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

Moved comments from #Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

 * 1) Thank you for answering those questions. In the light of your answer to question 2, would you describe your participation in this exchange as "courteously debating and discussing"? (I know it's a year old, but you were an Arb at the time).
 * A: Answered last year, when it was actually a recent event.
 * Actually, all I see there is your criticizing the other party to the dialog (which may well be valid - I think it was a bit pointy myself). But that does not answer my question about whether you consider your responses to have been an example of the "courteously debating and discussing" civility that you say you support. Anyway, it seems I'm not going to get a straight answer, which is entirely your prerogative, and I shall press you no further. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you mean "Have you learned anything about dealing with intentionally annoying people in the intervening year?" then my answer is unequivocally "yes" as can be seen by the way I've handled myself in the face of unreasonably vicious criticism over the past several weeks. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I appreciate that answer, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved comments from #Questions from Nikkimaria

 * 1) You have recently objected to an email of yours being privately forwarded by another arb to recipients involved in the election (rationalized as a form of "whistleblowing" to get input on what she saw as inappropriate behaviour on your part). However, in spite of your statement here that "the only email sharing I've done is my own", you had earlier publicly posted emails from several senders without first seeking (that you've said) their consent or approval as a means of explaining/bolstering your position on a particular issue; your reasoning, when others objected, read in part "My personal take on email has always been that there is an implied license to forward any email given to the authorized recipients". In light of this:
 * 2) What are your views on privacy/confidentiality of communications, as applied to all editors?
 * Elen's forwarding was a violation of the explicit rules regarding confidentiality. I addressed the emails to a WMF mailing list, designated for committee members to facilitate work, which has an explicit privacy policy to which all members agree before participating. To compare a violation of a specific agreement to general email privacy principles is an apples to oranges comparison.
 * Fine. What are your thoughts on these general email privacy principles, then? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) When, if ever, is it appropriate to forward or post messages from a closed mailing list? To discuss such messages on-wiki, whether posted or not? Note that arbcom-l is not the only list to which this question could apply.
 * Different mailing lists have different agreements, but in general, mail sent to a closed list stays in that closed list, unless permission has been given by the author for redistribution outside that list.
 * Good. And the second question? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You stated here in relation to this issue that "future committee members will be able to go back and review the arbcom-L traffic". What are your views on current or future ArbCom members reviewing archived list traffic where it is not directly relevant to a case request, given that they were not authorized recipients?
 * The list is an arbcom business list. The newly elected arbitrators have a need to know what has gone on before to be effective in the performance of their duties, and archives are specifically maintained for that explicit purpose.  After the previous leak, the retention rules were adjusted to eliminate the retention of messages beyond a reasonable use horizon.
 * 1) You have recently been the subject of at least two community-led "no confidence" motions, one of which received two-thirds support.
 * 2) Are arbs accountable to the community (outside of elections), the rest of the committee, neither, or both? Under what circumstances and using what mechanism should an arb be "impeachable", in your opinion?
 * The feedback routes and removal procedures for arbitrators are clear. The fact that an arbitrator who admitted improperly disclosing confidenrital material and then made misleading statement in the ensuing investigation, still remains on the committee demonstrates that there is perhaps too strong a protection against removal for cause.
 * Speaking in general terms: I'm aware of what the procedures currently are, I'm interested in what you think they should be. Do you believe there should be a meaningful way outside of elections for the community to express (or act upon) a lack of confidence? More broadly: are arbs accountable to the community outside of elections? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Should arbs informally (ie. not in a committee motion) censure other arbs on-wiki, off-wiki, both, or neither? What advantages/disadvantages do you see to each approach that guide your response?
 * Discussing how things went well or badly is in the nature of the job and off-wiki discussions. Off wiki discussion gives arbs the freedom to speak candidly, without fear their words will be used against them... unless that confidentiality is violated.  Censure is a formal method for a body to express disapproval with a member that does not rise to the level of expulsion.
 * Sorry, word choice - I meant censure as a form of admonishment or reprimand, not the formal sense. Building on that response: what advantages/disadvantages do you see to commenting on each others' actions on-wiki? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Under what circumstances (other than obvious compromise) could an arb be blocked or otherwise sanctioned for edits or statements on an AC-related page?
 * I believe that arbitrators should be accountable to other arbitrators for their actions on ArbCom pages.
 * Good to know. Do you feel it would ever be appropriate for a non-arb to block an arb (again, absent obvious compromise) for statements made on AC pages? Why or why not?
 * 1) In a controversial email to arbcom-l, you stated that you "don't want to serve on a committee half-full of people who obstruct appropriate discipline".
