Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/LFaraone

LFaraone

Hello, I'm LFaraone. I'm an administrator, CheckUser, and Oversight team member. I first registered a Wikipedia account in 2004, although I was not active until several years after. Like others, I was on the fence about running, and I'm presenting myself to the community because as a voter I wanted a strong candidate pool.

I became an administrator in 2008, and have been very active as a respondent with OTRS. Recently, most of my work has been in the functionaries team.

I am running for ArbCom for the opportunity to help craft future decisions on topics like the intersection of WP:OUTING, WP:COI, and WP:NOTCENSORED. I've been troubled by the recent mixed signals given by ArbCom on the scope of relevant policy, and as an arbitrator I would seek to provide clarity as to what they mean in context.

I've seen firsthand how powerful Wikipedia can be, both as a positive force and (sadly) as a detriment to biography subjects. Needless to say, I support a strong WP:BLP that protects the dignity of article subjects while still allowing us to provide neutral coverage. Some focus in this area and additional guidance from ArbCom would most certainly be useful, and I would like to ensure that such decisions are made taking in concerns of all involved.

I am used to dealing with nonpublic information through my previous work on Wikipedia and elsewhere. As such, I would take the same care with the information I receive as an arbitrator. I am over 18, have identified to the WMF, and have not used any non-test accounts besides this one. My account was previously known as User:Firefoxman prior to a rename in 2008; User:LFaraone_(usurped) was the account that was previously under my current name.

Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate: LFaraone

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.

Apologies for the delay in answering these; this week has been quite busy in real life. I anticipate answering most of these EST-tonight (Fri Nov 22) and tomorrow. L Faraone 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General questions

What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
I've been part of the project since 2004, although I did not become very active until a few years later. This provides a nice historical perspective; you get to see consensus change on a large scale, and many contributors come and go. I've managed to mostly avoid being at the nexus of disputes thus far, generally waiting to see how things develop before getting involved. Off-wiki, I am involved in a number of other projects, such as Debian, in reviewing roles that teach one to be meticulous with an attention to detail. But more fundamentally, I really do think the encyclopedia is an incredibly important project, and a net-positive on the world. I'd like to help ensure it is more so.
What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
My experience with dispute resolution has been limited, which I consider a fortunate circumstance to be in. I have on occasion been mentioned in WP:ANI threads, and on at least one occasion been the subject of one. That said, I have spent a good deal of time resolving issues raised by article subjects via OTRS.
Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
I'm of the opinion that WP:CIVIL is laxly enforced. We should hold all editors to a high standard wrt. the level of discourse, but the bar is higher for those in positions of community trust. Thus, I'm more likely to frown upon on misconduct by administrators, bureaucrats, etc than similar actions taken by other users. More generally, I'd try to focus on what sanctions are required for the continued functioning of the encyclopedia; purely punitive sanctions hardly help anyone. To that end, I'd try to be lenient on users who, after being placed under sanctions, later appeal to the committee after a time of good behaviour.
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
Of course, I would recuse myself from cases involving outside organisations I am involved in, or from cases that involved direct competitors of companies I have worked with. If I had a history of personal interactions with a particular party to the case, I would also recuse myself.
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
I am not aware of any such circumstances.
Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
I felt the actions in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute, proper, were generally reasonable and a good response to an incredibly controversial issue. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes is another example of a good case; the committee was discussing a hotly debated editorial topic that had been an issue for a long time, and the remedies appropriately deferred to the community. I was disappointed with the initial closing of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough, which took a good deal of time to finally correct.
The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
I believe the Arbitration Committee should accept cases that are in scope, that is, when they deal with issues that cannot be reasonably resolved through a community discussion or when other mechanisms of dispute resolution has failed. That said, the increasing trend towards the reduction in the number of cases heard by ArbCom could be taken as a sign that the community is better able to resolve disputes without a Committee taking action, which can only be a good thing.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
Increased transparency of process would be a boon to ArbCom, which despite being in a position of strong authority on a project that prides itself on its openness is depressingly closed. Conducting more of its business en plein air would increase community confidence in decisions and ultimately reduce the possibility of problems.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
As stated in other questions, I'd be pleased to see an overall reduction of ArbCom's role, as more things can be deferred to other, more community-driven processes. I would hope that additional elected committees are not needed except in exceptional cases, and would be disinclined to support the creation of additional general-purpose roles with binding decisionmaking power. I think the line between the role of ArbCom and the WMF is pretty clearly established, and many of the current power distinctions are determined by external compliance. That said, there are some matters that may be better handled by the WMF due to its status as the legal entity that provides a platform for the project.
It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
Unavoidably the Committee's actions have affected policies crafted by the community, but ArbCom does not and should not create policy by fiat.
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
The policy should of course be enforced by administrators firstly, as guided by community consensus. ArbCom or its delegates have an obligation to deal with violations of BLP that fall explicitly within its scope, such as content that meets the Oversight criteria, since such things cannot be dealt with by administrators due to technical reasons.
Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
I currently possess both permissions.
Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
This is not quite an issue in my case.
Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
Information should be retained for any reasonable duration as required to protect the project. CheckUser data, for example, is removed from the database according to programmatic timescales. A long term abuse case may outlast Wikipedia's site-wide retention policy, however, and it is useful to retain that data for longer periods so that it can be compared against potential abuse that might occur later.
Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
The Committee should take such an action if it is reasonably believed that sharing the evidence would put another editor at significant risk. In such cases the Committee should endeavour to share as much of the evidence as is feasible.

