Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Hersfold/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?

   I have served on the Committee before, which means I know exactly what it is I'm getting into (which makes it all the more curious why I'm running again). On top of that, I've been a clerk on-and-off for some time now, both of which mean that I am very familiar with the Arbitration process, what approaches work best/are best avoided. As I mention in my statement, I worked for a time in my university's residential life department, and with that came more dispute resolution training than I'd care to talk about; while the face-to-face sort of discussion it focused on obviously isn't applicable here, many of the lessons learned can be easily transferred to an online setting. From a technical standpoint, I've been a checkuser for over two years and am very experienced with the tool, and can assist in sensitive investigations as well as assisting new Arbs with learning the ropes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

   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.

   Again, I've served on the Committee previously, and continue to serve them as a clerk; cases in which I've participated include, in no particular order:

   • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf (arbitrator)
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian (arbitrator)
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466 (clerk)
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light (clerk)
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley (clerk)
   • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (party)
   • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG (clerk, I think)

   Some may be missing from that list; it's a little hard to keep track of these, especially the clerked cases. In addition to this, I was one of Betacommand's Committee-appointed mentors for a time. I also assist with unblock requests frequently; while not a part of the DR process, the two do often intersect, particularly when edit wars spring up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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 tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?

   I feel that once an issue has come to the point where ArbCom has accepted a case, there is a severe issue at hand that needs to be resolved through whatever means necessary. This is not to say I'm going to ban everyone who walks in the door, not by far, but with that being a 10, I'd say I'm around a 7. That said, if it seems like the issue could be resolved entirely through more lenient, less binding measures, then I probably would rather ArbCom not take the case in the first place. The dispute resolution process is set up so that those who will benefit from second chances will get them and will improve; there are multiple steps for just this reason. Genuine displays of contrition/a genuine commitment to improve would likely influence me against such harsh measures, however. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

3. ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.

   ArbCom should never directly edit policy. Wikipedia works on consensus, and while there may be a consensus amongst the committee that there are problems with Policy X, we cannot assume that our views represent that of the community in any particular case. ArbCom serves as a Supreme Court, not a legislature; we interpret policy in the context of a particular dispute, but do not have the authority to make it (that's not the best analogy, as unlike the US Supreme Court, ArbCom also lacks the ability to decree that a policy should be removed, but anyway). If there is a situation where we feel a policy needs work, we must work as individuals, in the open, to see it changed; I worry that even a motion to the effect of "the community should consider revising Policy X" will be interpreted as many as decree of "Policy X must change." Users should have the right to have a say in the creation of the policies they are expected to follow; despite being a top-ten website, our community is just small enough that it's more or less worked for us so far. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

4. ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.

   As above, I don't feel as though the Committee has much place here beyond what they have historically had. From what I have seen, extremely contentious content disputes are generally relatively simple once the extremists on either end are removed from the equation. That is the role ArbCom serves in these disputes - to remove those who are causing such extreme disruption that the community is unable to deal with them, so that the community can get on with its business. I do not feel as though ArbCom should ever have a place in binding content decisions; this is best left to open or semi-closed fora such as talk pages, noticeboards, or mediation. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

5. ArbCom and motions:

   a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.

   An ArbCom motion is intended for amendments to a previously covered case, resolving disputes that have been through the dispute resolution process and yet appear to be fairly easy to resolved based on statements from involved persons, when concerns about privacy make a full public case inappropriate, and purely procedural or emergency matters (including confirmation of actions taken by a minority of the Committee through emergency procedures). The first and last are fairly clear-cut, I think, but I feel the second justification should be used very sparingly; only when a full case seems entirely unneccessary due to a high level of detail provided in statements and when there do not appear to be any potential complications in the matter. Most likely, a single person, or perhaps two people, would be responsible for the problems being reported. For example, if a case had been through formal mediation and largely resolved through that process, and yet two editors refused to accept the results of mediation and continued to disrupt, that could possibly be handled via motion. In cases regarding privacy, such closed discussions should only take place with the consent of whomever the privacy concerns concern. They should also be advised of the motion before it is announced, and given a chance then to request a full, public case in lieu of the motion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

   b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?

   Any situation not covered in the above should be handled via a full case or some sort of community discussion. Except in cases where ArbCom has specifically stated the community may not overrule them (i.e., a desysopping that states that the tools may only be returned via the Committee or at RfA after X period of time), I believe the community has the right to overrule the Committee on just about any matter (and in fact some cases have been decided with this in mind); as a result, I do not believe the Committee has any right to overrule a clear consensus amongst the community. As for the last question, I would strongly prefer that ArbCom be asked to come in and determine a way to go rather than do so of their own accord; to continue the Supreme Court metaphor from above, you don't see a small bunch of old people in robes marching into the Capitol Building to tell Congress how the budget's going to work. They have no grounds from which to do so, and nor does ArbCom - it smacks too much of declaring policy by fiat. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

   c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.

   I feel as though the motion desysopping Rodhullandemu should have been a full case in the first place. It's possible that events may have turned out differently had Rod had a chance to defend himself publicly; however, given that the Committee's stated intent of doing this by motion was to specifically avoid the sort of thing that ended up happening, I can certainly understand why they did so even if I don't entirely agree with it. Nonetheless, this wasn't much of an emergency and Rod obviously didn't consent to a closed motion, so it doesn't fit within the criteria I've laid out above. On the other side of things, I think the motion regarding Nabla's admin rights was appropriate; if someone if willing to acknowledge their mistakes and improve upon them, I don't believe that they should be given the harshest treatment that would otherwise be given for a case. The motion could have had a bit more of a bite to it, I will grant that (i.e., some sort of probation), but I don't think a desysopping was in order here, and agree with the general outcome. This falls under my second criteria above, as the only user causing difficulty admitted to it before the case could be opened, and thus a clear resolution presented itself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

6. Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:

   a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?

