Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Stephen Bain/Questions

General questions

 * 1) Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
 * 2) *(a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
 * 3) *(b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * 4) *(c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * 5) *(d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
 * 6) *(e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
 * 7) *(f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * 8) *(g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
 * 9) *(h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
 * 10) *(i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
 * 11) *(j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.
 * A: I performed all these tasks during my previous term, with varying degrees of frequency, save for carrying out Oversight requests. I drafted more motions and case proposals than the average, voted on slightly more items than the average, though I was somewhat slower than the average to do so. I can go into greater detail if that is desired, but I think here my prior record is the best answer (that and the statistics pages). --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
 * A: Although I initially struggled with the workload, by the end of my term I was able to manage it reasonably comfortably. The key is balance, and recognition of the reality that with sufficient members on the Committee it is not necessary for every arbitrator to perform every task all the time.
 * As to the last part of the question, my identity has never been secret, and I have no concerns as regards 'outing'. --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them ''in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
 * 2) *(a) "Private correspondence"
 * A: In general I support this principle. It is as much an adjunct of civility as it is of copyright obligations. However see also my votes on these principles in the Eastern Europe mailing list case. --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) *(b) "Responsibility"
 * A: This is uncontroversial and has been supported in many cases. --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) *(c) "Perceived legal threats"
 * A: I supported this principle at the time, and still do, with the proviso that I expressed in my vote there. --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) *(d) "Outing"
 * A: I supported this principle at the time, but with the proviso that I expressed in my vote there. Even though digging up formerly disclosed information does not constitute 'outing' per se, it could still constitute incivility or even harassment depending on the context and the intention. --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strict versus lenient: 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? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?
 * A: I side with whichever approach is appropriate in the particular case. Our touchstone in assessing sanctions at arbitration is to do whatever is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. We might be usefully informed from time to time by the theory of sentencing that prevails in real-world legal systems (balancing rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and so forth), but we're not bound by it.
 * I will say in the context of reviews of administrator action, that the interests of the project will almost always coincide with ensuring rigorous adherence to policy by administrators. I think there would be many more cases involving desysopping as a remedy if more requests for arbitration concerning administrator misconduct were brought before the Committee. --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.
 * A: For as long as I have been involved with it, the project has not had a strict legalist approach to policy. The letter of policy is not sacred. And, indeed, this is reflected even in the earliest versions of the arbitration policy. No, it is not the Committee's place to be creating novel policy, but that limitation should not be seen to unduly constrain the task that the Committee is charged with, which is to interpret policy with reference to the project's established principles and traditions. --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Conduct/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?
 * A: The Committee has no role in deciding the outcome of content disputes. This has always been the case, and always will be; if the community wish differently they need to institute a different body than the Committee. That is not to exclude, as the second part of the question mentions, the Committee establishing the parameters within which the community can work towards resolving particularly difficult problems. I think there is even scope for the Committee to borrow from real-world enforced mediation processes, which require good faith participation without requiring any particular substantive outcomes. --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * A: I'm going to hold off answering this question for a short while. --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * A: Having experienced two of the busiest years of the Committee's existence, I can safely say that much of what is necessary in increasing efficiency and productivity in the Committee's work revolves around effective internal communication and organisation, and I would largely aim simply to contribute to that. Nevertheless, there are some systemic issues. One is the operation of evidence pages (which I discuss in my candidate statement). Another is the general disjunct between the members of the Committee and participants in cases; too often there is too little contact between the former and the latter between acceptance of a case and the posting of the proposed decision. I can only say that I would endeavour to increase mid-case participation. --bainer (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Individual questions
This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:
 * be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
 * be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
 * not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format: -
 * 1) Question:
 * A:
