Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Courcelles/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?
 * In my time on Wikipedia, I've done at least a little bit of almost everything, and have gotten a perspective of the arbitration process through serving as a member of the audit subcommittee this term. I bring the experience of being a busy editor and administrator, who knows the reality of being on the ground, dealing with situations, explaining problems, explaining why a certain thing was done or not done, making decisions, and evaluating situations. Courcelles 18:57, 16 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.
 * The only case I've been even tangentally involved in is Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket. Courcelles 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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'm glad the question acknowledges that all situations are different, because not only behaviour differs in every case, but so does the history of exactly how much leniency and second chances before a matter comes before the Committee. Let us be clear, desysopping and banning are remedies with entirely different standards for imposing them, and the standards for what level of misbehaviour should be met with a desysop is considerably lower than that for a ban. Further, ArbCom is the only body with power to perform an involuntary desysop on a (non-compromised) account, whereas the system through which the community may impose bans is well-developed. No one needs to be an admin to contribute to this project, and those who are repeatedly or egregiously misusing the tools should find themselves without them. Banning a user is a much more serious matter, and users who are blatantly disruptive are usually handled through community processes and not by the Committee. Even though I'd look for a higher level of misconduct for a ban than a desysop, I'm not in favour of taking a too-lenient hand to truly disruptive users. Courcelles 22:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * Let me be clear: the Arbitration Committee is not the English Wikipedia's government, and it should never be such a thing. In no case can ArbCom mandate a change to policy, and even suggesting such a thing as a body would be usually inappropriate.  What policy says is ultimately the community's responsibility, no one else's; and the policies the community has established should guide and shape the Committee's thinking. That said, any matter that comes before the Committee that involves a user violating policy as written must be viewed through a filter of the spirit of the policies, and an eye that for just cause to improve the encyclopaedia, a user may rightfully ignore policy.  If policy is not clear, members of the committee as individuals should work to have clearer language introduced into policy; I think we can all agree that ambiguous language in written documents usually leads to little more than drama. Courcelles 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * The Committee should not be in the content business, and getting into that business would be a very bad idea, and a real expansion of the Committee's mandate. There are some things the Committee can do, either removing the most disruptive users, giving admins the ability to manage disruptive users through discretionary sanctions, or for the most unbreakable of disputes, having a final RFC on a matter, and then imposing a moratorium that that RFC's consensus would stand for a somewhat lengthy period as in the Ireland naming disputes. The latter is an interesting idea, but only works for things that do not have an infinite number of choices. If the community wants someone that can rule directly on content, they could create one; but I believe such a body should, even if created, be separate from the Arbitration Committee. Courcelles 23:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * Motions are for simpler matters that either don't require a full case, or in situations that merely require a prior case to be modified. The less the facts are in dispute, the more suitable a particular situation becomes to being resolved via motion. Courcelles 00:08, 16 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?
 * Motions are for doing things outside of the context of a formal case; and as I've already said, the more complicated something is, the better to handle it via a full case than an expedited format. If the community had handled an issue, the committee has no business changing that consensus by motion, assuming there exists a true consensus, and not an isolated discussion being claimed as consensus. As to the third part of the question, the situations where the Committee has any business getting involved in a matter the community is discussing without being directly asked to rule by the community are few and very far between; and any issue that would generate substantial community discussion that the Committee would have the jurisdiction to settle is almost surely too complicated for a simple motion, and would be better suited as a case. Courcelles 02:19, 17 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'm going to briefly touch on a few motions, in a chronological order, rather than by my opinions on them. I also will not comment on any motion that was directed towards a specific editor.  The Omnibus motion that recently passed was purely clean-up to make terms of the discretionary sanctions consistent across cases, and reduce confusion on admins and editors, as we had a messy situation where the paperwork and rules on them all were slightly different.  This was a good thing; paperwork and due process for editors working in these topic areas are very important, but the motion did not make the burden for imposing a discretionary sanction any lower, just the bureaucracy reduced. The "Motion regarding Arbitrator abstention votes" was largely, again, a paperwork change, but an important one, as arbitrators were uisng abstain votes to comment, but by formally abstaining, the support votes to pass certain parts of a decision was changed. This change lets an arb abstain specifically, if s/he is, say, recused in part of a case; but provides a venue for comment making without chaning the support needed to pass by merely doing so.  Finally, the "Motion regarding Hyphens and dashes" was the mis-step here.  While it ultimately worked, I do not think it was within the powers of the Arbitration Committee to fix thousands of titles at their current titles, and to do it with such a motion that basically said someone who accidentally created an article at the "wrong" title could not move it.  The idea of a large, well-advertised RFC to resolve the issue was a good one, but the Arbitration Committee came too close to a content ruling in this motion for my comfort. Courcelles 02:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * The policy from the foundation is fairly clear, when you don't need non-public data anymore, you get rid of it. Part of that is tricky, as knowing when you're done with information is much more art than science, but the principle is sound; if we've got no more reason to hang onto some non-public information, it's time to clean it out. Courcelles 03:50, 17 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?
 * While I believe we should destroy information we no longer need, as we are obligated to do by foundational policy, the tricky thing is determining when such information is no longer needed. To draw an analogue to checkuser practices; we never keep copies of routine checks, which are most of SPI’s business; but we do retain notes on our most persistent sockmasters, as the problem is, in these cases not resolved; and is ongoing for the foreseeable future.  I won’t endorse any time limit, but at the point where we are reasonably confident the information is no longer useful to the legitimate business of the Committee, it should be destroyed.  Sometimes this will be the conclusion of the case, and sometimes it may be longer.  Once information is no longer actively being used by the committee, but is being retained for some legitimate purpose, it should be locked away in some fashion (I’m sorry, I’m not technically literate, so I’m speaking in concepts, not specific ideas) and access to such nformation being logged.  I’m wary of any system that sets access to information under the control of specific arbitrators, as the principle of equality among the elected arbitrators is something I view as important.  Whether than restricting access to certain members, or the WMF, I’d prefer to see developed a system that sees access to non-public data logged, and monitored by other arbitrators; and like running the checkuser tool, only accessed with just cause and logged reasoning.  Courcelles 22:18, 17 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?
 * The Arbitration Committee is the elected body of the English Wikipedia’s community, and when privacy is not a concern, the deliberations of the Committee should be visible to the community. There was a proposal a few months back to create an arbcom-en-public mailing list for these discussions, and I would support that creation if elected.  Obviously the decision where to host a discussion would be open to the judgment of the arbs, and if the topic strays towards anything that involves privacy the venue should change, (and I know it would be annoying to see a discussion end half-way through!) but the privacy of enwp’s contributors is a high calling of the Committee, even above transparency.  But as long as that privacy is vigorously guarded, there needs to be a move towards greater openness of the business of the ‘’elected’’ Committee by the electorate, just as there is in any publically elected body. Courcelles 22:18, 17 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?
 * Hindsight is 20/20, and the scenario was obviously unprepared for. Security is easy to think about when you suddenly find you need it, and damned hard to give a damn about when you have no pressing concern to do so.  The Committee was left scrambling in the wake of the leak, but at the point of the incident, I’m not sure what could have been done differently, as I would likewise have had no clue how to determine how the information was accessed by the leaker technically.  A system that logged the IP and passworded identity of whoever accessed prior month’s archives of threads would have been a good idea beforehand, and I believe such a system has now been introduced. From a public relations standpoint, however, the Committee’s response was a bit of a mess; due to the volume of personal information contained in ArbCom’s archives, the Community needed a strong, confident response from the Committee, and the public response we received was somewhat disjointed, but I acknowledge that crisis management is insanely difficult, and that there are people who make handsome livings doing it well.  In general, what people wanted to hear was “never again”, and for obvious reasons, no one could provide those sort of assurances. Courcelles 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
 * My name isn't a closely guarded secret or anything, but I don't intend to make it any easier to find than it already is. Who we are on Wikipedia matters, what we do as editors matters. Courcelles 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * In general, I think the WMF, through their new, under-discussion-on-Meta terms of use, take some of the more obvious and serious problems off ArbCom hands, as they are usually problems to the extent that they should make a user ‘’globally unwelcome’’. This would include serious off-wiki harassers, protecting children’s privacy issues, and the like. Such problems require more than a purely enwp solution, and the new terms of use will give the WMF the solid foundation to act in such cases. Courcelles 22:18, 17 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?
 * This is fairly settled after having an Arbitration Committee for almost eight years, and significant shifts of responsibility should not be the initiative of the Committee. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Let us distinguish from the MeatballWiki definition linked above and the standard English-language meaning of the term. Standard English usage, a vested contributor is one who has invested their time and energy into something.  This is a good thing. People who care, people who are willing to get their hands in the muck and give a damn make the encyclopaedia better!  Producing anything that is worth having, much less can be passed through the GA, FL, or FA processes practically requires contributors to invest and care about the subject and the project; and in this sense, “vested contributors” are to be cherished, for the great work in improving the encyclopaedia can not be accomplished without them.  (Just to be clear, I do not equate improving the encyclopaedia with producing audited content, it is merely an easy example to use of work that requires sustained involvement in a limited scope.  Ways to improve the encyclopaedia are manifest.)  Now to the MeatballWiki definition of the term; this definition implies that “vested contributors” feel entitled to exemption from the normal rules of the organization in which they are invested.  This is not good, and, yeah, we do have issues with this. Editors are equal, you cannot earn a licence to behave poorly on a record of good contributions; the policies that govern behaviour on this project apply to all.  Courcelles 22:18, 17 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?
 * Of course we do, that so many cases have been argued over nationalistic and factionalist lines merely reflects the disputes that take place in the real world. Wikipedia exists in the real world, and with a worldwide editorship, it is inescapable that disputes that rage in the real world would find Wikipedia used as a front in the dispute.  Our current policy seems to be that when a dispute flares up here, ArbCom spends two months thinking about it, and then imposes discretionary sanctions and the issues go off to AE, likely with some disruptive users either site or topic-banned. It isn’t a perfect model, but it works in most cases in letting administrators handle long-term disputes that have off-wiki origins as new editors join the fray; while this does devolve responsibility to administrators, it also saves the Committee from having to decide another case on the most volatile disputes every six months, though there is little doubt in my mind that the current system of discretionary sanctions can be improved, perhaps by moving imposing them to a more consensus based model, as cases filed at AE are settled, rather than a system of one-admin decisions that are (thankfully) becoming less common. Courcelles
 * 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?
 * Yes, we have a dual problem; keeping existing editors, and recruiting new ones. Editing Wikipedia is, over time, becoming a more stressful activity, and the learning curve is steep.  I was discussing with another admin the other day that in some ways I found wiki-editing easier to pick up because I can’t write any of the common code for internet purposes, and I am the type to read anything and everything before I start pressing buttons. Those used to writing, say, HTML, not only have to learn our system of code, they have to refrain from their instinct to code things in formatting and language that is used on most other websites.  The eventual WYSIWYG editor should help the immediate turnoff of the code for new editors, but keeping the editors we have is just as important, and is not so easily solved.  In general, some of the problems are obvious, and are not necessarily problems at all; rudimentary articles on common encyclopaedic topics pretty much all exist, and a lot of the obvious work of improving the project at this point involves either researching obscure topics, or improving the core topics, which takes patience and the willingness to sort through a large body of published literature.  The low-hanging fruit is gone, and the hard work remains.  This is not really a bad thing, we have produced the most complete encyclopaedia ever written; and while we are nowhere near done (and never can be, knowledge is always expanding), the barrier to entry is higher than ever before.  More help is always needed and appreciated, and newcomers to the community need to be valued and encouraged, because as editors naturally leave the project they must be replaced, or we risk at some point being unable to maintain the articles we have, much less improve and grow our collection. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda was the textbook example of a case; the dispute was somewhat simple, the case was decided with good speed, and the decision well thought out. If you’re looking for a model for future limited-scope cases, this is it. Even though it took longer, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands is worth a mention as it tries an innovative measure to prevent future disputes in similar territory from requiring a full case.  While not perfect, it was relatively well-handled, and I like the innovative idea that could help matters broader than the Senkaku Islands dispute in the future. On the other end of the scale, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs was a bit of a mess that ended up in a result that basically told people to calm down, use the dispute resolution process, and come back in a month if problems persisted.  There are two major problems I see here; first, the case accomplished nothing.  Second, and most important, the Committee ignores the issues of external forces, that care little for our norms and policies trying to manipulate biographies here to push an agenda, which is a real problem, and not one easily solved.  The AESH Case is a textbook example of the Committee taking two and a half months to accomplish nothing. This case was the perfect chance to reform the discretionary sanctions system, making it both more transparent, and easier to understand.  The creation of a designated appeals body, rather than “whoever shows up at AE” would have been strongly worth considering as well, though I’m not certain such a system would be a good idea (it would be better than unilateral reversing, to be sure!).  In the end, this case changed nothing from what was laid down in a 2010 motion]. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (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?
 * The reason no one proposed an RFC to abolish the Arbitration Committee is because it works. Not perfectly, of course not, but it works as well as anything else we’ve tried as a project. Many of the small things that could be improved (I mentioned below, but posted earlier, the silliness I consider the “net four” rule to hear a case to be) are incremental. As much as the project as a whole may need governance reform, this has to come from the community, and cannot be the initiative of the Arbitration Committee, whose mandate is not to be a government, and should not be. Courcelles 22:18, 17 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:

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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
 * A:A relatively simple, limited focus case still taking ten weeks is unacceptable. Some rare cases are so complicated and with so many parties that a ten week case is understandable, even though still not ideal; this was in no way such a case. Courcelles 17:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
 * A: No; Wikiprojects have the ability to suggest standards, but not to enforce them. Giving WikiProjects an enforceable ability like that would, IMO, inevitably lead to jurisdictional squabbles, as most articles are within the scope of two, three, or more Wikiprojects, even if not tagged as such at present. Standards are very useful when working on articles, but, one of our pillars is that with good cause, such standards on layout can be ignored; and the people with theit hands in the machinery of that particular article are the ones who have the best insights to when that is necessary; though I don't favour ignoring standards for no reason whatsoever, the key words are "with good cause". Courcelles 17:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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: Well, ignoring consensus can be one form of disruptive editing, as well as some other behaviours that you mention. Really, this is one of those borderline cases where whether action is warranted or it is just a personality clash is going to depend entirely on the actual behavour, and this scenario is so vague as to be unanswerable. There could be a case made for everything from nothing at all to a mentor-ship, to a civility restriction, to, if after lesser steps are tried, a series of escalating blocks.  The latter would be highly unfortunate, but in the worst case of possible scenarios that could fit within the uestion it may be necessary.  Courcelles 04:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
 * A:In the first instance, try to find them some easier area of the project where they can be useful and attempt to educate them, as apparent competence issues can actually be a "good-faith but clueless" editor just needing a guiding hand for a while. If nothing helps, and the editor is still making a mess, it is time to go to ANI and consider a block until the editor shows they can be productive and edit without damaging the project through incompetence. The important thing about WP:COMPETENCE is that an editor can be acting in the best of faith, but still be making a mess, and it is not up to the community to be long-suffering in cleaning up after them unendingly. Courcelles 04:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
 * A: The situations are unlikely to (3, in the worst case scenario, again, the question is vague enough that no definitive statements can be made) need more than an informal, de facto ban, where an indefinite block is in place and no admin is willing to unblock. However, if events (for example sockpuppetry) makes the formal ban necessary, this is fine.
 * 1) 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:Well, the behaviour of one party cannot entirely excuse the behaviour of another, we are all responsible for our own choices; that said, just because two or more editors are going at it doesn't mean that they are equally at fault, and I believe sanctions should be issued based on the responsibility of each party; if one party is pushing the other editor around, and the other editor snaps, clearly one party's fault is greater than the other. (With that said, it is of course possible for all parties in a dispute to be equally at fault; but Arbitration must examine any situation as a situation, and not as a series of diffs looking for offences against rules.) Courcelles 03:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
 * A:The ArbCom should hear cases when there is a problem that the community is unable (or highly unlikely) to resolve on its own. I say the highly unlikely caveat because just as much as I don't care for ArbCom being used as a end-run around other methods of dispute resolution, there are circumstances where sending a problem to an RFC is clearly more likely to be a "color-by-number" exercise than true resolution, and in those cases, the Committee should be willing to just take the case and resolve the problem.  As a procedural note, I'm not a fan of the "net four" rule, that can see a case rejected despite a majority of voting Arbitrators voting to hear it, as the current rules require four more arbs wanting to accept a case than voting to reject it.  Courcelles 04:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
 * A: Editors should be banned when, despite efforts to change their behaviour, they are a net negative on the project. The interesting thing in the ban process these days is that a great deal of them are community imposed, and I've handled a dozen or so ban discussions as an admin.  It takes either prolonged misbehaviour or highly egregious misbehaviour to receive a ban; sitebans are not now, and never should be, imposed lightly.  ArbCom bans are usually of editors who are not as clear-cut as the ones handled on AN, but the basic principle that anyone whose behaviour makes them a serious drain on community time should be removed from the community is one I agree with. Courcelles 04:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * A: Of course. Courcelles 04:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * A: We have a number of them. Editor retention is a major one as some say that Wikipedia's "golden age" is in the past; I disagree with that, but the task of drawing and keeping editors is pressing, as a community, without replacement for those editors that leave, we will eventually be unable to maintain this encyclopaedia, much less be able to grown and improve it.  We continue to have problems with our BLP's (to avoid repeating myself, I'll go into more detail on BLP's under NW's questions tomorrow when I answer them.)  I think we are still undergoing the pains of moving from a growth model to an improvement one, where we already have articles on a great proportion of things readers come here to learn about (though we still have untapped realms of knowledge out there to create more articles) to a model where the growth in article count slows, but the focus on article quality becomes ever greater.  This project works, but our challenges are ever changing as our footing as a community, and our place in the world is becoming more solid. Courcelles 04:23, 19 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.
 * In general I support the idea of an opt-out system for people of marginal notability, especially given the large number of "directory-style" BLP's we have. Rather than any automatic system, I'd support the system like we use of AFD's, with the closing admin deciding how much weight to give the request, and given discretion towards deletion. I think it is obvious that people of more notability would not have the consensus to be opted-out of being covered by the project however, at the lower levels, I think this is something we should do for subjects that don't want to be part of this encyclopaedia, though we are never under obligation to do such deletions, and steps short of deletion can often assuage the subject.  I like the idea of targeted flagging, as a large proportion of the BLP nonsense I've encountered that was there for more than a few hours was in severely under-watched articles. Ignoring high-profile articles with this system ends the problems some projects have (for example the Russian Wikipedia, where I have seen articles with hundreds of revisions waiting for review) where the system gets flooded in work. Pending Changes, in my opinion, was a failure.  The focus on large and high-profile articles made for lots of work when vandalism was usually being caught anyway, the software itself was molasses-level slow, and the community's faith in something billed as a "trial" that kept going was shaken.  It seemed to me that the more the community saw of that PC system, the less it cared for it, much the same as I did, as the system was slow; and with only 1,000 articles on it, there was actually only rarely reviewing work necessary, as opposed to eventually putting it on 100,000+ articles - we never tried it under "real-world" conditions like the German or Polish Wikipedias use the same software, where most or all articles are under the system.  With the lack of work available, the reviewers forgot about the system; in a full-scale deployment on the type of articles we were using it under, I fear we would have drowned. I would support a re-implementation along the lines of the targeted flagging, where only low-watched, low-edited articles would be subject to the system.  The Arbitration Committee had no role to play, this was a community decision to as to a major policy change, and ArbCom does not belong in policy discussions, though the ArbCom, in the Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes case, has already given admins broad authority to ensure BLP is complied with. Courcelles 00:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * 2) 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 point is well-taken, and, quite frankly, spot-on. I absolutely think POV pushing is a problem, and that as violating NPOV is both a content and a conduct problem, the Arbitration Committee could take action for that, and not focus on civility to the extent that some past cases have.  The trick here, and it is a trick, is to distinguish pure POV pushing from a legitimate content dispute, as content disputes are not within ArbCom's jurisdiction, and I would be beyond loathe to see ArbCom make content rulings. With interest I note that the discretionary sanctions authorise administrators to impose sanctions on editors that "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process", and I think we can all agree that POV pushing is outside acceptable conduct.  Moreschi's essay is along the same lines as Heimstern's, just with more of a focus on nationalistic POV pushing in specific.  Admins are rarely experts, and, if we're honest, identifying incivility is easy; identifying who is pushing fringe POV or pet theories requires at least some familiarity with the subject matter of the article in question.  It is too easy to sanction the person who said the uncivil thing (not that I endorse incivility in the slightest, just so we're clear, a lack of civility is a problem with the project!) and not look closely at the person who was civil, but may be causing the article more harm through various forms of pushing POV.  The underlying message I take from the three quotes, and it is one that I agree with, is that while civility is important, we, ad administrators and potential Arbitrators, are here to support the development of a great encyclopaedia, not to enforce rules for the sake of rules.  We must treat each other with civility, but we also must keep close in mind that perfectly civil conduct can still be problematic towards our goal of writing an encyclopaedia. Courcelles 22:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Administrators who are involved in a specific dispute should never use their tools as it relates to that dispute, but in a broader sense, the Community usually does not have objection (and I do not either) to an admin who is involved in a topic area doing things that are uncontroversial such as blocking a vandal or obvious sock. In general, though, there are 1,500 administrators, and the situations that require speed enough to justify an involved action are so rare, that the involved policy should be broadly respected and not loosened, admins stepping on involved in my experience only leads to drama. Topics heated enough to have discretionary sanctions imposed on them require more attention to admin actions as it relates to involved administrators, and the rules specifically require admins imposing such sanctions be uninvolved. Courcelles 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * The Foundation, unlike the Committee, has a lawyer that is aid to look after its interests, but if the Committee became aware of such a situation, I would expect the first step would be to consult the Office, even if for nothing more than a reality check from a lawyer who is familiar with the projects and is looking out for the Foundation's interests. For some reason, the policy focuses a lot more on threats than actual legal action, perhaps because threats are so easy to make, whereas starting actual legal action takes a decent bit of effort for most people. Whatever the reason, the policy applies to actual legal actions as well, when it states "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels." (bolding mine) While my lay opinion cant imagine any lawyer worth his salt letting a party to such a lawsuit continue editing, we need to do whatever is necessary to keep WP from being a battleground in the legal proceedings, though also keeping the WMF or Arbitrators individually from being added to the lawsuit. If this scenario occurred, I imagine I, and most arbs, would be leaning heavily on the opinion of the Foundation's incumbent general counsel. Courcelles 17:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrators who are involved in a specific dispute should never use their tools as it relates to that dispute, but in a broader sense, the Community usually does not have objection (and I do not either) to an admin who is involved in a topic area doing things that are uncontroversial such as blocking a vandal or obvious sock. In general, though, there are 1,500 administrators, and the situations that require speed enough to justify an involved action are so rare, that the involved policy should be broadly respected and not loosened, admins stepping on involved in my experience only leads to drama. Topics heated enough to have discretionary sanctions imposed on them require more attention to admin actions as it relates to involved administrators, and the rules specifically require admins imposing such sanctions be uninvolved. Courcelles 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * The Foundation, unlike the Committee, has a lawyer that is aid to look after its interests, but if the Committee became aware of such a situation, I would expect the first step would be to consult the Office, even if for nothing more than a reality check from a lawyer who is familiar with the projects and is looking out for the Foundation's interests. For some reason, the policy focuses a lot more on threats than actual legal action, perhaps because threats are so easy to make, whereas starting actual legal action takes a decent bit of effort for most people. Whatever the reason, the policy applies to actual legal actions as well, when it states "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels." (bolding mine) While my lay opinion cant imagine any lawyer worth his salt letting a party to such a lawsuit continue editing, we need to do whatever is necessary to keep WP from being a battleground in the legal proceedings, though also keeping the WMF or Arbitrators individually from being added to the lawsuit. If this scenario occurred, I imagine I, and most arbs, would be leaning heavily on the opinion of the Foundation's incumbent general counsel. Courcelles 17:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Foundation, unlike the Committee, has a lawyer that is aid to look after its interests, but if the Committee became aware of such a situation, I would expect the first step would be to consult the Office, even if for nothing more than a reality check from a lawyer who is familiar with the projects and is looking out for the Foundation's interests. For some reason, the policy focuses a lot more on threats than actual legal action, perhaps because threats are so easy to make, whereas starting actual legal action takes a decent bit of effort for most people. Whatever the reason, the policy applies to actual legal actions as well, when it states "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels." (bolding mine) While my lay opinion cant imagine any lawyer worth his salt letting a party to such a lawsuit continue editing, we need to do whatever is necessary to keep WP from being a battleground in the legal proceedings, though also keeping the WMF or Arbitrators individually from being added to the lawsuit. If this scenario occurred, I imagine I, and most arbs, would be leaning heavily on the opinion of the Foundation's incumbent general counsel. Courcelles 17:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional questions
 * 1) What is your opinion of specialized content guidelines like Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Do you think it is a practice that we should encourage with other guidelines like Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) or Identifying reliable sources (history)?
 * MEDRS has always struck me as a very good idea, especially given the risks of handing out bad information in the medical topic. (No one should ever rely on Wikipedia for medical ro legal information, or accept us as the final word on any research, but we all know what people should do and what they do do often differ!)  In any field where separating reliable and unreliable sources is a persistent problem, and the topic area is sufficiently broad that problems persist, creating such a guideline is a logical step rather than needing to discuss every proposed source at RSN. Courcelles 03:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * No one should ever rely on Wikipedia for their medical or legal information. Let's get that clear; we may be a good place to get a broad overview of a topic, even to find other reading into it, but no one should depend on us for such vital information.  That's the abstract.  The real world, however, is unfortunately not so clean, and we all know that being so high on Google's rankings that there are people out there who read our articles on some law or disease and it enters their brain as gospel.  Bad medical information can kill. Bad legal information can send someone to prison.  Therefore, I'd say that on such topics, where the cost of people believing wrong information because Wikipedia said it is so high, we must be sure we're right, just like our BLP policy is designed to do. Corporations, on the other hand... while we need to be sure to source everything in articles about corporations, I don't consider the idea of guidelines about sourcing and reliability of sources regarding them to be as feasible as they are in medicine or law; the business press is far larger and more diverse than academic medical literature, extending from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, right down to every small-town publication. Our special efforts about BLP are, to some extent, to keep real people from being harmed by being attacked on the sixth-largest website.  At the end of the day, I don't feel the same moral obligation to bend over backwards to protect a business as I do real people, though WP:V and WP:NPOV are important to every article we have, no matter if there is a special policy for the topic or not.  (And it should be noted that almost every article on a business out there has some BLP content that falls under WP:BLP.) Courcelles 05:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * To be fair, I don't see those as policy rulings so much as a different form of the standard discretionary sanctions that were imposed with "BLP" as a topic area akin to those imposed on other, more limited topic areas (though of course there are some differences). Courcelles 04:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Not at all. Consensus-building is difficult in such a large community as we currently have, sometimes extremely so.  