   Having been on the Committee before, I can say that in some cases, while somewhat undesirable for obvious reasons, this is necessary. Some unpleasant issues will resurface, sometimes long after checkuser data would have gone stale, and such information is critical to handling it appropriately. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

   Access should be restricted only to currently serving arbitrators; there is no need to give this information to anyone other than Foundation staff, as arbitrators all have access to checkuser and oversight and most know how to use them. Location would likely be the private Committee wiki, as it's about the most secure thing the Committee has available to them. Duration is the sticky point... one would like to keep such for as short as possible, but as I mention above, it's not always clear when enough is enough. A few years should be enough for most cases, but ideally much shorter. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

   Discussions should take place in the open as much as possible, however sometimes it's much easier to be frank with one's colleagues in a less public setting. Another advantage to email is that it can be read and responded to just about anywhere these days, whereas many of the Arbitration pages are far too large for the average mobile device to handle easily (and the wikimarkup is a $^!*# at times). Realistically, as much as everyone would like transparency, I think what's truly in the best interests of the community is whatever gets a faster and more appropriate resolution to whatever issue is at hand. If this means on-wiki, great, if it means email, so be it. Between the two I would prefer on-wiki though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

   In a case like that there really is no proper way to prepare or react; I feel as though the Committee did the best they could under the circumstances, reacting quickly and ensuring that the issue did not escalate further. The initial reaction, while not ideal, is to be expected when everything you thought was secure suddenly isn't. I think with the Committee working closer with the Foundation, such issues should be much less likely to occur in future. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

   It's kinda already out there (thank you Daniel Brandt, by the way, your site is out of date), but I don't intend to make it any more public than it already is. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

7. 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?

   To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how to answer this question, as the two really don't relate in many - nearly any - ways. ArbCom handles issues of serious misconduct; the Foundation raises money and every now and then releases a Mediawiki installation that blows everything up ( ;-) ). I suppose the closest they would come to sharing responsibilities are the super-banned editors; those who have caused disruption to others off-wiki as well as on-, to degrees where they actions may stray into the illegal. In these fortunately extremely limited cases, it's ArbCom's accepted role to see that the on-wiki disruption caused by these people is kept to an absolute minimum, whereas the Foundation should seek out ways to limit any off-wiki harassment, through legal action if necessary. As far as I can tell with not being on the Committee, I think both sides have been doing a very good job of this of late. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

   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?

   Here the overlap is a bit more obvious; as I said above, ArbCom acts as a Supreme Court of sorts - their primary function is to resolve conduct issues that have proven to be unresolvable by the community. They're not supposed to go "looking for trouble", but rather only deal with issues that are brought to them that can't be dealt with at a lower level. With this comes the responsibility of the community to handle everything they can on their own, so that an amicable resolution can be found before things escalate to ArbCom-level drama. The community is also responsible for managing article content and policies - based on the foundations of our community, ArbCom does not have a place here. The one area I would like to see more community involvement in is election of Checkusers and Oversighters. This recently changed to being handled through Committee appointments based on the advice of the community rather than the election it has been in previous years. I would very much like to reinstate the election process, and in doing so work out with the community how best to do so. It is important that the elections are conducted in such a way that ensures there is sufficient voter turnout to truly represent the community's will and ensures that the community has reasonable expectations of the candidates - it doesn't do anyone much good if none of the candidates get elected to the post. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

8. Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.

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

   This has been a continual problem for years, and unfortunately ArbCom's ability to deal with it is rather limited. There are editors on this project that have a tendency to dance the line between acceptable and unacceptable conduct; the truly problematic ones, the true vested contributors, tend to dance more on the unacceptable side of the line, but they - and their not-insignificant number of supporters - believe that their time spent on the acceptable side of the line, their time spent making often very useful contributions is enough to grant them carte blanche to act how they will. Whenever the user's conduct is called into question, it's invariably by someone currently engaged in a dispute with the user; as a result, their own motives are called into question by the vested user's supporters, and more often than not it's them that get the sanctions rather than the user that really needs them as a result of their repeated attempts to throw their weight around. It's for this reason that ArbCom can't do much about these users, as it is very rare for such a dispute to go all the way up the dispute resolution ladder before the supporters squelch any opposition. In these rare cases, however, it is imperative that ArbCom examine all evidence carefully, making sure that they have a clear view of the user's entire history on Wikipedia, and take this into account when crafting a final decision. It is further important that the community become more aware of these users and band together to support those who have been attacked when such issues arise; however, caution must be taken against fighting fire with fire, as while solidarity is the core of functional community, consistently supporting one user over all others is simply creating what one means to abolish. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

   I feel as though the issues of factions on Wikipedia have been well resolved for some time now; from what I've seen, accusations of inclusionism/deletionism/etc. have become much less common, a very good thing as our community matures. The factions you see now seem to be divided strictly among geopolitical or religious lines - any article involving the Middle East, for example, is almost certain to be rife with conflict and/or under some sort of general probation as a result of previous disputes. Unfortunately, such disputes are beyond the community's or ArbCom's ability to handle entirely. Both can work to calm or remove the most belligerent of these editors, however it is the nature of such disputes that there will always be more to take their place. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

