Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Jc37/Questions

Moved comments from #Question from User:Casliber
I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well hmm. I think this is something you and I could have a nice long discussion on : )
 * But to try to merely answer...
 * This is something which I think has been discussed in the past. There have been proposals of a "content-related ARBCOM" (to mirror our current arbcom which is behaviour-related) to address content questions. Ask me on a different day and I may support or oppose. It's a tough call, as I do think some content disputes are endlessly never ending, but at the same time, I am rather loathe to see discernment of content leave the community's direct purview.
 * There's also been Kiril's proposal concerning governance reform concerning the development of policies. (Of which I now have a similar opinion as the above sentence.) I even did a work-up of a possible committee Governance reform/Policy and guideline review. But I look at it now and I find I would oppose it. After a long time experiencing policy/guideline/etc. discussions, I strongly think that (except where the WMF needs to step in for legal reasons and such), policy creation should stay directly in the hands of the community.
 * As for how someone is abiding by policy, that sounds like a behaviour issue. but it depends on the policy in question. For example, if the community has determined that someone is repeatedly and/or consistently adding content that is copyvio, or is WP:OR, then that's a behaviour issue (which hopefully is addressed long before coming to arbcom). The key there is again, preventative, not punitive.
 * (To be very honest, I'm very much wishing I could ask you to specifically clarify the last two sentences of your question. But I've attempted to answer without that clarification : ) - jc37 01:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So let's say this is three months' time, you're an arb, and there's one of these cases, and there are complaints by editor A about editor B on source misuse (choices below). Be mindful that asking for Community Review might be a loooooong time in coming. So, do you rule out any review of sourced editing, or do you at least take a look at issues such as concerns about (a) misrepresenting sources, (b) using synthesis to push a point of view, (c) reliability of sourcing, (d) undue weight? Sorry if it wasn't clearer above - I'd prefer not to revisit old cases for reopening or politicising debates..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (looks like you modified it while I was responding - EC's are fun : ) - but looking it over, I think my initial response still applies, so I'll just leave it extant. Though the note that I welcome further clarification obviously still applies : ) - jc37 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel like I'm going to fall into some pit trap : )
 * My initial thought is (when it comes to content, with the typical exceptions like BLP, of course): "there is no deadline". So I suppose I might want to look at the whole case and see how it could be addressed, while still leaving content assessment to the community.
 * My thought is that if there is a "preventative" issue, then that could actually be dealt with at the talk page level, with editors' suggestion that perhaps the individual is past the time to be WP:BOLD, and should avail themselves of the talk page. If they continue to add such material (or worse, edit war over it) obviously then "preventative, not punitive" would seem to apply. And that sounds like something which could be handled by admin action (or reviewed at some sub page of WP:AN, etc.)
 * If the community finds this to be problematic enough, they have other tools at their disposal: RFCU/ANI/etc., further admin action, and/or even (in a really worst case scenario) community banning.
 * That said, if for whatever reason the community passes it up to Arbcom, then Arbcom at that stage shouldn't need to assess the edits, as the community already has, and merely would be commenting on the behaviour issues, I presume?
 * (And this without getting into whether the case itself should be accepted or not.)
 * Again, I feel like I'm missing something here. (Or to put it another way: Your question gives me the semantic sense that you are suggesting that Arbcom should assess content, when afaik, Arbcom isn't supposed to, based upon a bunch of past RfCs and other such discussions.)
 * So with that in mind, I'll happily ask you to please feel free to clarify again, if you think I'm misunderstanding you (As I know you know from our past interaction, I greatly favour discussion and clarification. It's pretty much a way of life on Wikipedia : ) - jc37 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay - the community (AN, AN/I) is often misses subtle POV pushing if dressed in a veneer of civility. RfCs are often inconclusive. Ergo, the committee often ends up with a protracted dispute with only it and the underpopulated Arb Enforcement admins able to try and address solutions. My take on this is that (given no other Content Review bodies will surface in the forseeable future) the committee at a minimum needs to examine how editors in these situations edit content. Other folks have different takes on this. I did feel I held/hold this view more strongly than my arb colleagues. It isn't a trick question. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok.
 * The key word I keep coming back to in your words is "how". "How" suggests to me an action (how an action is taken), and so by extension, a behaviour. So with that in mind, and kept to that narrow scope of "how", I think that Arbcom could at least look at the "how" in question.
 * But I'm just not comfortable if when assessing that "how" we start to drift into "what" (what content).
 * It's a fine semantic line (and yes people could play with semantic application of "how" an "what"), but I'm attempting to keep it basic. - jc37 04:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I hadn't thought of those two words but that is what I mean. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved comments #Question from Begoon
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?


