Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/DeltaQuad/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?
 * My technical knowledge is the first thing that bring. Most of that is shown on wiki, but I'm in the process of obtaining my BIT degree with a Networking specification. So my individual unique understanding of how all the technical internet works will be available to the committee. But I also bring a new fresh view to ArbCom by not being involved as much in the process as others. Besides my technical skills I'm a calm and reasonable person, which is a key to understanding the current editors. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:10, 22 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.
 * I don't have much official Dispute resolution experience. I have however talked down some editors in my time on talkpages. I have never specifically commented on an Arbitration case as far as I remember. I do though talk to users and my fellow admins (of course, speaking when I had my flags) and sometimes informal or even formal dialogue with someone brings out what they see as incorrect and helps to fix issues and to have people come to a consensus or resolve. This I have done on some talkpages. I realize it doesn't put me at a level for the 'average candidate', but it still puts me in a position of understanding the process. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:11, 22 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?
 * We are all supposed to be here to be productive contributors to an encyclopedia and to build on and expand knowledge. The community expects each editor to follow a set of guidelines and policies to interact. Those who are disruptive to the process stop us from contributing and make us have to deal with dispute resolution. Some are not able to contribute within those norms and it makes a harmful environment for the community. I expect the Arbitration Committee to cover the general issues surrounding editorial misconduct. Abuse of the system is something I stand against. For the first time around, if the editor should know or does already know better, i'm going to be a strict, because those who know the rules, should be playing by them. If there is a case though where policies were not explained properly, or there was at least attempt by a user to peacefully resolve issues, then i'm more likely to give that second chance. I also understand that issues can become the result of an explosion of poor faith or even sometimes good faith. In those cases that are a mess, I'd be looking more for a resolution to the issue than to target any users with sanctions or such. To put that into a sentence, if a user shows a a truthful willingness to change, i'm willing to take a look rather than sanction. But to those who are here to disrupt, i'm looking to put an end to such behavior. For the second time around people, you should know better at that point, but there are circumstances, done on a case by case basis where i'd still be willing to accept good faith and not go for bans or sanctions. As for Desysoppings, Administrators knew their boundaries when they were elected to the job. That's what they 'signed the contact' for. Administrators do need to be held accountable for their actions. But also, the allegations of abuse must be proven, but this is an issue I am black and white on, of course allowing for case by case determination. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:10, 22 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.
 * The roll of ArbCom is to help assist in the dispute resolution of the editors, and is not to interpret policy policy, but take the policy as is and apply it to it's cases. The only involvement I see for ArbCom in dealing with community policy is a request for clarification, only to the point where the community can discuss it and decide. And if nothing happens, nothing happens. This is a community with a consensus driven modification process. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:10, 22 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's jurisdiction is only to deal with the user conduct issues. User conduct issues generally do evolve from disputes, allowing the committee to 'prevent the major disruption' of the user to the article or location in question. Binding content material also has more legal obligations from ArbCom members to consider than that of user conduct issues, in particular a businesses or a living person. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 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.
 * ArbCom motions are handled when privacy is too much a concern for an open case, the case is small enough that very few are affected (like only the two disputing parties) in which a full case would be excessive, a past ruling needs to be modified, a change in to the procedure within ArbCom. The first is not a blanket for all cases to be a motion, but only where public data is the only data at hand should this be posted into a case, or fit into one of the other categories. The second usually does not come to ArbCom, making it unlikely to happen, but present if needed. Past rulings mostly are amended by motion, so unless a full case is needed again, there is no reason for this to affect it. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 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?
 * Cases need to be brought to the committee, the committee would be overstepping it's boundaries if it went into the community to find issues. Where the committee has not ruled yet is completely open to the community to form a consensus on, as enforcement of the community decisions is the definition on ArbCom works on. As for parts where the committee has ruled, handled by motion or case, should generally reflect community consensus. Even in cases that are brought to the committee and where they do not agree with community consensus, the community view should still stand, except in private data circumstances. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 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.