 * 1) You mention that an ArbCom remedy might set "parameters within which the community can work towards resolving particularly difficult problems". Would you offer more details on possible parameters for discussing a hotly contested topic area, and how ArbCom might help the community reach a consensus where previous RFCs have spun out of control? How might this work? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: I think the remedies laid out in the Ireland article names case are a reasonably successful example of what I'm talking about, although they took rather a long time to be implemented. It's essentially the Sword of Damocles approach: incentivise constructive participation in the process by mandating a less palatable alternative (in this case, the appointment of a panel of administrators to lay down a process should the community fail to do so) should the process fail. In this case and in others where similar remedies have been proposed, this approach has been applied to the development of the process through which discussion happens. I think though there is scope to extend this to the carrying out of the process too: that is, not merely incentivising participation but imposing obligations on individuals to participate in the process in good faith (a standard used in real world legal systems in the context of mandatory mediation). I think this could be useful for somewhat smaller scale disputes (mandating process development is a suitable remedy for very large scale conflicts like Ireland naming) where there are individuals who are not disruptive per se, but who are still inhibiting discussion in some way or another. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very clear. Thanks and good luck! Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for your question! --bainer (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Please see your proposal X3. Do you still stand-by that proposed finding of fact? If so, can you explain your rationale for why those particular diffs you were contrary to WP:NPOV and why you think the other arbitrators who opposed or abstained for substantive reasons were incorrect? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Yes I do. The neutral point of view is about dispassionately identifying and describing the lay of the land in current thought on a subject. Siding for or against any given point of view in describing it is contrary to this. A view may be held only by a tiny minority on the far fringe of the mainstream, but there is a difference between describing it as such and disparaging it. Most of the others thought that, as written, it didn't rise to the level of a distinct finding; that's fair enough. I thought it important to identify that aspect of your behaviour. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You have made virtually no contributions here for the past year, between leaving the Committee and applying for re-election. One might infer that your interest in this project is limited to occupying an ArbCom seat. How would you address that perception? If you're not elected this year, do you anticipate contributing to this project as an editor, or is your future participation contingent upon being re-elected to ArbCom? MastCell Talk 01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: That's an excellent question. While I wouldn't say I was burned out at the end of my two years, I certainly appreciated the opportunity to step away for a while, and focus more heavily on other interests. On top of that, last year and this year I have spent most of my time (in my academic life) doing original research, which to a degree has precluded me from doing research and writing for Wikipedia. At least until I publish some things and can start citing myself in articles that is :) Nevertheless, I have certainly missed article writing, and luckily that time spent on other interests has revealed quite a few areas where plenty more writing is needed! --bainer (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Offliner. In the WP:EEML arbitration, you obviously spent a lot of time and effort in researching and drafting the detailed findings, which the other arbitrators didn't seem willing to do. But you were also one of the last arbitrators to cast their votes in the case, which missed a large number of deadlines. What do you think of this? Do you think ArbCom's decision making speed (including your own) should be improved? If yes, then how? Offliner (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: Well I think you've half answered your own question there. The email archive in that case had around 3400 emails in it. The evidence page was, at nearly 27000 words, comfortably more than twice as long as the honours thesis I wrote that year. I don't know how many diffs there were to review (not to mention edits that weren't presented on the evidence page). It's unfortunately a reality that some tasks performed by arbitrators - such as preparing proposals for that case, as you mention - are incredibly labour-intensive, and this sets up an unresolvable conflict with the desire (and pressure) to resolve matters quickly. At other times it's not so much the complexity of a task as it is the volume of tasks that gives rise to this tension. I ran the stats on arbcom-l in the first half of 2009 (I don't know if there are more recent ones): there were nearly 15000 emails received by the list over that period.
 * And really it's more of a triangular tension, if that makes sense, with the third axis being the variable amount of time that arbitrators have available in which to perform all of these tasks. At the end of the day it's a volunteer position. Most years there are a few arbitrators who resign before their terms are up because unforeseen changes in their circumstances preclude them from continuing to devote the necessary time. Temporary events such as business travel or personal holidays also have an effect.
 * I want to be clear I'm not making excuses here, I'm just identifying realities. Indeed, I certainly acknowledge that I was among the slower arbitrators when it comes to things like the average time taken to vote on case proposals. Every arbitrator wants to get things done faster. The question is how to do that without sacrificing performance. I think the only two options open are increasing efficiency and devolving responsibilities. To an extent the latter has been aided by the establishment of the ban appeals subcommittee and the audit subcommittee. I think the 2010 members of the Committee are going to be the ones who are best placed to report on the effects that these subcommittees have had, and the areas in which similar steps might best be taken going forward; I couldn't say from the outside what the specific balance of the 2010 workload has been like. In terms of efficiency, the coordinating arbitrator position has been a great help. I think all that can be said with regards to that as a candidate is that I would endeavour to either support or perform that role as needed. --bainer (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: In your candidate statement, you mention some cases you were involved in drafting - is that a complete record or were there more cases you drafted and those ones you mentioned are examples of your best work? Along similar lines (with reference to general question 1 if needed), which areas of your previous service on the committee are more of a weakness, and do you have plans to address those weaknesses? Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC) As disclosed here, this is part of a set of discussions on 'previous service record' that I am initiating with all current and former arbitrators about their candidacies.
 * A: