Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Coren/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?
 * 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.
 * 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 support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?
 * 2) ArbCom Practices:
 * a) ArbCom and policies:
 * i) 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.
 * ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
 * iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
 * b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
 * c) ArbCom and motions:
 * i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
 * ii) 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?
 * iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
 * d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
 * i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
 * ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
 * iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
 * iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
 * v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
 * vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them?  To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?
 * e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 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 "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
 * 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?
 * 1) Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * 2) 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?
 * iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
 * v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
 * vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them?  To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?
 * e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 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 "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
 * 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?
 * 1) Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * 2) 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?
 * 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 "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
 * 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?
 * 1) Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * 2) 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?
 * 1) Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * 2) 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?
 * 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?
 * 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?

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 Altamel
I apologize for bringing the first of an "onslaught" of questions, but I do have a few concerns.


 * 1) In light of some of the concerns expressed by editors in the prior election over whether arbitrators should continue to contribute to the article mainspace, how important do you feel prior experience in dispute resolution versus involvement in writing content is for being an arbitrator?

Questions from Rschen7754
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
 * 2) What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
 * 5) a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
 * 6) ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
 * 7) What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
 * 8) What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
 * 9) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * 1) ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
 * 2) What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
 * 3) What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
 * 4) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * 1) What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
 * 2) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * 1) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * 1) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?

Thank you. Rschen7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Question from User:Casliber

 * 1) I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) O-kay, so moving from the abstract to the concrete....let's say you're the drafting arb on a case where editor A is complaining about editor B on various content-related issues ....are you gonna examine concerns about (a) misrepresenting sources, (b) using synthesis to push a point of view, (c) reliability of sourcing, (d) undue weight? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) We did it for the abortion case and the sky didn't fall in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) We did it for the abortion case and the sky didn't fall in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) We did it for the abortion case and the sky didn't fall in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

 * 1) Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end. There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally. How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?
 * 2) What does "Civility" mean to you?
 * 1) What does "Civility" mean to you?

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

 * 1) How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
 * 2) Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee (indeed, you were on the technical team). Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?
 * 1) Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee (indeed, you were on the technical team). Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?

Questions from User:Hestiaea

 * 1) Moral conundrum. You discover that a fellow Arbitrator has done something potentially embarrassing for the Committee, possibly even criminal. You are concerned, but the Arbitrator has already stepped down for a different, unrelated reason.  A year or two later, he or she stands for election again.  You, and a number of other arbitrators, are horrified. Do you (a) persuade the arbitrator to stand down, perhaps implying that you will publicise the affair on-wiki.  Or (b) make the matter public, even if it is embarrassing for you, given the Committee did not make the affair public from the very beginning.
 * 2) Another candidate has (commendably, in my view) come out against lying.  Do you think it is ever acceptable to lie, e.g. if the lie is 'for the good of the wiki', or if the lie prevented embarrassment for Wikipedia or the committee?  Do you think there should be a 'statute of limitations' on lying?  I.e. if you find a Committee member has lied some time ago, do you think it is best to 'let sleeping dogs lie'?  If you do, how does that square with Wikipedia's principles on openness and transparency?
 * 1) Another candidate has (commendably, in my view) come out against lying.  Do you think it is ever acceptable to lie, e.g. if the lie is 'for the good of the wiki', or if the lie prevented embarrassment for Wikipedia or the committee?  Do you think there should be a 'statute of limitations' on lying?  I.e. if you find a Committee member has lied some time ago, do you think it is best to 'let sleeping dogs lie'?  If you do, how does that square with Wikipedia's principles on openness and transparency?

Questions from Cunard
''Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)''
 * RfC closes
 * 1) Are you aware of Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
 * 2) There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment regarding review of closes of requests for comment. Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close? Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Deletion process states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Requested moves/Closing instructions states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure." Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
 * 3) The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?" Deletion discussions have the review process Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5, and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240 for several recent examples.  Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Deletion review, Move review, or something else.
 * 1) The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?" Deletion discussions have the review process Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5, and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240 for several recent examples.  Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Deletion review, Move review, or something else.
 * 1) The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?" Deletion discussions have the review process Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5, and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240 for several recent examples.  Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Deletion review, Move review, or something else.