 * The two Administrator desysoppings (Nabla and Rodhullandemu) should have taken place in the form of a case. Abuse of Administrator privileges need to be clearly investigated as the community has enacted trust on them to hold them to the values contributors stand for. This can not be handled by a motion.
 * The arbitration motion regarding hyphens and dashes was also a clear misstep because the committee as i've stated many times on this page is for user conduct issues solely. While it might of resolved issues in relation to editor misconduct, it was not done in the correct scope.
 * The administrative motions this year were appropriate and made changes that allowed the committee to function better as a whole. The motion regarding the new voting system was a great idea and sets a fundamental principle that arbitrators need to enforce the community's regulations and guidelines, which includes a similar system for voting that is used at other areas of Wikipedia (with the addition of the inactive section). -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 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?
 * Yes I do believe there are some records in which should be kept, including checkuser data, but it needs to be in a secure location and needs to be handled with care when applying it. It is not completely clear on what should be kept and what shouldn't be kept, but yes, record does need to be kept. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:10, 22 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?
 * Obviously because this is sensitive, the least risk should be taken, and the information at some point should be expunged, but it is very circumstantial on how long data should be held. Some have a time span that is really short, others don't, and it varies within the types of data, so it's hard to be specific. That being said, the only people who should have access to this data is Active Arbitrators and Active Foundation Staff. It just could get messy with previous Arbs having access to changing data in which they may not be fully in the loop on, creating a detrimental ripple to ArbCom business if such data is used (not given) for public statements or even when commenting to the committee. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:10, 22 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?
 * There are certain discussions that should be held publically, and others that should not. There are times that to take a concern to a fellow editor, I have taken it off-wiki to avoid the onwiki drama. Also in communication it allows for the committee to be a little more frank but still professional. That being said though, there are times where there is no point in holding such business offwiki, and some of that should be brought out. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:43, 30 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?
 * The mailing list leak was not prepared for and therefore no one knew how to respond. As expected, the committee was a little scrambled to respond. If you don't set out a plan for an emergency exit when you build a room, then you could get trapped inside. The committee needs to have plans now that the possibility of a external (or internal) security threat exists. This is something that specifically should be reviewed each year with incoming arbitrators along with password security. The committee still handled it to the best of their abilities at the time, and we can only look back and correct on such absence of plan. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
 * There have been several arbitrators who do not disclose their external identity and I will be following in their footsteps, not to further identify my public identity. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 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?
 * Threats and information concerning the safety of users needs to be a shared responsibility. Further communication with the legal team may be required due to the nature of incoming threads from the mailing lists. Other than that the relationship between the Foundation and ArbCom is rather limited and there are no changes that should be made at this time. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 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 relationship is a lot stronger than one with the WMF. It is the responsibility of the editors to bring issues to ArbCom's attention, while user issues related to advanced permissions, emergency desysoppings, and any other matter in ArbCom juristiction is for ArbCom to handle. The Functionaries appointments are not for ArbCom to handle, understanding that the community was not ready enough for a proper vote. The community needs to be able to take this on as they do the ArbCom elections as private data is also involved and the community needs to trust these users. The removal of an inactive arbitrator should be done by a high support percentage level (decided by the community) of arbitrators. Only arbitrators can see arbitration contributions which is why the community can't completely handle the process, but should provide the guideline. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 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?
 * Yes, Wikipedia has a problem with vested contributors because they are discouraging newer editors from editing, and it makes an environment that does not allow everyone to contribute. Because these editors are dancing really close to the line, it's hard for ArbCom to do anything. Vested contributors that cross a line in policy ArbCom is able to deal with. This is not done to discourage longtime editors from editing, but for an understanding that all viewpoints need to be looked at. Each case brought to the committee needs to be looked at very carefully, not to discourage longtime editors, instead to discourage the behaviors of vested contributors. Any sanctions to be applied need even further care to make sure they are being applied correctly. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:18, 26 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?