   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 believe that Wikipedia would greatly benefit from more voices in all corners of the Wiki. We can never have enough, to be honest; the essential part of consensus is the ability to listen to all views. Unfortunately, it's due to disputes such as those mentioned in a) and b), occasional over-zealous enforcement of policies on new articles, and the simple fact that it takes years to fully understand every little nuance of our policies and procedures, that new editors often take one peek in the door and decide on the spot that there are about a billion better things they could be doing with their free time. Any sort of backlog is suffering as a result, be it from routine editorial tasks such as formatting and reviewing articles to purely administrative tasks such as article protection and unblock requests. We need new editors everywhere to be sure that our project can continue to function. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

9. Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping took for-freaking-ever (as I mention below) and could have been dealt with much more quickly. They came to the right decision in the end, but the delay in handling the case was not a good example of how to deal with things.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs was... ugh. It had a rather vaguely defined scope, which I can tell you was a royal pain in the arse to enforce as the clerk to the accompanying Cirt/Jayen466 case, not to mention how confusing it was for those participating in either. It had an army of parties, which together with the scope made pinning down any specific conduct problems very difficult, leaving little for ArbCom to accomplish. And then sure enough, then the final decision came about, it boiled down to "go home and play nice" without taking any actual steps to resolve the core problem, namely, editors manipulating BLPs for less-than-ethical reasons.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466, in contrast, was not as bad as it easily could have been. While the case did take a fairly long time, that was largely due to the inactivity of one of the main parties and confusion with the BLP case; the original plan was to have this resolved well ahead of BLPs and I think that would have been possible had everyone been able to participate from the beginning. It's not a perfect case, but I think the decision did a reasonable job of resolving that particular situation.
   • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda was handled quite quickly as these things go and, it seems, reasonably well. I'm a bit iffy on the fact that the workshop is empty - more input from parties on what they believe would be an appropriate remedy is generally quite useful - but then skimming through the evidence page, I'm not entirely sure that such was necessary. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

10. 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 important that the committee establish a stricter schedule to how long cases should run; this has been attempted with a few past committees including the current one, however it's clearly still not quite happening (Abortion, for example, was opened over three months ago, and the voting phase has only just begun). As I mentioned above, I'd also like more transparency with regard to elections of non-public access rights. I think the key to achieving these goals is to work not only with the Committee but also the community; make as many of our procedures as clear as possible so everyone knows what to expect when their case comes up or elections are starting. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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 from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification

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

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

1. set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
2. offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Answer:

1. I'd first like to point out that I don't believe this has ever occurred as a result of Arbitration, nor do I think it would even be terribly likely; however, such a system would be rather beneficial. The Arbitration Committee is in a somewhat unique position in this regard in that the Foundation knows who everyone is and presumably could get in contact with us via phone or mail if they really needed to; further, the Committee (and in fact all the Functionaries) work very closely with the Foundation on a regular basis and sometimes carry out some of the "dirty work" (cf. #7a above). Such legal protection would be beneficial and probably would provide some security to those considering running for office. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Again, such a system would be useful, I feel as though one rather implies the other. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

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

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

   A: Three months (two and a half, really) is too long for a case to take. While there are, at times, extenuating circumstances (inactivity of one or more parties, extremely contentious areas like the Middle East, etc.; the current Abortion case meets both from what I can see), there don't seem to be any here, and even then I don't feel any case should take more than two months to resolve. The core of this dispute was regarding conflict of interest concerns, which shouldn't be that difficult to deal with. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?

   A: To a rather limited extent, yes; it is important for articles focusing on related subject matter (i.e., articles on chemical compounds, articles on cities in a certain country, etc.) to follow a similar format so that readers can easily find the information they need. However, such guidelines should never supersede any convention set by the community as a whole; if for whatever reason editors from a particular project feel like a more widespread standard needs to be enforced, that should be brought up with the entire community for inclusion in the Manual of Style. Further, where two or more projects focus on the same article, the projects should coordinate, not fight, to determine a proper format. In all of these cases I think such formats are best left as guides for stating a new article within the topic area, and then each article should be developed as appropriate to best cover all essential information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

3. An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?

   A: If accompanied by a small-to-mediocre group of supporters, this would be the textbook definition of a vested contributor as discussed in the general questions above. It's my belief that being a good editor and being a jerk are not mutually exclusive things; just because you happen to be the former does not mean the latter should be overlooked or accepted. Given a continual history of such misconduct, appropriate action should be taken; a truly good editor should be able to function just fine under basic restrictions such as 1RR or even a limited topic ban. Should these measures not remedy the misconduct, then see #5 below. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

4. An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?

   A: This happens somewhat frequently especially with those who aren't native English speakers. Some reasonable effort should be made to educate the user about Wikipedia's policies, but if there is simply too much of a language/maturity/general clue barrier to overcome, it's best to have the user spend their time elsewhere. If the problem is strictly language-related, this is easily done by referring them to Simple English or (preferably) their native language Wiki, where they should manage fine. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?

