets irritated, pounce on the irritation as proof that you are persecuted and the irritated statement is a WP:CIVIL violation. Escalate the conflict, further irritating your opponent, and see if you can get him to completely lose control. The problem comes in getting community consensus that the position taken is so clearly wrong that the irritation is justifiable: such a consensus is rarely forthcoming. In general, if I'm convinced that's what is happening, I'm going to be inclined to sanction the irritant more than the irritated.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

1. Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.

   There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.

   How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?

   A:I know it would be politically better to claim "community", but anyone that reviewed my actions would see through that fairly quickly. I tend to view guidelines as fairly close kin to rules: "Here's how you should act under these conditions unless there's some unanticipated context". That interpretation allows editors to know what to expect, and shields the admin from accusations of favoritism.

2. What does "Civility" mean to you?

   A: Not insulting other editors. It doesn't mean that you can't accuse them of misbehaviour, though. There's a world of difference between "Madeupeditor357 is lying about the contents of that source in order to favor the 'Out of Brooklyn' theory of human origins" and "Madeupeditor357 is just another lying Brooklynite that's trying to claim his neighborhood is the center of the world". Kind of the same statement, not the same thing.

Questions from NE Ent (talk · contribs)

1. Could you expound upon "disturbed by Arbcom's ability to miss the point and ignore obvious implications of all issues", with specific emphasis on how it relates to Arbcom's mandate not to make policy?

   A:Nearly every Arbcom case I've been involved in has wound up with decision that struck me as not addressing the crux of the issue. The one I led with above, for example: an admin blocks another admin and wheel-warred, waving an egregriously wrong interpretation of WP:BLP as a cover. The wheel-warring alone was, at the time, considered grounds for a summary desysop. It was impossible to get Arbcom to even look at that aspect: instead, the discussion focused on attempting to force admins to apply semi-protection to articles that did not require it.

   The other encounter linked above was actually the outcome of another tragedy: TTN was an editor that was, at worst, overzealous in trying to follow existing policy, and was being overwhelmed by an opposing faction that reverted redirects to restore articles that failed multiple policies, logged out to disruptively edit-war those redirects, sockpuppeted, you name it. E&C2 was a perfect case for Arbcom to come down with a clear and firm ruling that in a situation like that, admins were expected to evaluate such issues in the light of guidelines and policies and come down hard on the editors that were violating them. Instead, TTN was subjected to topic bans and admins took to blocking him, using those topic bans as a justification, even when those bans had not been violated, and applying sanctions greatly in excess of those authorized by the Arbcom ruling. As you can see in the linked discussion, it was made clear that even attempting to get clarification of the boundaries of the ban was considered disruptive enough that Kirill siezed upon the clarification request as a pretext for an attempt at topic banning me.

   These aren't cases of making policy or not, these are cases of looking at the facts of a case and apparently not even being able to judge what parts of policy apply.

Could you explicitly link the first (blp) case you're referring to? NE Ent 21:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For context, note that Newyorkbrad had given us a deadline to remove PC from all articles that was about 48 hours in the future from the filing of the case, and that I was one of a group of admins that were proceeding down exactly the same list at nearly exactly the same speed.—Kww(talk) 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Count Iblis (talk · contribs)

1. What do you think of the platform of the ArbCom Reform Party? Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

   A) I'm at a loss to see what that is really intended to accomplish. As it says there, this is a project to build an encyclopedia. It needs a lightweight, rapid justice system that normally does a reasonable job. It doesn't need to be perfect, and it doesn't need to have elaborate safeguards, because the only consequence it can impose is blocking you from editing the website. In the great scheme of life, that's not much of a consequence.