 * Yes, I think we should have arbitrators, and yes, I think they should act as a committee, and not as individuals. That said, I don't think that precludes other ways to do this.


 * For example, in the past, I liked the idea of rather than there being a number of seats on the committee, that instead there was a minimum number of seats in each case. (Let's call that minimum number of seats, a "quorum".) so in any case, if there was a quorum of X, then the number of potential arbs in any case would be from X to the total number of arbitrators.


 * Another way to handle the committee is I don't think every case requires having oversight or checkuser. Though of course, some do. So no reason that every member need have those user-rights. So imagine if, combined with the quorum concept that we have an "arbitrator" user-right. They are editors that the community has entrusted with particular tools and responsibility of arbitratorship. And that means that we could have as many arbitrators as we need to keep cases moving along. And in cases where CU and/or OS is necessary, then those editors who have those additional user-rights would help out there.
 * I just don't think we need to limit this to just a couple people. I think having a broader pool of people to draw from would be a good thing (and would also help give arbitrators "down time" to help with burnout, as well as the with those who suddenly need to go on wikibreak for whatever reasons).


 * Anyway, I'm not pushing for all of this, needless to say, but since you're asking about ideas, these are two I think are worth discussing.


 * But something I do' think should end is voting in an election for arbcom members. This clearly breaks a fundamental principle on Wikipedia of consensus. We didn't always do this, and I think that this should be discontinued. I also think that requests for arbitratorship should at least follow some of the norms of RFA. There are some things I've seen so far in this process that I can't imagine would be allowed at RfA.


 * If there is anything you would like me to clarify, please let me know. - jc37 01:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, jc. Seeing ideas, (and the willingness/wish to consider them) was the main point of my question. Without that we're stuck in a loop. Your point on elections is particularly valuable as an answer. No, thank you - nothing I'd like clarified. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved comments from #Questions from Wehwalt
/I'm referring you to the conversation contained here. In view of the fact that Moni3 proceeded to block PumpkinSky at 0000 on 2 February, I'm asking:


 * 1) Had you been an arbitrator at the time, and had the matter been before you, and were you not recused, what action, if any, would you have advised taking regarding Moni3 in view of her calling PumpkinSky, before blocking him, an "idiot" and a "dingus"? Please support your answer with references to other "insult-and-block" situations, such as that of Hawkeye7.
 * 2) Would you have counseled Moni3 regarding the propriety of blocking someone two minutes after a close friend of hers demanded it?
 * 3) You yourself were a part of this conversation. Did you continue to monitor it after your last contribution?  Did you check back later?  What are your thoughts about what occurred?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless there was a case I am forgetting, the matter that you note from the link above was not taken to arbcom as a case. So therefore an arbitrator is merely acting as another Wikipedian. Arbcom acts as a group (or sometimes representing the group), but not as individuals.

So anyway to answer your last question: By appearances, it was quite a mess. And it surprised and saddened me. - jc37 06:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring you to the conversation contained here. In view of the fact that Moni3 proceeded to block PumpkinSky at 0000 on 2 February, I'm asking:


 * 1) Had you been an arbitrator at the time, and had the matter been before you, and were you not recused, what action, if any, would you have advised taking regarding Moni3 in view of her calling PumpkinSky, before blocking him, an "idiot" and a "dingus"? Please support your answer with references to other "insult-and-block" situations, such as that of Hawkeye7.
 * 2) Would you have counseled Moni3 regarding the propriety of blocking someone two minutes after a close friend of hers demanded it?
 * 3) You yourself were a part of this conversation. Did you continue to monitor it after your last contribution?  Did you check back later?  What are your thoughts about what occurred?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless there was a case I am forgetting, the matter that you note from the link above was not taken to arbcom as a case. So therefore an arbitrator is merely acting as another Wikipedian. Arbcom acts as a group (or sometimes representing the group), but not as individuals.