 * 2) What will your reaction be if both you and those you planned to be "actively campaigning against" are elected? Given the disapproval with your actions expressed by certain members, do you feel you can still work effectively with them?
 * The only candidate who met that criteria is Elen. If she is elected despite her admission of violating list confidentiality, it will really fall to the 2013 arbitrators to deal with her--if she and I were both reelected, I would be recused on matters relating to her misconduct.
 * The second question would apply to at least one other, though, and your statement mentioned a committee "half-full" of people you see as problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) More broadly, given your strong views on certain issues, do you intend to abide by committee decisions even where you disagree with them? What about community-determined norms and expectations?
 * Why is this even a question? I've been on the committe for two years now, disagreeing in part with almost every decision, and never once have I had a problem being outvoted. I'm curious: do some folks not understand how one can be stridently outspoken, and yet willing to work within a consensus model?  My entire Wikipedia existence has been characterized by willingness to work with others despite me espousing a strong viewpoint and consensus not upholding it.  C.f. my recent participation in the Muhammad Images or "Verifiability, not Truth" discussions.
 * I'm sure it's quite possible to be outspoken yet work within a consensus model. However, there is a difference between working within a consensus while trying to reform it, and working outside a consensus because you feel the established norms and expectations are wrong. That is why this question is here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved comments from #(Additional) 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?
 * The arbitration committee really is inaptly named. It's not GOVCOM because 1) it doesn't want to be, 2) it takes "not GOVCOM" very seriously, and 3) the community wouldn't let us anyways.  It also isn't dispute resolution, and hasn't been for a long, long time.  What happens is that all other dispute resolution venues have been tried, and then ArbCom happens.  Some arbs have a sufficiently high view of their own ability and/or a sufficient low view of the community's own efforts at dispute resolution that they see their job as yet another dispute resolution body. Thus, we get ArbCom rulings that take people who've done the same thing over and over and over again--and I'm thinking Betacommand at least as much as Malleus Fatuorum here--and say "please stop that".  Really?  We wasted a case and the associated effort, on top of that of all the previous warnings, admonitions, and sub-ArbCom processes to say "please don't do it again, and we really mean it this time"?
 * No, the most important public job of ArbCom is to settle conduct (not content, conduct) disputes by banning the people who cannot be banned by the community because the editors who are disrupting the project have enough partisans on their side to preclude any community ban motion from finding consensus. The community sets policies, within the framework of the pillars, and then we are the ones hired to implement them in an impartial way, and take the abuse from the banned editor's friends, because the community values the right to criticize authority more than it does in treating the process or the people with respect.  Mind you, I don't necessarily think that's bad, but it does tend to select for arbitrators who are too timid to do that job right, or folks like me who err on the other side of being too tone deaf to real criticism after we've been hated on for so long.
 * So yes, ArbCom is a political body, as can be seen from the political machinations that resulted from my allegedly-too-political post. But political doesn't necessarily mean governing.  I like the fact that ArbCom's scope is limited, and really think another, entirely separate body should be created to settle CONTENT disputes, which are right now allowed to fester unresolved until there's enough CONDUCT involved to open an ArbCom case. There's gotta be a better way to do that. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I only have 2 very short follow ups to that answer. Ignoring the current arbcom "dispute" (which you may or may not feel would apply), can you give an example of when you were "too tone deaf to real criticism", and tell us what you did to address it? Finally, would you, yourself, be interested in serving on the content adjudication body you suggest, or do you feel your talents are better used in adjudicating conduct disputes? I'm assuming for the last question that personal available time (or perhaps actual policy) would preclude you from doing both. Begoon &thinsp; talk  07:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think I'm too tone deaf--that's why some people think it's a problem. I view it as being impartial and logical, but at the same time have enough humility and detachment to see how other people legitimately believe it's a problem.  For example, I don't believe that it should ever matter if an editor is going through real-life struggles: if their real life is interfering with Wiki-life, then we'd actually be doing editors a favor by excusing (banning) them to focus on their own personal lives, and if we say "well, we're going to write you a big get-out-of-ban-free pass because you say you're dealing with [insert condition here]" then all we've done is incentivised lying to the committee in order to obtain favorable treatment.  Fair, logical, clearly the correct path in my mind, and clearly horribly insensitive and heartless in others'.
 * Of the two, I don't actually know, I can see both. I have fairly strong opinions on censorship (bad), POV pushing (bad), presenting minority viewpoints fairly and accurately, dealing with BLP with both the appropriate seriousness and restraint, and similar content-based agendas.  For example, if you look at my essays, 7 are on content, and only one (WP:YANI) clearly stems from ArbCom experiences.  At the same time, I am better suited to actually do the job that I believe is most important in an arbitrator--to seek out misconduct and enact even-handed and proportionate remedies that enable the community to handle future incidents without the committee's input--than most of my peers.  Obviously, many of them have differing interpretations of what an arb's job is. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)