 * Yes factions are existant, both with longtime editors and new editors. Usually it involves a small number of experienced editors backing up one another or several newer editors recruited to come and edit. The newer editors are an issue because they don't know Wikipedia policies as well, so they tend to be more problematic. Long time contributors need to check what they are doing before they click that save, rollback, delete...etc. button and make sure it's compliant with policy and is inline with our fundamental principles. Newer editors are sanctioned or blocked when this occurs, but that needs to be a last resort, and there should be an effort to explain it to them, but sometimes this is only effective by block. For more experienced users, it's less of a problem, because usually it's enforcement of policies, but it still needs careful watching. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
 * The English Wikipedia has several problems with editor retention in certain areas which causes it to work inefficiently. Three major projects come to mind immediately where there are insufficient amount of willing contributors (2/3) and lack of skilled contributors (1/3). There are more projects out there that are missing editors and where editors are needed, most of them not requiring a specific skill set, but knowledge of policy. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 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/Tree shaping is noted below.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs should have been declined with the Cirt and Jayen466 case. Any cases that deal with each other in some way means that there is an issue. We don't need to double work any case and draw time away from other cases. Though the actual Cirt and Jayen466 was handled well and the hard decisions that had to be made were made.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling looks like a mess in the comments by Arbitrators for accepting the case and is hard to read, Arbs should have clear strike and indented comments. The principles section of the case was well done, except "Occasional mistakes by administrators are understandable, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status". This doesn't sit well because it has an indication that problematic admins enforcing in this area may not be dealt with though this would probably still be handled anyway.
 * I mentioned in other parts of my questions that administrator actions handled by motion are not appropriate, but I will defer to my comments there. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:50, 26 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?
 * A non-exhaustive list (which will be continued throughout my nomination)
 * A change in how advanced permission users are selected involving the community and if needed ArbCom. This would be made in the form of a proposal with an 'if all else fails' plan. This plan needs to be ready before election time.
 * A continuing nudge for more transparency where possible without violating privacy or private communication. This would be with communication with arbitrators, and getting permission of current arbs to publish such information.
 * A timeline for proposed case time needs to surface on the committee. A few running candidates are looking at this too requiring coordination with them.
 * A plan for internal emergencies needs to be confirmed and informed to all arbitrators, by working with those originally interested to then bring a motion to the committee.
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 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:The fact that it took 2.5 months to complete when all Arbitrators that commented, commented within 48 hours of each other, is unacceptable. There were no particular hard issues to deal with here and the case only had 6 remedies, none of them particularly 'difficult' to decide on. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
 * A:WikiProjects need to be able to enforce standards for standardization so that readers can understand the article if in a series (which quite a few are). The WikiProjects need to be first backed by a consensus, then willing to change if the general community feels different (in this case through an RfC to ensure a community view). -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 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:Several remarks you make above deal with user conduct and I doubt that there exists a point where these overlap (For a specific example: a user can ignore consensus), and continue on without sanctions or blocks. This falls under both community and ArbCom jurisdiction, so if the community is unable to handle it, a case is in order. Otherwise, the communities position is already clear and done. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
 * A:A clear effort needs to be made to the the editor in question to make sure they understand and may require the tutoring or adopting a user. The second avenue is to the point where a such attempt has been made, and the edits are disruptive to the community. This requires further steps such as clear sanctions, then blocks which will get the point across that the issue is serious. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
 * A:3, yes, because the violation of policies is a clear reason why ArbCom exists. Users should try and solve it first and only escalate it if required. I trust our administrators to make most if not all the related decisions though. 4, it's possible, in where all attempts of communication have been made, and it is a last resort idea. Wikipedia's editing is open in nature, so we need to make sure that we aren't distroying that ideal. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:It does take two to tango. There is the right way to handle it (civilly) and the wrong way to handle it (uncivilly). Civil and good faith actions are reasons for mitigation, or even removing them entirely. It's a case by case basis that that needs to be decided by. The problem with that statement is though that ArbCom cases are rarely if ever involving just two editors. (It would show that third parties have not been sought in dispute resolution) That makes it more complicated when you have more than two. Each individuals actions need to be considered in this case. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
