Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Jc37/Questions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 | Candidates | Jc37

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cunard (talk | contribs) at 05:03, 22 November 2012 (→Questions from Cunard: removed question because, having closed numerous RfCs, Jc37 is aware of WP:ANRFC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:03, 22 November 2012 by Cunard (talk | contribs) (→Questions from Cunard: removed question because, having closed numerous RfCs, Jc37 is aware of WP:ANRFC)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Note: In looking over my answers to the questions, they seem to indicate to me that apparently I'm not much of a politician (telling people what I think they want to hear). I tried to sincerely answer as honestly as possible. So please keep that in mind, whatever your opinion of these issues, or of me as a contributor. - jc37 20:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

General questions

  1. Skills and experience:
    a) What skills and experience, both on Misplaced Pages and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
    Several years as a Wikipedian. I am also an administrator. I've worked in a quite a few of the "behind-the-scenes" areas of the project. My focus is typically a wont to help out, so I tend to float wherever. So I have experiences with a lot of the parts and pieces that make up Misplaced Pages.
    b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
    I've added to quite a few RfC discussions concerning DR, including several concerning Arbcom, such as this.
    And I've commented in more than a few cases over the years, though mostly as an uninvolved editor. This workshop page (and comment) is one example. I'm still looking through my contribs for other examples)
    In the last year there are three arbcom situations which stick out in my mind: Perth, PR; and CE. If you read over the talk page of the first one, you'll see the surprise by the members of community at the results which led to the desysopping of an admin. With that in mind, and noting the actions there dealt with questions of "how involved is WP:INVOLVED", and the variance as to what is considered wheel warring (And this discussion and other such discussions were also on my mind.) So when I encountered a situation which I felt was a question of WP:INVOLVED, and also a possible question of WP:WHEEL, and recalling what happened at that first case as a result of someone at the admin's noticeboard "helpfully" deciding to take action, I felt that I couldn't in good conscience post to WP:AN, else I would be risking that someone else might "helpfully" decide to take action. Which also meant RFC had a similar problem. So that left me with Arbcom. So with a touch of WP:IAR I presented the situation to them, and they eventually reviewed the situation, and life went on.
    As for CE, at a later time, someone posted to arbcom concerning something about an editor's topic ban (related to WP:RFA). I posted a comment there about the general current state of RfA, and mentioned I would leave questions of his civility to others to decide. Well, the editor then went on the offensive, presumably just upon seeing the word civility. So while what I said wasn't that different than what others has said who were in direct support of the editor (I was and am fairly neutral as until that time, I don't recall ever interacting with him), I was "treated" to follow-up negative comments by the editor's supporters and other well meaning editors.
    Why do I think this happened?
    I think it's a matter of a difference of perspective on how one sees Arbcom.
    Consider the different ways one may view the local constable. One could see the constable as a friend, and guide or help in times of need or trouble. Or one could see him as the enemy, someone who is out to get you or to punish you in some way.
    I obviously view Arbcom in the former sense, while it would seem that there are those who view it in the latter sense.
    Hence why some use the (to me, odd) euphemism "Being hauled before Arbcom", giving the sense of being hauled before a hanging judge. (Look at the reputation of Judge Roy Bean compared to the recorded facts.)
    If there was something I wish we could change about Arbcom, more than anything else, it's the tone of how the individual members are seen and thus subsequently treated.
    To (intentionally mis-)paraphrase Pogo Possum, We have met the enemy, and they are us.
    Regardless of however this election turns out, I'd like to remind everyone reading this that service to the community by helping out at ARBCOM (whether as a committee member or clerk or whatever) is a largely thankless job, and I would entreat you to giving a thought to saying something nice to those who help - particularly those now not running for a subsequent term - even if it's merely a heartfelt thank you.
  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?
    Case by case basis. But there is a difference between an indefinite block and a community ban. And community bans should only be placed when the individual has "worn out the community's patience" and so is no longer welcome to be a member of the community.
    And desysopping is merely a matter of not having the additional tools and responsibilities of adminship. Removal of the tools is in no way comparable to being blocked, much less being banned. To quote myself from the past: Having the tools is generally no big deal. It's the usage of the tools which can be a big deal, especially when used inappropriately.
    And I believe in more than just second chances, in particular in the case of whether as an individual I would support banning an editor. It takes quite clear concerns of damage/disruption to the community project (the encyclopedia) for me to fully endorse a community ban.
  3. ArbCom Practices:
    a) ArbCom and policies:
    i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Misplaced Pages policy, and it does not include matters of Misplaced Pages 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 (as a committee) certainly can ask the community to discuss revising a policy. But Arbcom (as a committee) should not be arbitrarily making policy. That should be left to the community. We shouldn't forget that (at least when it comes to policy) the arbitration committee is generally only an advisory body to/for the community.
    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 Misplaced Pages?
    WP:5P is a nice overview page and is useful as a navigation tool to lead to other policy pages. Policy pages in general are merely a display of common practice and/or previous consensus for easy reference.
    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?
    In general, per existing policy/guidelines. BLPs are an important concern, which should not be minimised.
    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.
    No, per my responses above. Arbcom (as a committee), is only an advisory body when it comes to policy, and by extension, creating other processes. (When Arbcom members join in on such discussions, they are doing so as individual Wikipedians. When Arbcom takes action, it is solely as a group.)
    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.