But the basic model still works, it just takes longer than it did in the old-days when the site was still small (I wasn't here for those, but reading the old discussions against those that happen these days is quite telling in just how much the place has changed.)  Building consensus is difficult, and the inertia of stare decisis can make changing things hard, I believe that the basic model of consensus and discussion from all interested parties can still work. Courcelles 05:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Most sockmasters likely merit handling with the "bannedmeansbanned" treatment; as their edits are almost always problematic at some level, even though they may appear fine at a glance. Actions like copyvio, POV pushing, etc. typically take longer to spot than pure disruption and trolling.  While I wouldn't revert an edit I actively thought was good, my general thoughts of banned users are that their edits are bad and should be reverted until you are convinced otherwise, and if you are, then those edits can be left unreverted/undeleted.  Courcelles 23:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Consensus-building is difficult in such a large community as we currently have, sometimes extremely so.  But the basic model still works, it just takes longer than it did in the old-days when the site was still small (I wasn't here for those, but reading the old discussions against those that happen these days is quite telling in just how much the place has changed.)  Building consensus is difficult, and the inertia of stare decisis can make changing things hard, I believe that the basic model of consensus and discussion from all interested parties can still work. Courcelles 05:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Most sockmasters likely merit handling with the "bannedmeansbanned" treatment; as their edits are almost always problematic at some level, even though they may appear fine at a glance. Actions like copyvio, POV pushing, etc. typically take longer to spot than pure disruption and trolling.  While I wouldn't revert an edit I actively thought was good, my general thoughts of banned users are that their edits are bad and should be reverted until you are convinced otherwise, and if you are, then those edits can be left unreverted/undeleted.  Courcelles 23:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most sockmasters likely merit handling with the "bannedmeansbanned" treatment; as their edits are almost always problematic at some level, even though they may appear fine at a glance. Actions like copyvio, POV pushing, etc. typically take longer to spot than pure disruption and trolling.  While I wouldn't revert an edit I actively thought was good, my general thoughts of banned users are that their edits are bad and should be reverted until you are convinced otherwise, and if you are, then those edits can be left unreverted/undeleted.  Courcelles 23:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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)   02:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take these as a pair, I hope you don't mind. I should also add that I have no idea what legal position this would put the Foundation in; the finer points of non-profit law are about as far from my fields of knowledge as Earth is from Andromeda. If it doesn't destroy the WMF's protection in not being a publisher and liable for copyvios and libel, the proposals aren't bad ideas, and while I think the risk of an individual arb being sued are low, the proposal would eliminate that risk as an individual.  (That said, the WMF has more money than I do, so suing may well become more attractive!)  There is a risk, however small, that the WMF would take a greater say in ArbCom decisions with being potentially on the hook financially for them, so I would support the first proposal slightly more than the second, but overall I think this would be a positive change. Courcelles 05:06, 27 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: I think some of the behaviour you're describing is only natural. I think it is easy to see the Arbitration process as a way to "punish wrongdoers", and usually people who think they are in the wrong would change their behaviour.  Most of the people in disputes have the mindset, if not "I'm innocent, the other side is guilty", at least "The other side is more at fault than me".  Workshop pages have their uses, but this problem is a hard one to fix in the light of normal human emotions. Courcelles 17:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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: Parties should continue to propose solutions on the workshop pages; at worst the proposals are useless and constitute taking potshots at the other side. In these cases, the clerks should be given latitude to remove any proposal they believe is so motivated, and have the ability to restrict the proposer with the power to make arbitration enforcement blocks if necessary.  The Workshop phase of a case is not a venue where personal attacks and nonsense are allowed, and the most serious mis-steps there should be handled.  The real solution to making the workshop pages more usable is to involve more outside editors, admins who have been somewhat involved in the topic area but are not "involved" in the dispute at hand, and arbitrators themselves in the workshop page.  The Workshop page is most useful if many viewpoints, those bringing an outside perspective on the dispute especially, are involved and participate in drafting proposals. We can't change human nature to not see themselves as the party in the wrong, but we can get more eyes on this phase of the cases.  Courcelles 17:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Question from Off2riorob
As an administrator what is the fastest one your blocks has been overturned by community consensus? Your restriction of my editing privileges during my offer to assist the arbitration committee in the 2010 election, was rejected by the community in less than thirteen minutes, you self reverted as soon as it was obvious. Have there been any faster than that? Do you consider with hindsight that you were wrong to have blocked me during my offer to assist the project as an arbitration candidate or do you think you were right and that the consensus at ANI was wrong? If you think you were right please comment as regards blocks being preventative and punitive as the user Treasury Tag, now indefinitely blocked for such similar disruptions at multiple locations previous to this historic situation and after it, had been reverting my removal of their multiple questioning on my election discussion page and had been blocked by HJMitchel, removing the issue and ending any possibility of the situation continuing. User:Skomorokh acting as an election coordinator said, "Treasury Tag, the guidelines are clear as day in that voters may ask only one question per candidate on their Questions page" - Off2riorob (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue never went to ANI. You were both reported to ANEW, and both of you clearly broke the 3RR, you chose to make four reverts, as the history of the questions page indicates. 3RR is a bright-line rule, and I do consider the block to have been correct, as you engaged in edit-warring without any ability to claim one of the enumerated exceptions from the rule. Rather, a couple editors disagreed with the block on ANEW, and offered to take it to ANI.  Rather than have it taken there, I assessed the situation that the risk of further disruption had likely passed, and unblocked you.  But since you did make that fourth revert, I think the block was technically correct, though I'm not sure with another year's seasoning under my belt if I would have made it again. T nswer your question directly, in 85,000 admin actions, I can remember less than a handful that have been overruled by the community. Courcelles 01:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Aw, yes, it was at 3RRNB - here is a link to that discussion. Thanks for your reply, although I don't agree with your position - apart from with one years hindsight you wouldn't make it again. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Russavia
There is a still open RfC at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. 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:

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.