Question from User:Casliber

I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can evaluate an argument about sources without performing some independent evaluation of the sources. There's a parallel at AFD, where you find contributors claiming that there are multiple independent sources for a topic. It's very difficult to weight an argument like "multiple, independent sources" without doing some evaluation of the sources. In cases like that, I try to extend the benefit of the doubt to the person making the argument, but sometimes you find that the argument is a blatant lie, and needs to be given no weight in evaluating consensus. Similar things happen in arbitration. It's not the role of Arbcom to evaluate sources with an eye towards generating final content, but it certainly is within their remit to do that evaluation in order to weigh arguments and evaluate the credibility of the people in the case. I did a quick review of your notes, and didn't see anything that I have grave disagreement with.—Kww(talk) 01:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I should have done this in the first post - so let's say this is three months' time, you're an arb, and there's one of these cases, and there are complaints by editor A about editor B on source misuse (choices below). Be mindful that asking for Community Review might be a loooooong time in coming. So, which of the following do you examine? --> (a) misrepresenting sources, (b) using synthesis to push a point of view, (c) reliability of sourcing, (d) undue weight? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that any of those are 100% absolutely unreviewable. You have (perhaps intentionally), ranked them in order of increasing danger. In general, misrepresentation and synthesis are four corner cases. All that needs to be examined are the direct text of the source and the direct text of the edits in question. An analysis tends to be repeatable, and can be objective. Reliability of sourcing can be subtle. Certainly, if I found and editor that was using TMZ.com to support edits in the area of molecular biology, I wouldn't have any problem in using the idea that the source was unreliable in an Arbcom decision. Once you get into biased sources, you can easily get too far into editorial judgement to be on safe ground using it as a portion of an arbcom ruling. Undue weight is even further out of the safe zone: there are certainly cases that are so far out of balance that any editor editing in good faith will reach the same conclusion, but generally, appropriate weighting of material is editorial judgement, and out of Arbcom's remit.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Cunard

Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC closes

1. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
2. There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review regarding review of closes of requests for comment.

   Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?

   Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."

   Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.

   Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?

   A:"Summarily"? Only in cases where the close appears to have been made in bad faith or was egregiously wrong.

3. The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?"

   Deletion discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5#Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#NAC, supervote and vote counting for several recent examples.
   
   Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Move review, or something else.

   A:I don't believe this is a frequent enough occurrence to require a formal noticeboard and process. One way or the other, the reversal should be brought up at either AN or ANI, and consensus on the reversal should be sought. Sometimes the consent should be sought before reversal, and sometimes after: that's a case-by-case call.

Transparency

• Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
  1. Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.

     A: I tend to agree. In all governmental processes, openness is a good thing. I do see it as being idealistic, though: every justice system I'm aware of has some level of closed discussion.

  2. If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.

     A:Again, this is a case of wrong people, not wrong processes. It doesn't require a formal standard, it simply requires a dedication on the part of Arbcom members to conduct their business on open forums.

Recusals

1. In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.

   See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk regarding this case request.

   See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."

   Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.

   A)I'm sympathetic to AGK's plight and reasoning. There are several editors that have hurled abuse in my direction. It's part of the territory of being an admin. If that's all it took, any editor could write a couple dozen well-placed insults and suddenly become completely immune to Arbcom, and that's an obviously ridiculous result. I'd recuse in the event that the case involved an article about me, a family member, or any direct business connection of mine.

2. Former arbitrator Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.

   A)As above, I'd recuse in the event that the case involved an article about me, a family member, or any direct business connection of mine.

Consensus

1. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley?

   If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?

   A) I would probably not have closed it. If forced to, "no consensus". I'm sympathetic with Drmies, and have closed against vote-count in more lopsided AFD discussions that that one. When a delete consideration is based on policy (especially WP:NOT or a subset thereof), the "delete" votes need to counter that argument successfully before any argument based on notability can even be considered. It's not clear to me whether the BLP1E argument was successfully countered in that discussion.

2. After considering Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley?

   A)The DRV is even worse. Most of the "overturn" votes don't correctly evaluate Drmies's behaviour with respect to policy. The question is not whether and admin is allowed to close against this kind of vote count, but whether he weighted the votes properly. Two different arguments.

3. WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
4. The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).

   (a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?

   (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?

5. When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.

   A) "Number" of votes doesn't matter for much. The question is whether the deletion argument has been rationally countered. I give much higher weight to arguments that at least mention the deletion argument. "I know this fails WP:FILLINTHEBLANK, but I think we should make an exception in this case because of reason" weighs a lot more then just stating the reason.

6. Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?

   A) A balance. On occasion, you see a calm, rational debate between parties as to which policies apply, and an admin that attempted to impose his own position on top of that would be treading on extremely dangerous ground. More generally, you see parties talk past each other: partially understood policy names are bandied about wildly but never mutually discussed, and an admin that attempts to weigh the arguments has no choice but to try to determine what the actual policy-based positions are.

7. Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?

   A) Opposed. This was one of the "you can do whatever the hell you want as long as you shout BLP! loudly while doing it" cases. Bad decision and bad precedent. A group of admins that should have been considered for desysopping on grounds of malfeasance had their position enshrined as acceptable by Arbcom instead.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Desysopping

• EncycloPetey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee on 8 September 2012. His last edit was four hours after the arbitration case was filed 29 August 2012. At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey, arbitrators Hersfold (talk · contribs) and Courcelles (talk · contribs) said they would have supported an admonishment and not a desysop had EncycloPetey acknowledged his errors and pledged not to make those mistakes in the future. But because he was non-responsive for a week, the Arbitration Committee opted to desysop him.
  1. Would you have supported or opposed this motion to desysop? Would you have proposed a different motion?

     A)In this specific case, yes, but not because of his inactivity. His inactivity was preceded by lashing out at everybody involved in the process, and I see no reason to believe that anything he said later would have been more constructive than the prior discussion. If it was truly a case of silence, I may well have had qualms and simply banned from editing until a response was received and the case reopened.

  2. In his statement, former arbitrator Carcharoth (talk · contribs) mentioned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision#History of the case as a similar case where an admin left in the middle of a case. He wrote, "ArbCom is not a court, but being able to build in delays for single-party arbitration cases should not be impossible (this would not apply to multi-party arbitrations about a volatile and current issue)."

     Do you agree with his position on building in delays for single-party arbitration cases? If yes, describe how would you have built in a delay for EncycloPetey.

     A)As I said above, I'd at least consider implementing an editing ban until the case concluded, and then holding the case in suspension. I'm not certain how well it would work, but it could be tried. The only case I can think of where somethng similar was tried involved A Nobody, and he was so contemptuous of the proceeding that he socked to evade it.

  3. A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship?

     A)RFA. Unproblematic editing is nearly unrelated to unproblematic adminship, so it doesn't automatically create fresh trust in him as an admin.

Civility case clarification request

• A request for clarification was filed for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement in October 2012. See this permanent link before the discussion was archived by a clerk.
  1. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, one arbitrator called Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) "a net negative". Do you agree or disagree that Malleus Fatuorum is a net negative?
  2. A second arbitrator wrote that "Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made." (He later revised the comment.)

     (a) One view is that this comment is an honest and justified—though perhaps overly frank and poorly worded—assessment of the situation that was mischaracterized by some members of the community. An opposing view is that this comment is a hurtful, inappropriate comment that kicked an editor when he was down and inflamed the situation. Please share your thoughts about this comment.

     (b) Does this comment violate Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?

     (c) Was the block of this arbitrator for "personal attacks" justified or unjustified under Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?

     (d) Describe your thoughts about what it means to be a Wikipedian. Include discussion about indefinitely blocked editors and banned editors, both those who have contributed positively to the encyclopedia and those who have only vandalized the encyclopedia.

  3. Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum?
  4. The motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum and the comments made by some arbitrators sparked much dissent in the community. Some editors considered leaving Wikipedia: Sitush, Black Kite, Floquenbeam, John, Pablo X, RegentsPark, Boing! said Zebedee, Drmies, SpacemanSpiff, ThatPeskyCommoner, Beetstra, and Nortonius.

     (a) When there is such a backlash to a proposed decision, how does the backlash factor into your decision?

     (b) SilkTork (talk · contribs) withdrew his support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum the same day he wrote, "The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want."

     Do you agree or disagree with his opinion?