    A motion is for when the process of a full case isn't necessary. For example when the situation is generally undisputedly clear enough that the evidence page isn't necessary.
    ii) a.) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? b.) If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? c.) 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?
    Arbcom is short for The arbitration committee. It is not the Misplaced Pages supreme court. Arbcom's main role is to arbitrate a dispute. And it does so at community request.
    So to answer (old school: if the answer to part of a question is No, then the answer is No): a.) When it is uncalled for. b.) No. c.) No.
    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.
    No thank you. I believe that the committee members are positively trying to perform service for the community. I've been disappointed periodically in this or that individual result of part of a case over the whole time I've been a Wikipedian, but I honestly don't look at cases as if they are "good or bad". Besides, the great thing about Misplaced Pages is that no decision is final (WP:CCC). So even if we should see what we think is a "miscarriage of justice", such situations can be re-addressed by the community, through various means, including re-requesting Arbcom to look over the situation.
    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. To deal with any potential future situations as institutional memory, since the membership of the committee can and does change.
    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?
    Indefinitely (as long as necessary); as secure as possible; Arbcom;
    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 prefer public transparency in most things at Misplaced Pages. That said, much of what Arbcom does are things which deal with privacy and personal "reputation", among other things. We should never forget that these are real people behind the usernames. So such things, by their nature, should be kept confidential.
    But besides that, and keeping that in mind, as much as possible should be transparent. Arbcom shouldn't have discussions in private merely because it's "convenient".
    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 don't know what all they did.
    My understanding is that Arbcom has the use of a wiki. I'm surprised that they did not make more usage of that (and less of the email list) as a "discussion forum" for themselves. They could have their own version of the WP:VP to discuss things, for example.
    Unless there is some other necessary usage I am unaware of, the email list should probably just be for others to contact the committee, and for the committee to contact them in return. (With privacy and confidentiality in mind, of course. Otherwise such communication should happen on Misplaced Pages for transparency reasons.)
    v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
    No.
    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?
    In all, privacy and confidentiality is a concern. But when not a concern, we should try to keep transparent (on-wiki) as much as possible.
    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 Misplaced Pages, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
    Yes. As advisory.
  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?
    Arbcom is the arbitration committee of the English Misplaced Pages. The WMF has more of a broad focus, concerning all the Wikimedia projects.
    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?
    Arbcom is to arbitrate in the stead of the community (and somewhat, by tradition, User:Jimbo Wales).
    And along those lines, the role of arbcom's individual members has expanded to address privacy and confidential issues - partially because arbitrators, due to the nature of arbitration, are entrusted with such related tools, so they have the tools to help out in that way.
  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 Misplaced Pages have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    I dunno about "overall problem", but we do have such things going on, especially in certain areas of the project. (See Misplaced Pages:List of controversial issues.)
    It's not Arbcom's duty to declare a "winner" in a content discussion. So any action should be concerning behaviour. (While keeping in mind preventative, not punitive.)
    b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Misplaced Pages (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?
    In some places, and at times, yes. There is a common mistaken opinion that "consensus is a vote". So that can motivate editors to band together to create a "unified front" to defend or oppose whatever issue they support or oppose. WP:CANVASS tries to deal with some of this (mass votestacking, for example), but the internet being what it is and modern communication being what it is, we obviously cannot entirely stamp out such collusion to disrupt the consensus process.
    I fully support that we should allow neutrally worded, friendly notices to other editors who may have shown interest in the topic under discussion in the past. But abuse of this can be a problem. And typically those who engage in such factionalism, are those who see discussion as a "majority vote". I think the best solution on the long term is to better educate editors about the consensus process.
    c) Does the English Misplaced Pages have a problem with editor retention? Does Misplaced Pages have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
    I haven't seen any graphs on this lately, so I'll just express how it "feels".
    Yes, absolutely.
    I don't think we have an overall shortage of new editors. We just need to find ways to retain them, while guiding them toward further positive contributions.
    Yes. Once upon a time, you couldn't turn around without finding a new enthusiastic editor wanting to help, joining in Wikiproject collaboration, and so on. WikiProjects seem to have fewer and fewer in their "core" participants, with more than a few only having less than 4 (or even none and being mothballed).
  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.
    No thank you. I believe that the committee members are positively trying to perform service for the community. I've been disappointed periodically in this or that individual result of part of a case over the whole time I've been a Wikipedian, but I honestly don't look at cases as if they are "good or bad". Besides, one of the great things about Misplaced Pages is that no decision is final (WP:CCC). So even if we should see what we think is a "miscarriage of justice", such situations can be re-addressed by the community, through various means, including re-requesting Arbcom to look over the situation.
  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'll have a better idea when seeing more of how things work "behind-the-scenes".
    One thing that concerns me are proposals which are designed to add to the bureaucracy of arbcom. It's already a fairly bureaucratic process. I shy away from adding more bureaucracy. And I oppose ever making Arbcom Misplaced Pages's "supreme court". We have a tradition that (with certain exceptions in the past, like User:Jimbo Wales - who has apparently ceded much of his dispute resolution responsibilities to arbcom) that the community is who "sits in judgement". Mediation is merely there to mediate, and Arbitration is merely there to arbitrate.

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
    A: From what I can tell looking over the case pages, that was a miscommunication. One of the Arbitrators intended to draft, then had a family emergency. In that case, it might have been helpful if someone had been notified to take over the drafting (I didn't see whether that may have been done.) Regardless, this case was "open" a rather long time. In my recollection, having cases which are open for more than 2-3 months was much more prevalent in the past, and arbcom seems to be getting (slowly) better about that.
  3. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
    A: A way to organise and foster collaboration among editors.
  5. Does the English Misplaced Pages have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    A: If that means "experienced editors" then yes and no. I don't think I would call it a widespread "problem", but I have noticed that there seems to be a mistaken belief by some that (to paraphrase Animal Farm): "While we're all Wikipedians here, some are more equal than others". When in truth, we are all Wikipedians here. period. Some Wikipedians may have been entrusted with additional tools and/or responsibilities, but that doesn't make them any "better than" or "superior to" any other editor.
  7. Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
    A: If I find that an unforeseen lengthy wikibreak was necessitated by "Real life" interfering with Wiki-work.
  9. 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: Case by case basis. While noting that every editor always has the option of disengaging and/or walking away from the keyboard. (This, setting aside real life concerns, of course.)
  11. 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: Case by case basis. And some policies/guidelines have gray areas, some do not. It varies on what we're talking about. There is currently an ongoing RfC on civility, for example, exploring such things concerning civility on Misplaced Pages. As for "when" it depends (again: case by case basis). There are emergency situations, of course. (Including, when necessary, though semi-rare, emergency desysopping.) But as in most things, it's a question of preventative, not punitive.
  13. What is the relationship of the English Misplaced Pages (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: a.) No. And possibly, it depends. b.) Valid as evidence? Sure. Anything within reason can be offered as evidence. The issue is more the applicability of the evidence to the situation(s) in question.
  15. 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: Ouch.
  17. 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)