 * A:Cases should be accepted to ArbCom once lower level dispute resolution has been tried or when abuse of administrator privileges are involved, and can not be resolved without a case. As for the word 'case' I assume you mean a public case, so also in private it should handle issues with the abuse of advanced privileges such as Checkuser and oversight, also privacy issues and ban appeals should be handled privately. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
 * A:A long-term ban is meant to be preventative to damage for the community and need to be taken seriously. A simple plain answer is when the disruption is sufficient to warrant a ban. But that doesn't answer the question enough, but the following is not an exhaustive list: When an editor is continuously disruptive to core principles, when there is a threat to a safe editing environment by a user, when other means of dispute resolution to prevent the conflicts have not been successful. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * A: I do plan on being active for the majority of my term, allowing for emergencies or prearranged travel plans. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * A:There are always problems with the community and they will never end. The true question is Wikipedia going to be able to sustain itself in a few years. We are seeing really good editors leaving because they have other commitments, which I'm glad they are doing, but we are not stocking those areas back up with contributors, and that's going to lead to more issues. Also lack of subject experts mixed with experienced editors is a balance that we have lost. There are many many more issues; that just highlights some of the issues, and some of them more significant issues. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:02, 26 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) I would appreciate it if you could describe any communication you had with User:Sophie, other editors, and arbitrators around the time of the block of Sophie. Please include any communication from IRC or email if possible. I noted that you emailed the Arbitration Committee about this matter; why did you get involved in the matter?
 * My IRC discussions with Sophie were limited and encouraging her to investigate into the reason for her block, since it wasn’t stated, which had implications for Wikipedia and TechEssentials (another mediawiki-based project where I am staff). The communication with arbitrators was an uninvolved inquiry and preventing harm, making sure the user was not accidentally blocked for a poor reason, which you can verify with any sitting arbitrator from the time. The communication with other users was a discussion to understand why Sophie was blocked. I did not avoid drama as I would have liked, but I’ve learned since. If you have any more questions please feel free to ask. I won’t be posting any logs or emails per the norm. Thank you. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Risker had it right (noted in your 2010 voting guide) when it was said that: "Now, what is published in our pages can (and sometimes does) cause long-lasting harm. Why do you think Google now crawls our articles incessantly to ensure it reflects the most current version of a page? We are no longer a little upstart in a distant corner of the Internet [...] Not a day goes by that someone being interviewed on radio or television isn't confronted with a question that starts 'I looked up your Wikipedia entry and it says...'" How editors write BLPs is very important and imperative that we remain neutral. Pending Changes fails to represent the nature that Wikipedia is free and open, while on the other hand, Targeted flagging and opt-out fail to target neutrality as they are selective in what we keep and don't keep, making it a non-neutral system, and what if the author comes in after a discussion for the opt-out mode, then there is even more of an issue. No system is going to be 100% perfect though. Pending changes ultimately is going to become either the backlog of non-reviewed articles, or the target of a non-neutral reviewer. Targeted flagging is probably as close to neutral as were going to get, but still begs the question of will it become the backlog, and how do we decide. Opt-out is even less neutral because it leaves the review to admins only and it deletes whole articles. The community has tried to make a decision, but they can't come to a consensus on pending changes. ArbCom can not step in though, this is a community decision on what policy is going to be, and how BLPs are going to be protected. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 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?
 * I have not had such debates with content or WP:NPOV disputes. In regards to source gathering, neutrality can become a hard issue to deal with. If one editor feels they have the best sources, and the other feels the same way, well then you have a conflict. My first inclination would be a third party to review the sources. The more opinions you get, the more neutral the sources are going to be. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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
 * For User:Moreschi's comment, they are right that POV blocks are not regularly endorsed, if at all. But the one issue I fail to see is how nationalist troublemakers or trolls aren't dealt with. If they are troublemakers or trolls, that indicates that they are being disruptive and are blockable. Most blocks that are given out related to disruption though do have other policies cited. And if they are not a troll, then are we going to block nationalists who follow policies? No.
 * For User:MastCell's comments, WP:CIV does not state we have to be insanely tolerable of, as put, 'bullshit', otherwise we wouldn't have the blocking system would we? The rest are not 'equally high-handed' either, there are some, but not all are. There are people on both sides that exist and do not burn out. The community also did not make a de facto decision on civility is a less or greater threat than any other. The 'real bad apples' do not stay with us forever, they do get filtered out via a block for violating policies. Sockpuppets also give up too, it might take a while, but everyone moves on at some point. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 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?
 * Involved Administrators can err on a non-neutral position causing a systematic bias in one location or another. IAR does exist for the non-neutral administrator who has a clear mass spam or vandalism spree. But still it is best to find someone who is not involved. The policy should stay right where it is as the community has decided. My opinion does not change depending on whether sanctions are in place. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 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?
 * Wikipedia can not become a turf zone for editors to host their legal battles, as it could have legal implications for editors or the Foundation. If the two editors can hold out without taking their legal issues here, than good for them, they are disputing outside of Wikipedia where layers can handle it and is out of ArbCom's jurisdiction. Otherwise, it becomes disruptive and needs to be dealt with. Foe the lawsuit to be mentioned by either party would probably be a continuation of what's going on to the outside world, and in that case would require an interaction ban or block. The Foundation should be notified of actual legal cases that involve them, even though they would probably find out through the courts. The roll of ArbCom is just to the point of sanctioning or blocking users who are becoming a disruptive issue. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 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?
 * Involved Administrators can err on a non-neutral position causing a systematic bias in one location or another. IAR does exist for the non-neutral administrator who has a clear mass spam or vandalism spree. But still it is best to find someone who is not involved. The policy should stay right where it is as the community has decided. My opinion does not change depending on whether sanctions are in place. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 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?
 * Wikipedia can not become a turf zone for editors to host their legal battles, as it could have legal implications for editors or the Foundation. If the two editors can hold out without taking their legal issues here, than good for them, they are disputing outside of Wikipedia where layers can handle it and is out of ArbCom's jurisdiction. Otherwise, it becomes disruptive and needs to be dealt with. Foe the lawsuit to be mentioned by either party would probably be a continuation of what's going on to the outside world, and in that case would require an interaction ban or block. The Foundation should be notified of actual legal cases that involve them, even though they would probably find out through the courts. The roll of ArbCom is just to the point of sanctioning or blocking users who are becoming a disruptive issue. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can not become a turf zone for editors to host their legal battles, as it could have legal implications for editors or the Foundation. If the two editors can hold out without taking their legal issues here, than good for them, they are disputing outside of Wikipedia where layers can handle it and is out of ArbCom's jurisdiction. Otherwise, it becomes disruptive and needs to be dealt with. Foe the lawsuit to be mentioned by either party would probably be a continuation of what's going on to the outside world, and in that case would require an interaction ban or block. The Foundation should be notified of actual legal cases that involve them, even though they would probably find out through the courts. The roll of ArbCom is just to the point of sanctioning or blocking users who are becoming a disruptive issue. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can not become a turf zone for editors to host their legal battles, as it could have legal implications for editors or the Foundation. If the two editors can hold out without taking their legal issues here, than good for them, they are disputing outside of Wikipedia where layers can handle it and is out of ArbCom's jurisdiction. Otherwise, it becomes disruptive and needs to be dealt with. Foe the lawsuit to be mentioned by either party would probably be a continuation of what's going on to the outside world, and in that case would require an interaction ban or block. The Foundation should be notified of actual legal cases that involve them, even though they would probably find out through the courts. The roll of ArbCom is just to the point of sanctioning or blocking users who are becoming a disruptive issue. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 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)?
 * These guides will be resourceful of encouraging new editors, and as a technically inclined person, having to explain to each person the solution to their problem is why we create manuals and FAQs. I would not have issues with these being created. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 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?
 * WP:BLP is there because it has such a big threat to be a possible zone for hostile editing, because it can very easily hit the emotions of those involved. That is not true for medicine, and for corporations, although it is the reputation of the business is still not as much of a problem as BLP. Existing policies also cover this well enough, that any such policy would just be an overlap of a preexisting policy. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 November 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?
 * These are dealing with the enforcement part of policy which is in it's jurisdiction. These should probably be looked at every once in a while to make sure that is the only extent that enforcement is occurring. The base policy already did exist and the enforcement is built on that. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 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?
 * Wikipedia has grown to the point where you can't get everyone to comment on a proposal, but to get everyone to comment on a proposal would make Wikipedia so much a bureaucracy, that it would be pointless, and it's why we have a policy noting it. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 November 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?
 * Banned truly means banned, and to endorse certain edits is to put away the banning policy, make the edits, and then pull it back out. This one is one that is clear that when your banned it means you can not edit, even if you are doing good, because there is some other disruptive behavior. If the disruptive behavior is not an issue then why is the ban not being appealed? (with in a reasonable limit, you do have to convince people that harm is not being done anymore). Why will not have an impact on my analysis of the issue. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has grown to the point where you can't get everyone to comment on a proposal, but to get everyone to comment on a proposal would make Wikipedia so much a bureaucracy, that it would be pointless, and it's why we have a policy noting it. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 November 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?
 * Banned truly means banned, and to endorse certain edits is to put away the banning policy, make the edits, and then pull it back out. This one is one that is clear that when your banned it means you can not edit, even if you are doing good, because there is some other disruptive behavior. If the disruptive behavior is not an issue then why is the ban not being appealed? (with in a reasonable limit, you do have to convince people that harm is not being done anymore). Why will not have an impact on my analysis of the issue. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Banned truly means banned, and to endorse certain edits is to put away the banning policy, make the edits, and then pull it back out. This one is one that is clear that when your banned it means you can not edit, even if you are doing good, because there is some other disruptive behavior. If the disruptive behavior is not an issue then why is the ban not being appealed? (with in a reasonable limit, you do have to convince people that harm is not being done anymore). Why will not have an impact on my analysis of the issue. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Banned truly means banned, and to endorse certain edits is to put away the banning policy, make the edits, and then pull it back out. This one is one that is clear that when your banned it means you can not edit, even if you are doing good, because there is some other disruptive behavior. If the disruptive behavior is not an issue then why is the ban not being appealed? (with in a reasonable limit, you do have to convince people that harm is not being done anymore). Why will not have an impact on my analysis of the issue. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:29, 23 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 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)   13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Answer to both) The committee could benefit from that if it ever did happen, even though the chances of it happening are rare. Disputes have never reached the legal point for the committee as far as I know, making dispute resolution from professionals regarding legal action is not needed, but the extra net would be a comfort. The Foundation also has a legal team that would be interested in the subject matter as it's most likely going to involve the Foundation, and not ArbCom. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  06:38, 24 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:


 * 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.
 * 2) of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
 * 3) there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
 * 4) the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?
 * I'm going to answer this one in bulk from some overlapping of questions. By default this type of unblock does involve private evidence, so there is no end to which administrators have the ability to review such evidence. Individual Arbitrators should not have to comment, but the BASC should release some sort of comment to clear up what has been missed. A successful ban appeal is only an override of the current sanction or block, and does not stop administrators from restarting the blocking cycle since the last successful block (or ground zero if there is none) for new behavior. Your last question is saying 'even though the level of evidence ArbCom has is greater, we should turn it back to the community', and that is not how it needs to be handled. It would be nice if ArbCom Ban Appeals Subcommittee conducted a second look and reported back to the community though since the level of admins coming back to comment against it is so high. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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


 * 1) if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
 * As my recommendations are above is to the extent that I would action. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:27, 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?
 * No, because then it becomes back and forth decisions between Administrators and Arbitrators to who is the right one. ArbCom members are elected to be trusted by the community to handle these correctly and we should expect them to come back if they have made errors, as they did in this case. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:27, 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?