So anyway to answer your last question: By appearances, it was quite a mess. And it surprised and saddened me. - jc37 06:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I refer you to the words "had the matter been before you", that is, had a case been filed. I also refer you to my words "what action, if any, would you have advised taking".  I am attempting to gain some sense of how you would act as an arbitrator by seeing how you would apply arbitration principles to a factual situation.  I ask you to answer the questions I posed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What case, what circumstances, what is being requested, what other information might Arbcom have concerning this? Or in other words, these things are on a case-by-case basis. And attempting to answer a hypothetical for this is, I think, inappropriate. - jc37 19:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Had the circumstances of PumpkinSky's block, with an admin who had immediately before insulted him as in the thread referenced above, been brought to ArbCom. I've also asked you to discuss your own awareness of what went on then, as you were a part of that conversation.  I see no ambiguity.  I suggest you answer based on the words I have used, and your understanding of the situation, of which you were a part, and without further quibbling.  If you prefer, "Had Moni3's block, and her immediately-preceding insults of PumpkinSky, which were in the conversation when you were active in it, before she blocked him, come to the attention of the ArbitrationCommittee, what should it have done and why?  What would have been your counsel as an arbitrator to your colleagues?"--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be grateful for a full and frank response to my question. I would hate to have people conclude unnecessarily that you've been evasive or nonresponsive.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored my questions here. You have evaded answering them and so the thread is needed to show this for interested voters, and in the continued hope of receiving an answer.Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Bishonen on Jc37's refusal to answer my questions
For convenience, I paste Jc37's response to my questions on the main page here:


 * You know, while I suppose I could respond to these questions, I just don't think it's productive to rehash the past, even to clarify what, in my opinion, appears to me to be more than a bit of cherry picking, seeming misrepresentations, and what I presume to at least be misunderstandings, in the "questions" above. Nor do I think it needs to be noted that the talk page in question was later protected by another admin (who also happens to be a currently sitting arb), who you then also confronted about their'' protection of the page.


 * ''However, to spare you sending me an email asking me to do something on-wiki (respond to these questions in this case), I decided that rather than merely leave them blank, I should leave a note of some kind.


 * So my response to the above is merely to quote the top of the page: "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."''.
 * If this means I have lost your "vote" in this "election" due to not responding to some questions, I suppose I'm comfortable with that. - jc37 08:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jc37, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken if you think my vote, and Wehwalt's vote, and Ched's vote, are the only votes you'll lose by evading or quibbling or stonewalling whenever uncomfortable questions are posted on your questions page. The thing about these pages is that many voters read them. You see how one voter guide has already noted your failure to answer what the author calls "simple but damning questions" from Wehwalt and me? Really, Jc37, when you posted a candidacy for arbcom, did you not foresee that there would be questions about PumpkinSky and about your "Protection reversion" RFAR? You seem completely taken by surprise, with your flimsy up-against-the-wall politician's excuses. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC).


 * I agree, there are far more votes to be lost with less-than-candid answers and with playing games by answering questions by referring to the policy by link. We want your views, not the community's.  You are the candidate.  Why did you run, if you were not prepared to answer questions?  Bish is asking you questions about your administrative actions, per WP:ADMIN you are expected to answer such fully and candidly.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't be so harsh on Jc37, Newyorkbrad has completely escaped criticism and has apparently been declared immune from answering any questioning that he isn't interested in. Why hold Jc37 to a much higher, and quite different standard? GabeMc  (talk 07:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * wrongs x 2 =/= a right.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, I agree, two wrongs = two wrongs.  GabeMc  (talk 07:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the second wrong? GabeMc's link shows that Newyorkbrad has had far more patience with his obsessive nagging than I would have. Dragging that to this page, and into a thread concerned with real problems of unresponsiveness, must be some sort of record of irrelevance. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC).


 * (Responding to GabeMc) I will trust to the community of voters to decide whether I made a good-faith, reasonable effort to discuss GabeMc's multiple and shifting concerns with my closure of a poll/RfC (completely unrelated to arbitration), both on the questions page and my talkpage, before concluding that I had said everything I had to say. (I can attest that my efforts to satisfy his concerns, before concluding that it would be impossible to do so, took me a couple of hours.) In that regard, in addition to the question-page and talkpage discussions, anyone interested should please also see here and here, in light of which I'm somewhat surprised to see this issue being raised again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Responding to Newyorkbrad) Sorry, was I completely topic-banned from any discussions involving this ArbCom election or NYB in general. I agreed to stop asking you questions at ArbCom, and I did, more than two days ago. Anyway, if this conflict is all it takes to make you (NYB) completely loose your cool and start hurling insinuations and insults at people who ask difficult questions during an election then perhaps ArbCom is far too stressful a position for your impatient and overly sensitive nature. Also, is your above post (and several others) supposed to be a good example of how I won't let this dispute go but you will/are, because it seems like you are continuing to make accusations about me that I am not allowed to address, lest I risk upsetting you. Oh wait, I just asked you a question, that had better wait until after the election, since we don't want you having to answer difficult questions about your behaviour during your candidacy do we? GabeMc  (talk 22:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward
First, regardless of the outcome here, I thank you for offering to serve in what is often a thankless position, and one that should require a great deal of tedious research for facts. I also thank you for all the work you do as an editor and admin., and respect the technical abilities you bring to bear. Now I've timed my post here in a particular fashion as I did not want to "badger" or "pile-on"; but, I did want to put forth some food for thought for you in the future shortly before this was closed and archived. You've been a member of the project for a long time, and I do want to acknowledge that. For myself, this particular "vote" came down to 3 things:
 * 1) Policy,
 * 2) Communication, and
 * 3) Behavior


 * 1.) Policy: While you were quite able to link to and quote the letter of policy, I didn't feel that you expressed your own personal understanding of the spirit of the policies. It's one thing to be able to regurgitate a quote, but I wasn't convinced that you were able to express your own personal understanding of the concepts, intents, and the fundamental reasons that those policies exist.  I think that is a very crucial ability that an Arb must have.  which is a segue to ...
 * 2.) Communication: I got the impression that I'm not alone in this concern. With many of the questions I get the impression that you've either failed to understand what is being asked, or that you are either unwilling, or unable to provide your reasoning.  I noted that often when asked about a specific incident, your response appeared to be a misdirection to someone else's post or behavior; when people were looking for your views of your own choices.  It's a rare but valuable quality to be able to look in the mirror objectively and assess what you see.  Further, I recall mentioning to you on my talk page (in this discussion) the concept that an "Arb" is the "highest position of trust" - to which you replied:
 * As for "highest position of trust" - Hmm. dunno, depends on one's perspective. I'd heartily agree that when it comes to confidential and "real life" issues. (Though others have some tools/responsibilities along those lines as well.) But one might say that the highest position of trust in our project is entrusted to every editor. We're trusting them to freely edit the encyclopedia. Anyone can edit. That's a powerful ability. - jc37 22:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now when I see that coupled with your "I'm not a politician" banner on your election page, I'm sorry - but that was a major red flag for me. You've made several comments regarding your distaste for "rehash[ing] the past", yet it's how we assertain how you will fulfill your duties as an Arb in the future.   All too often over the last few months I've felt that you have often tried to avoid, duck, and sidestep items while trying to cast asspersions on others.  Which leads us to ...


 * 3.) Behavior 3.a) In short, what I believe was, and perhaps still is, a faulty understanding of the spirit of WP:WHEEL, WP:PROTECT and WP:INVOLVED that led you to beating a pile of dust where once laid the remains of an equine carcass. 3.b) A RfA that compelled you to post 26 times in opposition in under 24 hours!  And I'll note that not only did the nominee only have 13 posts at the time (17 in total including the withdrawl), but - not a single one of your posts was to the questions area.  Now, I do appreciate that you spent "quit (sic) a bit of [a] day" researching when pressed, although I wish you would have done so before you made accusations.  3.c) Some 3 hours after I started working (privately in user space) on questions for this election you pop up on my talk page preemptively stating your intent to basically either redirect or dismiss my questions.  Perhaps an editor with less resolve may have been intimidated by that; obviously I was not.  Now I don't know what prompted you to search out my edits, and frankly?  I don't care.  HOWEVER, it was rather unorthodox, and for myself, a cause for concern.

Now I realize that the above may be a bit harsh, and I won't apologize for that. I think you're a good person, a fine editor, and a dedicated wikipedian; so my comments are solely in the hopes that you can take some small shred of value of this into the future. I didn't post this earlier because it's never been my wont to influence other voters with my own views, but rather it's an attempt to share some insight that I hope can help you in the future. I'm remembered of a time when my daughter was stumbling around in my work-boots, trying to fill shoes she just wasn't able to at the time. In a sense that's my overall impression here. I think one day you could make a fine Arb., but I'm not convinced that the time is now. When you responded to the idea of Arbs researching diffs with "I don't think it should be required, but I think reading through the diffs should be encouraged.", I suggest to you that it should be required. I don't ask you to take my own views as gospel, nor do I think you should read what user:SomebodyGreat says and simply "believe" it. In any instance, be it as Arb, Adimin, or simply as an editor participating in a discussion - I ask you to please do your own homework and search for the truth. What we do, though only on an Internet wiki, affects real people with real feelings, issues, and circumstances. A sad fact of life is that either through desire, through unconscious thought, misunderstanding, or through ignorance, some people will either misrepresent the facts, attempt to rewrite history in their own favor, or outright lie. If you are to stand in judgement of others, either as an Arb, or as an admin., I think it's important to try to get it "right". Everyone makes mistakes, but if we can look in the mirror at the end of the day and honestly say "I did my best", then that's all we can ask for. With that Jc, I do wish you the very best in all you do. Regardless of the end results here, I trust that you're a good person trying to do good things; and I thank you for that. — Ched : ?  23:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)