 * 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.
 * The problem in this question is that it assumes that the account that was unblocked is a sockpuppet. I have neither seen the checkuser results or the Arbcom internal discussion, that I am not willing to make this assumption.  ArbCom has indicated they did not find the evidence of sockpuppetry here convincing, however.  Without reviewing the evidence myself, I can't say more than that, though the reasons for the unblock have been laid out at the time it was made, though the explanation doesn't go into much detail. Courcelles 03:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Well, the current members of the BASC are public knowledge, as well as the procedures of the subcommittee's operation. The interesting thing in this case was that, unlike most BASC actions, it was not reported on WP:ACN.  Courcelles 03:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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, we read the clarification request entirely differently; I see it as the committee saying that the account in question can be blocked as if it were any other account in case of behaviour that would warrant a block, but that no admin may over-rule the Committee and block the account as a sockpuppet, but the account obviously has no immunity from conduct policies like 3RR or NPA. This makes sense, as admins have jurisdiction over further behaviour, but cannot over-rule the Committee in the question of sockpuppetry. Courcelles 03:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Given the use of checkuser evidence in this decision, turning it back to the community cannot be done, because Foundational policy prohibits such disclosure of CU data. Courcelles 03:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
 * Really, I'd like to see BASC moved to a model like AUSC, where three non-arbitrators who are identified to the foundation are appointed to participate in the sub-committee's work. Currently, I think BASC is too much "appeal to the same body that handed down a decision", and given that BASC is the venue of last resort, more involvement from the community in its functioning would be a good thing, and I think the AUSC model works well in handling business before it. Courcelles 03:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 have no issue with the BASC posting all successful appeals when privacy is not a concern, though posting notice of declined (and especally the large number of frivolous appeals that must come in) would be excessive, we've been told many times that the majority of appeals to BASC are unsuccessful. Courcelles 03:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?
 * That is the only logical thing to do as people, when we screw up, raise your hand, say it, and move on. Courcelles 03:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Hipocrite
You write "the Arbitration Committee is the elected body of the English Wikipedia’s community, and when privacy is not a concern, the deliberations of the Committee should be visible to the community." If elected as an Arbiter, will you immediately present, in public, a motion to release the archives of the mailing list, redacted such that they do not vioalte the privacy of users? If such a motion were presented, in public, would you vote for or against it? Why? Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully support the Committee using more on-wiki or publicly viewable mailing lists going forward to increase transparency in the Committee's operation. If there is no need for privacy, the Committee shouldn't be doing things in private. However, to go through years of archives, each month of which is presumably huge, to redact non-public information?  That is an enormous time-sink that has no guaranteed way to do it accurately.  Irrespective of whether it would be a good idea (I think there is too high a risk to go back through history like that of leaving something in, though I have not seen the archives), the sheer amount of manpower that would be required makes this idea a non-starter.  Courcelles 01:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite
Your editing pattern is perplexing. Early on in your time at WP, there were virtually no edits logged by your account. Suddenly from this virtual zero point in December 2009 an astounding 8,767 edits were logged, mostly to mainspace. The peak shown is 18,849 edits in June 2011 — over 625 per day for every day in the month, with a total of over 100,000 edits to mainspace racked up in approximately two years. Obviously there is some form of automation in play here, but I don't find any discussion of it in your statement.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What bots are running on your account? What is their function? How have they improved the encyclopedia?
 * I showed this question to someone who knows Wikipedia and knows me in real life, and her response was "you couldn't program a 'Hello world' program if your life depended on it!" After having what a 'Hello world' program is explained to me, she was right, I could no more write a program than I could fly a plane. I've used most of the semi-automated tools available at some point or another though, Huggle, Twinkle, AWB, HotCat.  The month I made 18,000 edits, for example, I was creating most of the subcategories of Category:Olympic medalists by sport, which involved setting up AWB runs, and then clicking save several thousand times, usually in spurts as I half-watched something on the television. I've never ran anything other than the "standard" tools, and never without actually being there and clicking to save every edit. Courcelles 17:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you feel that the use of automation to generate rapid numbers of deletions or AfD challenges is an abuse? How does automation of deletions relate to the principles of WP:BEFORE, which calls for at least nominal investigation of articles that are potential candidates for deletion? Do you feel you could decide a potential arbitration case involving alleged abuse of automation fairly, or would you recuse yourself in such an instance?
 * Deletion of articles via automation is a bad thing, and really should only be done in the rare cases where a massive number of articles were included in the same AFD, and it is easier to execute the actual deletions with Twinkle's batch deletion tool rather than the normal way. Even in those cases, you still have to read the AFD carefully before deciding to delete, and the semi-automated actual deletions are only a time-saver, the actual decision was made normally.  Any time you delete an article, you have to think about what you are doing, and consider your decision before going through with the actual deletion, whether you execute this deletion via Twinkle, the AFD closing script, or manually mashing the delete button changes nothing about how the admin's decision process should work, if, and only if you have decided to delete, how the admin chooses to execute the deletion is just the paperwork, not the important part, which is the thought process.  Semi-automated tools are just that, tools for getting work done that needs to be accomplished, whether that is cleaning out deletion backlogs, adding categories to articles, fixing backlogs (such as Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter that I've been playing around with lately, where AWB makes it easier to read the article and fix than loading it manually). I believe that I could fairly judge an arbitration case that alleged misuse of semi-automated tools, somewhat because (and not in spite of) of my experience in using them. Courcelles 17:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Chaser

 * 1) Question: You mentioned in your statement that ArbCom looks less busy than it used to be, since it is accepting fewer cases. This statement surprises me. While ArbCom may look less busy, sitting arbitrators commented during last year's election that they spend tens of hours a week on work that is not visible because it had to be dealt with in private. Do you have the time to devote to these matters?