   A: In 3, yes, after multiple attempts to address the conduct have failed, although in such a situation it would likely fall to ArbCom to do the banning for the reasons I go into in the general questions. A community ban should be unnecessary for #4; if the user in question really doesn't get the point, a simple block ought to get it across, or at least serve as a wake-up call and provide some opportunity for proper discussion. If they continue to edit despite a block, then the assumption of good faith begins to waver and what was a COMPETENCE issue becomes more of outright disruption, which is another realm entirely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

6. Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

   A: In a very general sense, yes, it takes two - but on Wikipedia, the two could just as easily be a dozen, making the situation more of a cocked-up square dance than anything else. Fortunately, when the number of editors in a dispute increases, the number of actually culpable users decreases; to continue the metaphor, there are a handful of editors competing to call the dance, and everyone else is just trying to figure out which one to listen to, tripping over everyone not listening to the same caller. The latter bunch could step out at any time the situation really wouldn't change much; any stubbed toes as a result of their actions probably merit a telling off at the very most, if anything at all. The callers are the real trouble makers, and need to receive the full sanctions. If the dance is simply a tango, it may be that one of the editors has tried to remain civil throughout, but has had outbursts of incivility due to their strained patience. In these cases, that ought to be clear in the evidence, and some accommodations can be granted for that as well. I hope this answers your question. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

7. When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?

   A: Whenever the community has tried and failed multiple times to resolve the conduct-related issue, most preferably with some sort of sanction that hasn't addressed whatever conduct issues are present, or in the rare case of alleged abuse of admin rights. Even in particularly contentious issues, I feel the community should make some attempt to address it first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

8. When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?

   A: This is not all-inclusive, and even in these cases it would depend on the circumstances, but in general:

   • When their actions have clearly been deliberately disruptive, including but not limited to outing or other off-wiki harassment, harassment beyond the scope of a content dispute, blatant violations of conduct policies, etc.,
   • When repeated sanctions to address conduct have proven ineffective,
   • When a topic ban covering an editor's primary content area has proven ineffective, or
   • When outright refusal to acknowledge concerns or to improve upon one's conduct lead to a conclusion that any other sanction would be ineffective. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

   A: I very very much hope so. As I mention in my statement, things are now much more routine than they were during my last term, and absent the occasional surprise or vacation I should be online on a regular basis. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

10. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

    A: I think the most pressing problems that are really preventing us from growing are vested contributors and the complicated snarl that is our guidelines and policies (not sure that's grammatically correct). I've addressed those in some of my responses above, so I'll just briefly talk about them here. Unfortunately, neither of these have easy solutions. For vested contributors, those who try to address the problem are usually the ones who end up sanctioned (cf. general question 7a). For the policies and guidelines, we've done things this way for so long that we have a hard time thinking of a new, better way to do it, and an even harder time convincing a consensus that it is in fact better. It's a continual work in progress as are so many things on Wikipedia, but here there's no clear destination, unfortunately. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Rschen7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from NuclearWarfare

Note to readers and respondents

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

Core questions

1. Please describe your opinion on the following proposals in relation to Wikipedia's BLP policy: an expanded version of opt-out , "targeted flagging", and a more permanent version of the old pending changes trial. In your answer, please discuss your personal views on the pending changes trial: what you thought of it, whether we should ultimately implement some form of it (and if so, what form?), whether the community failed to come to a decision about it, and what you believe the role of the Arbitration Committee should have been.

   I think that opt-out probably could afford to be expanded a bit. Especially in light of Wednesday's XKCD, I think our community is still somewhat unaware of the impact Wikipedia has on just about anything, people especially. Yes, we are on a mission to spread information, but with that goes a responsibility to do so tactfully and back up whatever we say. If despite our best efforts, the article is still a matter of concern for its subject, it should be trimmed down or removed entirely out of respect for their person, whichever is appropriate (obviously Barack Obama isn't going to be deleted anytime soon regardless of what he says, but if there is something genuinely problematic the community could discuss removing or significantly revising it). As for pending changes/targeted flagging/whatever, I believe that it does have great potential to help with a large number of problems; indeed, the RFC seemed to support this view to some extent, but this was of course tempered by confusion over a number of aspects of the whole process. I definitely think it is worthwhile giving this another trial run at some point, after taking some time to hammer out some of the more confusing points ahead of time. If nothing else, pending changes has the potential to completely eliminate the problems noted by Randall Munroe in the comic linked above. I don't think the committee failed to come to a decision about anything, and in fact I think the discussions were quite useful; everyone needed a break to really think about it and be reminded of how things used to operate. This way, we'll be able to make a more informed decision when this goes to trial again. As I am pretty sure I've addressed elsewhere, though, ArbCom really has no place in these discussions as a committee. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Please describe an experience you have had with a significant content dispute. If you have had any disputes where you felt that either yourself or another party was either not acting in good faith with respect to the neutrality policy or with regards to source gathering, I would be especially interested to hear about your experience. What do you feel you did incorrectly and how would you have realistically fixed that for future situations?

   The one advantage of not being much of a content editor is that one doesn't get in many content disputes - however, that does make answering this question a bit difficult. I cannot say that any disputes I've had on Wikipedia have ever been related to content, however I'd like to think that should one crop up I would do what I could to seek out third opinions. I will do this during disputes about other subjects - if I think there is the slightest possibility I may have acted inappropriately, I will get in touch with someone I respect and ask them to look over what happened and give me some feedback on my actions. The critical part in such disputes is not whether or not you're right, but whether or not you're aware of your actions and willing to learn from and improve upon them. I do hope this reasonably addresses this, but I do invite follow-up questions on this since I'm not really able to address the core points. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

   I'll give you a "hypothetical" then: you feel that you have done your utmost to provide exemplary secondary sources. You have gone down to your local specialized and general libraries, looked for authoritative sources from major secondary sources, and so on. On the other hand, you believe that the other parties are cherrypicking old, partisan, unrepresentative, or otherwise poor sources. Noticeboards and Wikiprojects have been unhelpful in providing meaningful input, and there are sufficient editors on both sides to block any change either way. A formal Arbitration case might be helpful, but you worry that ArbCom's focus on conduct over content will not help if all parties are superficially behaving perfectly (cf. User:Heimstern/ArbCom). NW (Talk) 15:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

   Hmm. I think I've inadvertently addressed most of this below; in this case, I know that ArbCom won't outright say "this source should be used, that one shouldn't be", but they may address the issues of the ongoing POV-pushing I'm perceiving, which the community has yet to deal with. Even if those editors aren't directly sanctioned, some sort of general or discretionary probation may be applied which could help resolve any continuing disputes. I'm confident that through the evidence stage that all of our actions will be seen for what they are - mine for attempting to find useful and wide-ranging sources, theirs for pushing an outdated or partisan point of view - and dealt with accordingly. As I mention above, any sort of feedback (as provided through findings of fact) would be useful to improve on my own actions, even if accompanied by some sort of sanction. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

3. In my 2010 voting guide, I highlighted several quotes by other editors. Please select two from "On Administration" and state why you agree or disagree with them. Bonus points if you give reasons for your answers

   • Heimstern's comments I can understand and sympathize with, however I am not sure that I entirely agree with them. If an editor is indeed here to push some sort of agenda, no matter how civil they are, that will become apparent throughout their editing history. Yes, a blatantly uncivil-yet-neutral editor interacting with a civil-yet-POV-pushing editor will probably get more harsh sanctions; it's the same sort of thing in school yard fights, the second kid to throw a punch is the one who's punished because the teacher never saw the first. However, Wikipedia has the perhaps unique feature of documenting EVERYTHING, so the Arbitration Committee, in the role of the teacher, can scroll back through time and notice that the reason kid #2 threw a punch is because kid #1 is a polite POV pusher of the first degree. POV pushing is, when it boils down to it, a conduct issue, as you are effectively refusing to bow to consensus. A civil one, as in this example, may agree to it for a time, but only to make themselves seem reasonable so that they're more likely to garner support when they bring the issue up again next month. Thus, in the long term, such justice is served. In the short term, our uncivil-yet-neutral editor will likely be sanctioned, but then they did nonetheless act inappropriately. While the circumstances may explain their actions, they do not entirely justify them. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
   • Moreschi I do agree with. Regardless of the accuracy of the last two sentences, nationalist debates are textbook examples of the Somebody Else's Problem complex - it's not your country, ergo it has no bearing on you, ergo you have no interest in looking into the matter and registering any sort of opinion. If it's called to your attention, you look at the superficial facts (User X was rude to User Y, etc.) and make a brief comment in regard to those without looking into context, so that you can run the other way as quickly as possible. I'll be the first to admit that I've done the same in these cases from time to time. Despite what I've said above and elsewhere, nationalist disputes like this really can't be dealt with by the community for these reasons. ArbCom has to go in, read through the facts, figure out what's going on, and deal with the POV pushers. Given two otherwise similar cases, I'd be more willing to accept a nationalist case as opposed to one about any other subject when neither has been through the full dispute resolution gauntlet. It is still important that ArbCom not explicitly rule that X content is acceptable or not, but they can at least identify those who are blockading efforts to form consensus and remove them. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

4. Do you believe that the policy on involved administrators using the admin tools should ever be relaxed to any extent? Does your answer change depending on whether general or discretionary sanctions are in place?

   No, I don't believe so. In fact, whenever sanctions (especially discretionary) are in place, they should be a bit more strict. Using the tools when you've involved in a content dispute with an editor opens the door to all sorts of problems; using the fact that you have the tools to issue restrictions on such an editor is in some ways worse, as that technically obligates other admins to support your INVOLVED actions. If there are problems with a user's conduct in regards to a dispute you're having with them, there are upwards of a thousand other admins you can come to for assistance, or (ideally) the issue can be brought through dispute resolution for a more transparent solution. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Wikipedia:No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Wikipedia, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?

   (Note, I'm at work and can only answer these when I have something running in the background, so these will be answered out of order)

   Actually, it looks like this is covered by that policy, albeit briefly: the lead section states that "it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved" (emphasis theirs) - I would read this to mean that if legal action has begun as a result of a Wikipedia-based dispute, neither editor should be editing at all. I will grant that the policy doesn't go any further into this, however I would assume that in such a case it would be the expectation of the Foundation - who due to the nature of the legal dispute would be involved anyway, again as noted in the lead section - to work with these editors to see to it that this issue does not spill on-wiki. Hopefully this can be done by each of them taking a wikibreak of sorts, with no blocks necessary, but if it does come to that it would not be inappropriate for the Foundation to request that ArbCom block those users on the office's behalf. Some communication with ArbCom would be necessary anyway, as when the matter is resolved, it would quite likely be necessary for an interaction ban to be imposed. This would be something best conducted by private motion of the committee, announced to the noticeboard after the fact, to best protect the privacy of the involved editors. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