  5. Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to further restrict Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)'s participation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (2)?
  6. If you would have opposed the above two motions, or if you believe a better decision could have been made, what action would you have suggested?
  7. Courcelles (talk · contribs) wrote on his talk page, "As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying 'you get the admins you get, no opinions from you' but still having them be a member of the community."

     Do you agree or disagree with his need to have "an insanely high bar" to ban users from RfA?

  8. Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?
  Omnibus answer I'm going to resist having my thought processes channeled down your thought process by your questions. I reject some of your foundation presumptions, especially this "net negative" and "net positive" stuff (and before someone chases down my contributions and accuses me of hypocrisy for having use the phrases in the past, well, yes I have: sometimes one chooses to phrase an argument in a way a crowd will accept). Behaviour and content contribution are completely independent topics. The question was not "Did Malleus's content contributions outweigh his behavioural problems?" because that's like asking "Is fluffiness longer than yellow?" It's an unanswerable and nonsensical question. The questions are "Did the content contributions Malleus made show sufficient competence and quality?" and "Does Malleus's behaviour fall within the range we find acceptable for Wikipedia editors?" If, and only if the answer to both questions is "yes", should an editor be allowed to continue editing. In Malleus's case, the answer the to first was clearly "yes" and the answer to the second is debatable. As long as people keep mangling the two issues together, that debate will never conclude.
  To expand on one point
  As for the infamous remark by Jclemens, I think that was a very bad turn of phrase and illustrative of an unsuitable demeanor for this job.

Note and thank you

I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to #RfC closes, #Transparency, and #Civility case clarification request, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.

Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Question(s) from Risker

With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.

How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. That's part and parcel of being a part of any kind of legislative/judicial body. Doesn't prevent me from encouraging people to elect others that disagreed with the decision in the next election in an effort to overturn a bad ruling, but while it's in effect, it's in effect.

Question from SilkTork

As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Varies with my contract status, but I'm generally awake from somewhere around 1400 UTC until 0700 UTC. When I have a full-time contract, a big hole gets put in that, usually around 1600 UTC - 2400 UTC.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Agent00f

From the remarks here ("consolidation of material"), on the candidate discussion page, and your talk page, you seem to favor a vision for wiki that trims content in the context of strict rules for inclusion (eg. deleting a few 10K sports pages across auto-racing/tennis/equestrian/etc as a start). It shouldn't be difficult to see why such a path could become quite contentious with many if not most all content editors. How do you foresee handling such disputes as a member of ArbCom when they come to pass? It seems dangerous to alienate those who provide wiki's base material ("It's natural that we will lose editors in that process. One man's "problem with retaining editors" is another man's "success at weeding out problematic editors"), so can you describe any general plan as to how to handle those problematic editors who might not agree with such an outlook from someone in a position of authority? Agent00f (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We've always had issues with overly-inclusive editors. In some cases, our policies for inclusion were modified/ignored to accommodate them (very few articles about fictional characters or television episodes actually meet WP:V's requirement that they be based on independent sources, for example), and in other cases, such as the Warhammer Wikiproject, the wikiproject finally came into line with expectations. It's no secret that I fall towards the exclusionist end of the inclusionist/exclusionist spectrum. As one member of Arbcom, you should expect that I won't prevail on issues where I fall too far outside the norm. I would, however, act as a counterweight to Jclemens and Casliber, who fall as far outside the norm towards inclusionism as I do towards exclusionism.

This doesn't really answer anything as it was already clear beforehand where you stand on exclusionism. Let's rephrase the question in hopes it will be eventually be addressed: strict exclusion is by its very nature extremely contentious as it creates a direct conflict between the people who write wiki and the people who would ostensibly rule wiki by mass-removing their content. The wiki "norm" is also quite open as evident from its tool design and access rules, so favoring instead a closed curated garden is a dramatic change in direction from everything it stands for, which seems contentious across the board. Assuming you don't figure to fail in these aspirations, do you any plan to the address the upheaval which would result from "success"? Surely those affected by categorical removal policies against their work won't choose to leave quietly. Agent00f (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)