 * It is very important to do so, and it's a principle I have myself. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

 * 1) Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
 * A:I will always recuse for cases where I have a conflict of interest, in where I have taken specific action towards the editor. I will also as mentioned above recuse from anything in relation to Sophie or TechEssentials. I do not have any other specific topics that I would specifically recuse from. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:18, 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? 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? 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? If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
 * A:Recursal is a case by case basis that each Arb must consider, I have covered all the areas I would recuse as a conflict of interest above. Sitting Arbitrators that are involved or are a party to the case, should recuse. It creates the idea of an involved admin taking administrator actions, just as an involved arbitrator taking arbitrator actions. It does not matter the level of involvement Arbs are at, it`s either conflict of interest or no conflict of interest. I will follow my statement here and encourage other Arbs to do so also. I grouped the questions because of the similarity. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:18, 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:It should be at an Arbitrator`s discretion whether to engage at lower level dispute resolution because this is the core nature of the job. Arbitrators should be quite busy themselves and may not have time for this, but there is no problem with contributing. Though any cases they do work on that come to Arbitration I would expect recursal on because of involvement. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
 * A:Again, It should be at an Arbitrator`s discretion whether to engage at policy discussions as ArbCom is not involved in that, and they would be acting as a single editor. That being said it would be expected that they do not push certain views of ArbCom cases, motions, or proceedings. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
 * A:We are all humans and all have our own mistakes, and those mistakes are where our incivility breaks down. As long as we can acknowledge that, and turn around and make the situation better, then it's not an issue. Excusing it would be being uncivil and doing nothing about it, which is not excusable. As I said above, admit to our mistakes and move on. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:18, 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.

Thank you,  JoeGazz  ♂ 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?
 * A: I'm going to go ahead and assume you mean the changes to ArbCom. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 * A change in how advanced permission users are selected involving the community and if needed ArbCom. This would be made in the form of a proposal with an 'if all else fails' plan. This plan needs to be ready before election time.
 * This needs changing because these are the second most trusted people out on Wikipedia. They are handling your private and sensitive personal information maybe without your knowledge. This should be a point where users do have the voice to vote, even if it's a limited group. It would also benefit the committee with more time to handle the current procedings at hand instead of having to deal with the selection, review, and appointment process all in one.
 * A continuing nudge for more transparency where possible without violating privacy or private communication. This would be with communication with arbitrators, and getting permission of current arbs to publish such information.
 * This is more ideal for the community to understand what happens with ArbCom. Transparency is a hard bar to hit between private data and what an Arb can say, but Arbs should remain as open as they can to the community.
 * A timeline for proposed case time needs to surface on the committee. A few running candidates are looking at this too requiring coordination with them.
 * This would allow for cases like Tree Shaping to ideally occur within a good time frame. Arbs are elected to deal with cases within a reasonable time, but this adjustment would allow for a up to date current perspective on cases.
 * A plan for internal emergencies needs to be confirmed and informed to all arbitrators, by working with those originally interested to then bring a motion to the committee.
 * This is advantageous for both the community and ArbCom, to give both an adequate response, and to be able to deal with the issue internally. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  07:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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: Internal policy, that's it. As noted above its inappropriate for ArbCom to even suggest a specific change never mind create a policy for the Wikipedia. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  07:30, 27 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: This question has a lot of what ifs...ideally they will have a history before they hit ArbCom, it's called dispute resolution. Upon failure of all courses there, then it becomes an ArbCom issue in which I said above, I'm willing to give second chances, depending on what is going on. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  07:30, 27 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: Personally, to the point of refusal or to the point where I am so involved in a case that I can't step away from it. When it gets to that point, I need to step back, and get second, third, maybe fourth opinions from my colleges and re decide if my position on the case is the same. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  07:30, 27 November 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: Intriguing. I have seen quite a few areas. I still areas where I can learn, but it's a constantly expanding base to learn from. Reminded of that daily while I edit. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  07:30, 27 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) 20:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * About six hours left for voting? Is my question worthy of your attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)