 * A:ArbCom does look less busy in public, in their traditional area of work, the case-load, this is really not a matter of interpretation, so far this year, ArbCom has decided 13 cases, in March of 2006, the same number of cases were decided as have been decided all of this year. However the importance of each case has greatly increased, and my statement was not an indication that ArbCom's load has decreased, just the traditional measure of activity.  (A quick sampling of those March 2006 cases, the first one I clicked on, Boothy443 produced a matter that was taken on by ArbCom in years gone by that would now be handled by ANI.)  The line in my statement was not indicating that I have no idea what the workload of the Committee is, I do, but a look on-wiki could easily lead someone to believe ArbCom's workload has decreased.  Anyone running should have done enough research to know this job is likely to take an hour or two a day, and I am willing to commit that time. Courcelles 15:02, 26 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: Not really, most of my editing is in topics that have never come before the Committee. That said, if something from WP:OLY did ever come before the committee, I'd likely have to recuse. Courcelles 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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: Well, I'd ask them why they thought I should recuse, and if they had a good reason, do so. If not, or I disagree with their reasoning, but it isn't completely frivolous, I would ask another arb for a sanity check.  15 arbs is enough that a few recusals a case is not a huge deal, as long as people aren't asking for recusals to tilt the Committee towards their side. Courcelles 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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: Same as above, but if I decide to recuse, my commentary on acceptance would be withdrawn, as well. Courcelles 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 arb who ia a party to a case first must recuse, then should have the same privileges of making statements, presenting evidence and workshop proposals as any other editor. Sometimes the recused arb possesses unique insight from an involved perspective, however their voice is no more significant than any other parties. An arb who is a party is removed from arbcom-en-b as a mater of course, and any discussion of the case would obviously happen there, the arbs hearing the case must erect a Chinese wall for this particular matter.) Courcelles 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
 * A: Pretty mch as above, be removed from arbcom-en-b, and respect the ensuring Chinese wall. Courcelles 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
 * A: No, lower level DR can keep a case from growing and snowballing into an Arbitration matter. Sitting arbs likely shouldn't go out and seek such matters, as they leave the Committee short-handed in their recusals if the matter results in Arbitration, but  Courcelles 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
 * A: No; arbs are editors first, and have the same right to express their opinions on policy discussions as any other editor. Courcelles 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
 * A: This ties into the "two to tango" question above. An editor who is baited by another and whose incivility or personal attacks is abnormal for them should not be treated the same as someone who regularly engages in personal attacks.  Really, anytime the Arbitration Committee is considering incivility or personal attacks, I'm much more interested in someone's pattern of behaviour than in one incident.   Courcelles 21:39, 26 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.


 * 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:
 * 1) 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: Your question gives its own answer, The Committee cannot set policy by fiat. Courcelles 02:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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: To sanction a user for a single violation of policy at the Arbitration Committee level, the infraction would have to be very severe indeed, to the level that it could not be overlooked; off-wiki harassment, wheel-warring, unilateral undoing of an Arbitration Enforcement action, etc. Almost nothing gets to ArbCom without a pattern of incidents. Courcelles 02:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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:All of us have to know our limits, as editors, as administrators, as functionaries, and I assume the pattern continues as an arbitrator Most of what we do in daily routine here is demanding in some aspect.  Arbitration is more stressful than other tasks, sure, but at the end of the day, it is just a website.  It goes away with a simple click, and the dog goes for a walk.  I've never been the type to stress out over Wikipedia, and I don't anticipate that changing. Courcelles 03:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Q: 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:Diverse. Really, that's what I have; in 200,000 edits, I've done a lot of different things, from image work, to vandal patrol, to creating content, to reviewing it, to solving problems, etc.  I've got the type of brain that prefers to spend a share of time on different tasks than a laser-focus on just one, and I think it works well for Wikipedia. Courcelles 03:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Question from Martinevans123
If an editor creates multiple accounts to edit articles in different subject areas, not realising that this is in breach of WP:SOCK, how should he or she be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * About six hours left for voting? Is my question worthy of your attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, non-overlapping edits with different accounts, that aren't used to votestack discussions or violate policy aren't a breach of WP:SOCK. The situation is rare, but if kept truly separate, the user just needs to be talked with, and either tag the alternate accounts, or declare them all to ArbCom, and be very careful to never let non-publicly disclosed alternates participate in the same topic area and discussion.  Of course, I think it goes almost without saying that this only applies if all the accounts are in good-standing; blocks and sanctions are in essence against an individual person, not an account, and, as an example, if one account is blocked, none of them may be used legitimately until the block expires. Courcelles 18:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tnanks for you response, which seems very fair. Indeed it might be a case of "one bad apple" spoiling what would otherwise be a set of good-standing accounts. But it seems that many administrators see that an editor using multiple accounts, whether deliberately undisclosed or not, as automatically a clear case of "abusing multiple accounts", which thus justifies an immediate blocking of all of them. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)