You're welcome. And if you would like me to clarify my answers, please feel free to ask. - jc37 22:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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) 00:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well hmm. I think this is something you and I could have a nice long discussion on : )
But to try to merely answer...
This is something which I think has been discussed in the past. There have been proposals of a "content-related ARBCOM" (to mirror our current arbcom which is behaviour-related) to address content questions. Ask me on a different day and I may support or oppose. It's a tough call, as I do think some content disputes are endlessly never ending, but at the same time, I am rather loathe to see discernment of content leave the community's direct purview.
There's also been Kiril's proposal concerning governance reform concerning the development of policies. (Of which I now have a similar opinion as the above sentence.) I even did a work-up of a possible committee Misplaced Pages:Governance reform/Policy and guideline review. But I look at it now and I find I would oppose it. After a long time experiencing policy/guideline/etc. discussions, I strongly think that (except where the WMF needs to step in for legal reasons and such), policy creation should stay directly in the hands of the community.
As for how someone is abiding by policy, that sounds like a behaviour issue. but it depends on the policy in question. For example, if the community has determined that someone is repeatedly and/or consistently adding content that is copyvio, or is WP:OR, then that's a behaviour issue (which hopefully is addressed long before coming to arbcom). The key there is again, preventative, not punitive.
(To be very honest, I'm very much wishing I could ask you to specifically clarify the last two sentences of your question. But I've attempted to answer without that clarification : ) - jc37 01:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
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, do you rule out any review of sourced editing, or do you at least take a look at issues such as concerns about (a) misrepresenting sources, (b) using synthesis to push a point of view, (c) reliability of sourcing, (d) undue weight? Sorry if it wasn't clearer above - I'd prefer not to revisit old cases for reopening or politicising debates..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
(looks like you modified it while I was responding - EC's are fun : ) - but looking it over, I think my initial response still applies, so I'll just leave it extant. Though the note that I welcome further clarification obviously still applies : ) - jc37 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel like I'm going to fall into some pit trap : )
My initial thought is (when it comes to content, with the typical exceptions like BLP, of course): "there is no deadline". So I suppose I might want to look at the whole case and see how it could be addressed, while still leaving content assessment to the community.
My thought is that if there is a "preventative" issue, then that could actually be dealt with at the talk page level, with editors' suggestion that perhaps the individual is past the time to be WP:BOLD, and should avail themselves of the talk page. If they continue to add such material (or worse, edit war over it) obviously then "preventative, not punitive" would seem to apply. And that sounds like something which could be handled by admin action (or reviewed at some sub page of WP:AN, etc.)
If the community finds this to be problematic enough, they have other tools at their disposal: RFCU/ANI/etc., further admin action, and/or even (in a really worst case scenario) community banning.
That said, if for whatever reason the community passes it up to Arbcom, then Arbcom at that stage shouldn't need to assess the edits, as the community already has, and merely would be commenting on the behaviour issues, I presume?
(And this without getting into whether the case itself should be accepted or not.)
Again, I feel like I'm missing something here. (Or to put it another way: Your question gives me the semantic sense that you are suggesting that Arbcom should assess content, when afaik, Arbcom isn't supposed to, based upon a bunch of past RfCs and other such discussions.)
So with that in mind, I'll happily ask you to please feel free to clarify again, if you think I'm misunderstanding you (As I know you know from our past interaction, I greatly favour discussion and clarification. It's pretty much a way of life on Misplaced Pages : ) - jc37 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay - the community (AN, AN/I) is often misses subtle POV pushing if dressed in a veneer of civility. RfCs are often inconclusive. Ergo, the committee often ends up with a protracted dispute with only it and the underpopulated Arb Enforcement admins able to try and address solutions. My take on this is that (given no other Content Review bodies will surface in the forseeable future) the committee at a minimum needs to examine how editors in these situations edit content. Other folks have different takes on this. I did feel I held/hold this view more strongly than my arb colleagues. It isn't a trick question. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok.
The key word I keep coming back to in your words is "how". "How" suggests to me an action (how an action is taken), and so by extension, a behaviour. So with that in mind, and kept to that narrow scope of "how", I think that Arbcom could at least look at the "how" in question.
But I'm just not comfortable if when assessing that "how" we start to drift into "what" (what content).
It's a fine semantic line (and yes people could play with semantic application of "how" an "what"), but I'm attempting to keep it basic. - jc37 04:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes I hadn't thought of those two words but that is what I mean. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