Arbitrator wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
 * Transparency
 * 1) Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
 * 2) If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.




 * Recusals
 * 1) In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties. See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75 regarding this case request. See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8. Arbitrator  wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them." Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.
 * 2) Former arbitrator  has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.
 * 1) Former arbitrator  has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.


 * Consensus
 * 1) How would you have closed Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley? If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?
 * 2) After considering Deletion guidelines for administrators, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21?
 * 3) WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
 * 4) The policy Consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).
 * (a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?
 * (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Administrators' noticeboard?
 * 1) When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
 * 2) Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
 * (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Administrators' noticeboard?
 * 1) When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
 * 2) Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
 * 1) Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
 * 1) Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?

 was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee on 8 September 2012. His last edit was four hours after the arbitration case was filed 29 August 2012. At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18, arbitrators and  said they would have supported an admonishment and not a desysop had EncycloPetey acknowledged his errors and pledged not to make those mistakes in the future. But because he was non-responsive for a week, the Arbitration Committee opted to desysop him.
 * Desysopping
 * 1) Would you have supported or opposed this motion to desysop? Would you have proposed a different motion?
 * 2) In his statement, former arbitrator  mentioned Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision as a similar case where an admin left in the middle of a case. He wrote, "ArbCom is not a court, but being able to build in delays for single-party arbitration cases should not be impossible (this would not apply to multi-party arbitrations about a volatile and current issue)." Do you agree with his position on building in delays for single-party arbitration cases? If yes, describe how would you have built in a delay for EncycloPetey.
 * 3) A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at Requests for adminship?
 * 1) A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at Requests for adminship?
 * 1) A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at Requests for adminship?



A request for clarification was filed for Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement in October 2012. See this permanent link before the discussion was archived by a clerk.
 * Civility case clarification request
 * 1) At Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, one arbitrator called  "a net negative". Do you agree or disagree that Malleus Fatuorum is a net negative?
 * 2) A second arbitrator wrote that "Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made." (He later revised the comment.)
 * (a) One view is that this comment is an honest and justified—though perhaps overly frank and poorly worded—assessment of the situation that was mischaracterized by some members of the community. An opposing view is that this comment is a hurtful, inappropriate comment that kicked an editor when he was down and inflamed the situation. Please share your thoughts about this comment.
 * (b) Does this comment violate Civility and/or No personal attacks?
 * (c) Was the block of this arbitrator for "personal attacks" justified or unjustified under Civility and/or No personal attacks?
 * (d) Describe your thoughts about what it means to be a Wikipedian. Include discussion about indefinitely blocked editors and banned editors, both those who have contributed positively to the encyclopedia and those who have only vandalized the encyclopedia.
 * 1) Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to ban  at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement?
 * 2) The motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum and the comments made by some arbitrators sparked much dissent in the community. Some editors considered leaving Wikipedia: Sitush, Black Kite, Floquenbeam, John, Pablo X, RegentsPark, Boing! said Zebedee, Drmies, SpacemanSpiff, ThatPeskyCommoner, Beetstra, and Nortonius.
 * (a) When there is such a backlash to a proposed decision, how does the backlash factor into your decision?
 * (b) withdrew his support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum the same day he wrote, "The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want." Do you agree or disagree with his opinion?
 * 1) Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to further restrict 's participation at Requests for adminship at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement?
 * 2) If you would have opposed the above two motions, or if you believe a better decision could have been made, what action would you have suggested?
 * 3)  wrote on his talk page, "As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying 'you get the admins you get, no opinions from you' but still having them be a member of the community." Do you agree or disagree with his need to have "an insanely high bar" to ban users from RfA?
 * 4) Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?
 * (a) When there is such a backlash to a proposed decision, how does the backlash factor into your decision?
 * (b) withdrew his support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum the same day he wrote, "The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want." Do you agree or disagree with his opinion?
 * 1) Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to further restrict 's participation at Requests for adminship at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement?
 * 2) If you would have opposed the above two motions, or if you believe a better decision could have been made, what action would you have suggested?
 * 3)  wrote on his talk page, "As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying 'you get the admins you get, no opinions from you' but still having them be a member of the community." Do you agree or disagree with his need to have "an insanely high bar" to ban users from RfA?
 * 4) Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?
 * 1) If you would have opposed the above two motions, or if you believe a better decision could have been made, what action would you have suggested?
 * 2)  wrote on his talk page, "As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying 'you get the admins you get, no opinions from you' but still having them be a member of the community." Do you agree or disagree with his need to have "an insanely high bar" to ban users from RfA?
 * 3) Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?
 * 1) Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?
 * 1) Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?