   How do you reconcile your answer with Coren's: "Part of the problem is that in such cases (real legal action that isn't plastered on-wiki) there are constraints on what the committee can do without causing actual legal problems for the editors in question, the foundation or – indeed – the arbitrators themselves. I think that the committee can only intervene in cases like this under the request or advice of the Foundation counsel. Certainly, the committee made sure that Foundation legal was aware of [a particular situation] (they already were) and then took a holding pattern." If the Foundation is unwilling to get involved because of fears that they might be willing to be dragged into the lawsuit, what recourse do ordinary editors have? NW (Talk) 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not terribly familiar with how cases like this would work, but it seems to me that if the dispute is rooted in something that took place on Wikipedia, the Foundation is going to be involved to some extent whether they like it or not, and at the very least should be aware of the proceedings. If they are somehow unaware, and the Committee became aware, it would be the Committee's responsibility to inform the Foundation and work with legal to figure out how to proceed, hopefully along the lines I outlined above. Quite frankly, I think if the Foundation refused to take steps to stop litigants from editing, they're only opening themselves to further legal action. In such a case, however, I don't think there is much recourse available for the average editor, as nobody, arbitrators included, wants to end up in court just for trying to prevent disruption to the project. I see it as the Foundation's responsibility to handle such things, as the ones legally responsible for the site in the end. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions

Note: I'm hoping to answer most, if not all, of these during my flight tomorrow. Any that don't get answered then will probably go unanswered for some time, though; I do ask for reader's forgiveness here, as I will be away from my main computer this weekend and all next week. I would like to make it clear that this temporary bout of inactivity will NOT be indicative of my activity on the Committee should I be elected. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

1. What is your opinion of specialized content guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Do you think it is a practice that we should encourage with other guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)?

   I actually had not known we had such guides; seeing those now, however, I think source-finding guides such as these could be extremely useful, especially for users new to Wikipedia who may be unsure what to look for. Even with experienced editors, it can sometimes be difficult, especially in controversial fields, to identify what is reliable and what simply reads good. Provided these guidelines are superceded by more general guidelines/policies (as with notability) and common sense (as with everything) I can't think why such guides would be an issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Do you think we should have a policy for medicine and health in the same manner that we have WP:BLP for living people? What about for corporations?

   I can't immediately think why such a policy would be necessary, except to protect those afflicted by a particular condition, and then I'd think BLP would cover it. As for corporations, I feel they should be treated just as any other article.

3. Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy (1, 2). Do you agree or disagree?

   Somewhat neutral on the issue, really. While the first link technically dealt with administrative conduct (and thus was within jurisdiction) and the second is akin to discretionary sanctions (a traditional remedy of ArbCom in contentious cases), both do nonetheless have a significant impact on content and have, in effect, created a new set of policies with regard to how BLPs are to be handled. I feel as though in this particular case it was not entirely inappropriate for the former reasons, but it could perhaps be revisited to ensure that it is addressing solely matters of conduct (i.e. posting blatantly inappropriate content without citation) and not content (i.e. posting arguably-appropriate content, perhaps with citation). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

4. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big (e.g. for major policy or software changes). Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it?

   It does make things rather difficult when major policy proposals come up; it's somewhat akin to having every registered voter in a country participate directly in the law-making process. It doesn't tend to allow us to make changes at a reasonable pace at times, or even address major issues if a significant enough portion of the community (not even a majority, necessarily) won't acknowledge that there is an issue. However, short of instituting some sort of legislative system, which has a massive host of problems all its own and would never ever fly on a project that's supposed to be base on consensus, I'm not sure how to really correct it. We've managed to make our version of a pure democracy work well enough so far; unless it seems to be that our community has suddenly become completely unable to function, I'm sure we can continue disproving the critics for a little bit longer. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Some editors enforce the banning policy in a manner perhaps best described by {{BannedMeansBanned}}; others take a more lenient approach and only enforce the ban on what they believe to be "bad" editing. What is your opinion on this? Does the reason why an editor was banned have any impact in your analysis?

   If an editor has been banned, they are not welcome at Wikipedia (or in the case of topic bans, that area of Wikipedia). End of story. The reasons why are irrelevant; whatever they are, they must be addressed satisfactorily and the ban lifted before the user's return to the project (or topic area). To allow some banned editors to evade their bans just because they're "playing nice" is unfair to those who are adhering to the terms of their bans, and further diminishes the importance of the ban in the first place. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from LauraHale

Core questions

1. What content areas are you involved with?

   As I mention in my statement, I'm really not a content editor. I haven't put in any serious work on articles in quite some time; were I to do so, it would likely be maintenance/editorial/cleanup type work rather than writing a whole article from scratch or seriously expanding one. The only areas I'm likely to focus on with full-fledged editing such as that would relate to my travels, as noted below. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 13:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

2. What article have you worked on that you are the most proud of in terms of content contribution, and what sort of recognition has the article received related to your contributions (example: DYK, GA, A, FA, FL)?

   When applying for adminship the second time, I was criticized for some comments I made in reference to Bertrand Russell in an AfD some weeks previously; as a sort of penance, I worked on substantially improving the referencing in his biography prior to my 3rd (successful) RfA, which is documented in my nominator's statement. Other articles I've worked significantly on include Hood Mockingbird (DYK), Carcross Desert (DYK), and to a lesser extent Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park. I do not have any GA's or Featured Content to my name. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 13:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Sven Manguard

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

1. Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.