  1. Looking at the attitudes of Misplaced Pages 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:Setting aside those things which need to be established by the WMF (Legal, etc.) and the foundational principles (like WP:IAR or WP:CON), all "rules" exist "at the pleasure of the community"; in place to help the community and exist until they are changed. After all, they are to represent common practice and prior consensus. Not the other way round.
  3. What does "Civility" mean to you?
    A:I have a section at the top of my talk page called "pages worth reading". And listed there, among other things, is WP:EQ, and the golden rule.
    And obviously, one can be civil and not necessarily polite. We operate in a collegiate environment, not some fanciful version of the Victorian age.
    But to more fully explain, I think the level of politeness in civility goes hand-in-hand with WP:AGF. If collegiate civility were a slide bar between ultimate politeness and ultimate straight-forward bluntness, then when interacting with someone, we should start out closer to the polite side. And if through the discussion (or in wiki-parlance, if their contribs lead in that direction), then, if appropriate, straight-forward bluntness may be more appropriate. But in neither case should we stray from collegiate civility. Civility is the slidebar itself, and should not be one of the poles on the slidebar.
    To put another way, when we communicate, we should recognise that the goal is to communicate to our "audience" (whoever we're communicating with). This is a collaborative environment after all, so communication should be to facilitate that collaboration, not self-gratification, and not to drive people apart. Or to say it more succinctly, communication should be phrased to help understanding and collaboration, not hinder it. (Incidentally, the use of profanity, like any form of communication here, should follow that general rule as well. If you're swearing because it makes you feel good, or to attack others, you should consider stopping. But it can be used to effect for emphasis to help communicate. Again, help, not hinder.)
    And this also can be associated with WP:NPA. All too often, in quickly talking (typing) we may say something which we may have intended to apply to someone's choice of action, but which appears phrased to be about the person. Perhaps it's old fashioned, but I've always tried to live in the belief of "love the person, regardless of their actions, even if they make choices you may disagree with." So to me, there is never a reason to make what some may call "ad hominem" (attacks to the person).
    So this comes back to what we have represented in our policies/guidelines:when commenting about content, comment about the content. When discussing behaviour, discuss the behaviour, the person's choices. There is no reason to attack the person.
    And along with this, we should be careful in "name calling". Even if intended to apply to their actions, name calling can be misconstrued to seem to be "applying a label" to the person. And so when communicating, we should try to be clear on this.
    Sorry for the lengthy response, but civility isn't just a simple response. It is as broad or narrow as communication itself.
    (Though I suppose I could have done the quick: "I know it when I see it" : ) - jc37 17:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

  1. How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
    A:I think it should be a staggered thing over time (and not have everything happen - kerplunk - at once at 3 months). Things like dropping them a notice (talk page and email, at lest); placing them on the inactive list; and potentially eventually removal due to inactivity. (It's up to JW whether he would replace the arbitrator in that situation, though he does have some RfCs and the election as a guide.) Without knowing what goes on behind the scenes, I don't think I could at this time set concrete points of time for the steps. (Past and present sitting arbs, I think, would be the best ones to ask about this.)
  2. 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?
    A: I think that there are more than just me on the team. Looking over these specific tasks which are doled out/volunteered for besides those which all Arbitrators do, makes me think of the classic military volunteer situation. "Who wants to do X?" everyone but you steps back, so you are the volunteer ; )
    I am happy to help, so I have no "push" towards any of them, but after others have chosen their preferences, I'll take a look at what's left : )

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) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC closes
Anchor:
  1. There is an RfC at Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.

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

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

    Deletion discussions have the review process Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Misplaced Pages: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."), Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5#Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion, and Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, Misplaced Pages:Move review, or something else.

Transparency
Anchor:
  • Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Misplaced Pages, 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.
    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.
Recusals
Anchor:
  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.

  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.
Consensus
Anchor:
  1. How would you have closed Misplaced Pages: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?

  2. After considering Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley?
  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 Misplaced Pages: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." Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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.
  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?
  7. Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?
Desysopping
Anchor:
Civility case clarification request
Anchor:
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) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)