I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to, , and , so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want. Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note and thank you

Question(s) from Risker

 * 1) With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes. How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole? I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork

 * 1) As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone).  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Bazonka

 * 1) Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Begoon

 * 1) I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all. Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?
 * 2) Thank you. Because I realise that my original question was badly phrased, I'm going to pull out one aspect of it which I didn't ask anywhere near clearly enough, and try to rephrase it, if you don't mind. Do you think that the "political" nature of arbcom, with elections, campaigns etc... presents any problems? I'm thinking of a couple of things here: the current "split" over the "leak" is one obvious one, and the fact that an arbitrator might (I emphasise might) vote or opine in a way he would not have if he did not have the need to consider his re-election prospects is another. If you do think it can be problematic, are there ways you can think of to mitigate the problems, or are they unavoidable, because we need a mechanism for when consensus cannot be achieved in the normal way? Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Thank you. Because I realise that my original question was badly phrased, I'm going to pull out one aspect of it which I didn't ask anywhere near clearly enough, and try to rephrase it, if you don't mind. Do you think that the "political" nature of arbcom, with elections, campaigns etc... presents any problems? I'm thinking of a couple of things here: the current "split" over the "leak" is one obvious one, and the fact that an arbitrator might (I emphasise might) vote or opine in a way he would not have if he did not have the need to consider his re-election prospects is another. If you do think it can be problematic, are there ways you can think of to mitigate the problems, or are they unavoidable, because we need a mechanism for when consensus cannot be achieved in the normal way? Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from EdChem
I am confident that you would remember this case request (which you initiated). I would like to ask some questions based on it, and I thank you in advance for your views. EdChem (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are elected and another Giano case arose, would you recuse?
 * 2) Your block of Giano was for an indefinite period, accompanied by this talk page notice. It was described as a "request to bend over backwards" and that you were acting as an "über-admin," but you described it as "offer to return to productive editing under conditions."  Were your actions reasonable and appropriate?  Would you post such a notice to an editor now?
 * 3) In framing that request, you indicated that you saw your own block of Giano and the unblock by John Vandenburg as "peripheral to the core matter" and not as "an issue worthy of inclusion."
 * (a) Is it appropriate for an editor to request an arbitration case but to have their own actions excluded from the case?
 * (b) In his response to the case request, John Vandenburg wrote that "Coren wisely does not want to name me as part of this "spat", and would like us all to disregard the context. That is not going to happen folks."  What do you think John meant by this comment?
 * (c) John V also wrote that "As other members of the Committee know, there have been prior incidents of Coren taking action without strong Committee backing. It is my opinion that this most recent block of Giano was another such example of poor judgment on Coren's part."  Please elaborate (within the bounds of confidentiality) on situations where you have taken action without strong Committee backing, and why you chose to act in that way.  Would you approach similar situations in the future in the same manner, if you were re-elected?
 * (d) Finally, John wrote that " I've spelled out what I did wrong. I hope Coren can do the same, and maybe strike the claim that "many editors are being driven away by [Giano]" unless he intends to support it with good evidence if the case is accepted."
 * (i) Please describe what (if anything) you did wrong in that series of events.
 * (ii) Do you still claim that, while he was an active editor, Giano had "driven away uncountable productive editors"?  If so, what evidence would you have offered to support this claim, had the case been accepted?
 * 1) The present situation with Jclemens illustrates the problem when arbitrators advocate positions on the mailing list and act on those position on-wiki but decline to discuss them with the community. Are there any significant issues from your time as an arbitrator that your former colleagues are aware of but which have not been disclosed to the community?  If so, please elaborate.
 * (d) Finally, John wrote that " I've spelled out what I did wrong. I hope Coren can do the same, and maybe strike the claim that "many editors are being driven away by [Giano]" unless he intends to support it with good evidence if the case is accepted."
 * (i) Please describe what (if anything) you did wrong in that series of events.
 * (ii) Do you still claim that, while he was an active editor, Giano had "driven away uncountable productive editors"?  If so, what evidence would you have offered to support this claim, had the case been accepted?
 * 1) The present situation with Jclemens illustrates the problem when arbitrators advocate positions on the mailing list and act on those position on-wiki but decline to discuss them with the community. Are there any significant issues from your time as an arbitrator that your former colleagues are aware of but which have not been disclosed to the community?  If so, please elaborate.
 * (ii) Do you still claim that, while he was an active editor, Giano had "driven away uncountable productive editors"?  If so, what evidence would you have offered to support this claim, had the case been accepted?
 * 1) The present situation with Jclemens illustrates the problem when arbitrators advocate positions on the mailing list and act on those position on-wiki but decline to discuss them with the community. Are there any significant issues from your time as an arbitrator that your former colleagues are aware of but which have not been disclosed to the community?  If so, please elaborate.
 * 1) The present situation with Jclemens illustrates the problem when arbitrators advocate positions on the mailing list and act on those position on-wiki but decline to discuss them with the community. Are there any significant issues from your time as an arbitrator that your former colleagues are aware of but which have not been disclosed to the community?  If so, please elaborate.