   A: On the whole, I would tend to agree... it is rather rare to see someone at arbitration admit to wrongdoing on their own part. However, that is not to say that this is wholly problematic; often such sections are very telling about how willing a particular user is to work with others and generally contribute constructively. The more outlandish the claims, especially when not supported by diffs in the evidence section, the more likely it is that the user making the claims is in fact the one causing the trouble. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

2. If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?

   A: I don't think that there is any particular need for a solution beyond what we already have in place - regular monitoring of the case pages by clerks and arbs to keep behaivor problems to a minimum, insistence on evidence to back up proposed findings of fact, etc. If anything, I would appreciate more participation by uninvolved third parties on workshop pages, as they can provide an insight into the situation that no involved party would be capable of. Their more reasoned thoughts on the matter can be very beneficial to a drafting arbitrator. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Russavia

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

1. the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.

   As I recall, this particular case focused heavily on checkuser evidence, which by policy cannot be released publicly. If the Committee found that the conclusions a checkuser came to were in error, their investigation will still by necessity involve the checkuser tool; even if they did not, use of the tool is still critical in such cases to ensure that the user is not continuing to abuse multiple accounts (which does happen quite frequently). Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

2. of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?

   Ban/unblock appeals sent to the Committee are deferred to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, whose members are listed at WP:AC. If they didn't explicitly say "I approved this unblock", it's likely because they felt they didn't need to for that reason.

3. there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...

   Again, this could be due to the fact that there is checkuser evidence involved, so yes, any concerns of continued sockpuppetry should go to ArbCom rather than be handled by your average checkuser at SPI in case there is additional information the Committee is privy to that we (other checkusers) are not. I do not interpret the comments at that request to mean "any conduct problems should be referred to ArbCom;" I'm not sure what your email says, but if there are issues, I would assume ArbCom would like to know, but that it can be handled by your average admin. As my statement there says, "A successful ArbCom appeal should not be interpreted as a blanket pardon for all crimes past, present, and future".

4. the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?

   As this case focuses on checkuser evidence, it cannot be handled by the community, only by those identified the foundation and authorized to use the checkuser tool. The most they could do is kick it back to non-arb checkusers, but a majority of us have already been involved in this case at some point. As for admitting error, the purpose of giving someone a second chance is to see how it works out; the Committee cannot see the future. If that person screws up, it's not the Committee that led their actions. If they don't screw up, then what may initially be perceived by some as a grave mistake could in fact turn out to be a significant benefit to the project. Again, however, if there are issues other than sockpuppetry, I expect that these can easily be handled independent of the Committee. A separate crime merits a separate trial (or block discussion, as appropriate for Wikipedia ;-) ). Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee to prevent such things from occurring in the future?

   Your question presumes the assumption that the Committee did in fact err here; I don't necessarily agree with that assessment. However, the concerns you're raising above could be addressed by clearer statements to the effect of "any concerns regarding X behavior should be raised with BASC, other concerns can be handled as normal for a user with this history" or "this is based on checkuser evidence" (without going into excessive detail per policies) or "this was decided by the BASC with a vote of x-y". If this doesn't really answer your question, I guess I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by "such things".

2. absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?

   I'm very active on the unblock-en-l mailing list, which is sort of the last step before going to BASC. I can tell you that if we published a log of every response we sent, we'd flood the database and probably cause some issues with the site. We can get dozens of emails a day sometimes, especially during the work week and during school sessions, and many of these emails get responses like "you're not allowed to advertise, read these pages and let us know what non-spammy username you want to use"; "we need more information than 'I'm blocked' to help you"; "you're a sockpuppet who just created another five socks after sending this email, go away"; etc. (obviously these are severely abbreviated and in a much less professional tone, but you get the idea). I have to imagine that BASC gets much the same on a regular basis, many of which they reply to by kicking it back down to a lower appeal level. The point is, logging all of these, and all the obvious "hell no, maybe come back in a year if you bake us cookies" responses, would be needlessly time-wasting and excessive. Now, a note to the ArbCom Noticeboard to the effect of "we have unblocked banned user X with these terms for these summarized reasons" would probably be appropriate and I would support that; however, I think it's their standard practice to do so, although I'm not sure why they didn't in this particular case.

3. how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?

   Individual editors should always acknowledge error when it is clear they have erred, and do what they can to amend the situation. Our consensus model would fall apart if this was not done.

   Sorry for the delay in responding to these, I'm away from my computer for this week and it turns out that the browser in my Kindle does not handle editing large pages very well. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

1. Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.

   A: I don't believe there are any widespread topic areas I would need to recuse myself from; in the unlikely event a dispute centered around my employer or college should crop up, I'd probably recuse from that. There are a few users I've had past interactions with that I would step back from as well, but that list is very short.

2. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?

   A: It depends largely on the grounds they're making the request from; if their concern appears legitimate, I will accede and recuse from the case. If I do not agree with their rationale, I'll explain why I've chosen to remain with the case and will invite further comment on the matter. However, I will carefully consider if there is any conflict before any case; as I mention in 1 I don't expect this to happen too often.

3. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?

   A: As above.

4. What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?

   A: A sitting arbitrator that is party to a case should not be involved in the proceedings; the Arbitration Committee has a separate backup mailing list to be used for discussion of a case in this circumstance. The involved arbitrator would be removed from this list temporarily while the case was in session. IIRC, this is actually documented in the arbitration policy somewhere.

5. If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?

   A: Follow the above, and be sure not to read any emails that appear to refer to the case I'm a party to.

6. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?