Questions from GabeMc

 * 1) Question: Would you close a formal mediation RfC when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that eventually resulted in said RfM and RfC? Assuming this has happened, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc  (talk 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Question: Thanks for your response. I actually thought the idea here was to word the questions in a vague way so as to avoid naming names or finger-pointing to specific situations. Your above answer seems to contradict: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Would !voting to block someone constitute a conflict of interest or an indication of bias when said admin later closes a RfM to which said editor was a party when blocked? Perhaps I am misreading an important aspect of this guideline, will you please clarify the extent of the caveat? GabeMc  (talk 00:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: Thanks for your response. I actually thought the idea here was to word the questions in a vague way so as to avoid naming names or finger-pointing to specific situations. Your above answer seems to contradict: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Would !voting to block someone constitute a conflict of interest or an indication of bias when said admin later closes a RfM to which said editor was a party when blocked? Perhaps I am misreading an important aspect of this guideline, will you please clarify the extent of the caveat? GabeMc  (talk 00:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Civility enforcement questionnaire

 * 1) Or more of a request: I'd appreciate it if you'd take part in the Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire, or if you decline, say here why you consider this questionnaire not to be worth your time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I have some additional questions on a somewhat different matter below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I have some additional questions on a somewhat different matter below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions
Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
 * 2) on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
 * 3) to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
 * 4) do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
 * 5) do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?
 * 1) do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
 * 2) do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?
 * 1) do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?
 * 1) do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?

Question from Martinevans123

 * 1) Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.
 * Yes, I expect we all hope that. Or maybe it was just an outrageous rhetorical question that you cleverly answered with a respectful side step. But don't be so quick to go dissin' the fuckin' baroque, ok??!! I mean, what's occurrin', ffs?! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I expect we all hope that. Or maybe it was just an outrageous rhetorical question that you cleverly answered with a respectful side step. But don't be so quick to go dissin' the fuckin' baroque, ok??!! I mean, what's occurrin', ffs?! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)