   A: The main concern I can see with doing so is that should a concern escalate to ArbCom, that arbitrator may need to recuse. On the other hand, there's enough people on ArbCom that this shouldn't create a serious concern. I'd say yes, then, as (presumably) ArbCom members will be among the most skilled in dispute resolution and should thus be able to help most, but they should be careful to ensure that they don't become too involved in the dispute themselves.

7. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?

   A: No, certainly not. Many arbitration cases depend on interpreting policy. Crucial to this is understanding the underlying principles behind policies, and the best way to understand that is to be actively involved in the discussion. Reading it after the fact prevents one from being able to ask clarifying questions of those involved in the issue, which could result in difficulties later.

8. In what circumstances can incivility be excused?

   A: Excused, none; understandable, maybe: depending on the degree of similar abuse being directed at the incivil editor, it could change a situation normally meriting a full ban to something a step or two down, such as a broad-scale topic ban. Regardless, however, incivil conduct should be addressed in some way. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 02:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Joe Gazz84

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

I don't have much time to answer this just now, but will try to do so tomorrow evening. Sorry. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 02:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, take your time, I'm in no rush to finalize any of my votes.  JoeGazz  ♂  02:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?

   A: I'd really like to see a strict schedule applied to all cases. I feel as though this will have two very significant advantages: first, it allows cases to be finished much faster than some have been in the past; and second, it will be much easier for those new to arbitration to understand how the process works. My thoughts on this are something like this: parties have X weeks to add evidence (ideally, two). After that time, no further additions to the evidence page will be accepted. This could be enforced through protection, clerk patrolling, or an added task to HersfoldArbClerkBot, which already monitors those pages anyway. Parties will be asked to provide proposals for the decision on the workshop for an additional Y weeks (ideally, two), however they may start on the workshop at any point. After X+Y weeks, a proposed decision will be posted and the committee will have Z weeks (ideally, one) to vote. In addition to the advantages previously mentioned, this plan should allow arbitrators plenty of time to review evidence without having to worry about last-minute additions; it'll also reduce the amount of "retaliatory" evidence that tends to lead to drama fests.

   As for the elections for advanced rights (checkuser and oversight), I believe this needs to return to an election format rather than a direct appointment. These are positions of trust, and while candidates are vetted by the Committee (elected to a higher position of trust), I'd prefer a more obvious assertion that the community trusts a candidate to hold the tools. This won't make things easier for the Committee by any means, but I feel it is nonetheless critical. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?

   A: No. The most the Committee should do - and even this is pushing it - is have an RFC to consider such a policy opened. I'd much prefer that the Committee make no official reference to it, but that individual Arbitrators work of their own accord, as members of the community, to do so. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

3. An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and it's surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?

   A: I could see this happening in a couple cases; in each, I'm assuming a few things:

   1. The editor in question has broken this particular policy multiple times, which is why the case is coming to ArbCom rather than getting handled at a much lower level. At each violation, the community has tried and failed to address the conduct, or such addressings have proven to be inneffective. In this case, I would be disinclined to go with a "slap-on-the-wrist" remedy as per my comments on vested contributors above. A history of excellent work does not excuse a history of severe disruption to the project.
   2. The editor in question is an administrator, and the complaint concerns alleged misuse of the tools. Even in this case, I'd prefer the alleged misuse be rather severe or repeated for ArbCom to review the tools, as your average concern can be discussed and overturned at ANI. Presuming AC does accept, my views would depend on a number of factors, including severity, whether or not there is a history of such misuse, and understanding of the problem on the part of the admin.

   Cases (meeting this question) not falling under the above probably don't belong at ArbCom in the first place. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

4. How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)

   A: I try to remain very aware of my emotions at all times; whenever I feel as though I'm beginning to become particularly emotional over a situation (be that angry, upset, stressed, what-have-you), that's my cue that I've reached, or am about to reach, the limits of what I'm able to effectively and fairly handle on my own. When this happens, I'll try to step back and reconsider what it is I'm doing, asking a colleague for help or feedback if possible. Hope this answers your question... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

5. If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)

   A: Educational? When editing Wikipedia, even as a non-content, mostly-administrative user, I've learner an incredible amount about the world around me, how best to work with others, and about myself, knowledge I don't think I would have learned otherwise. Especially in dealing with disputes and edit wars and even sockpuppetry stuff, it's important to have a basic understanding of the background content to accurately and effectively handle a situation. As a result, you end up learning more than you realize, and I've found that extremely helpful many a time. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   For the record, I hate these questions. :-P Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 02:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

   To clarify, I don't hate all these questions, just the "sum up something very complex in X words where X<=3" type questions. Just realized that was really unclear. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Question from Heimstern

This is a followup to your answer to general question 4, "ArbCom and article content". This provides an example of the sort of issue that comes up occasionally: The committee not making any binding content decision, but prescribing a method by which such a decision is to be made. What's your opinion about decisions such as this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC) (Copied here from User talk:Hersfold)

As with my answer to Joe's question #2, I feel like this is pushing it. Yes, in the end, the decision is left in the community's hands, but it's being conducted according to the Committee's direction. I further don't like the set time limit, which prevents the community from revisiting the situation a year or two from now in the event circumstances change. I'd have preferred the community be allowed to come to this decision making process by itself, but given the fact it's at arbitration and considering the subject matter, I suppose that would be a bit too much to hope for. Either way, I'd have liked to see a bit more left to the community on this, especially the duration of the binding nature of the decision. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)