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:

#{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}}

Question from Tryptofish

What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?
I am in favour of implementing the changes suggested by Risker's draft as they stand today.

Questions by Sven Manguard

What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation?
Motions are for decisions where swift action is justified and a good deal of additional evidence (as would normally be provided in a case) does not need to be presented. It can also be reasonably used when new facts are brought to light about a closed case, or when deliberation on certain issues continues beyond a case's closure. Motions would also be entirely appropriate to address changes to internal operating procedures of ArbCom where a case would not make sense.
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 ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
I generally do not think it is appropriate for ArbCom to overrule strong community consensus. If an issue is unresolved by the community, I similarly would disagree that a motion would be appropriate; a case could be brought to ArbCom, but if an issue is causing a great deal of community controversy a motion would not give it a fair discussion.
Please identify a few motions from 2013 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. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
I feel the motion in "Motion to return Kevin's administrator rights" was reasonable; in which the Committee was willing to reinstate a former administrator who unblocked a user at a time where the appropriateness of the action was ambiguous, and where after the fact the administrator acknowledged the mistake and assured it would not be made again. In a similar vein, the ArbCom motion regarding a clarification of the sensitive nature of Oversight blocks was useful in ensuring additional such cases do not arrive in the future. Besides the motion you excluded above, I did not find anything particularly objectionable.
The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.
I agree that the level of synthesis performed by the desysoped user in the material referenced in the motion constituted a breach of policy, and as such is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. That said, I am sceptical as to whether such actions taken off-wiki are under the remit of ArbCom, and I believe insufficient guidance has been given as to where precisely the line lies.
In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?
I believe it was instructive to provide a rationale for their actions. Hearing an individual's perspective can be beneficial, especially when the action at issue is highly controversial. I do not think it would be productive for this to be a regular occurrence, however.
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?
I would be in favour of bringing most discussions about non-private information on-wiki.
The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.
- If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?

- If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?

- All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?

Like anything else on Wikipedia, change can only happen by consensus. If the consensus of elected arbitrators was that the concepts discussed in Q6 above should be implemented, such a change could be implemented.

Questions from Sceptre

Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in Sexology, the massive embarrassment of the Manning dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation among LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?
I believe the specific issue currently discussed on Jimbo's talk page was the result of a misunderstanding, as discussed further therein. The Wikimedia Foundation has resolved that human dignity should be respected in articles; I would support a community-driven proposal that established more concrete guidelines. I am personally in favour of MOS:IDENTITY continuing to encourage respecting a subject's expressed gender preference, and would be happy to see the policy strengthened.
In the third example given above regarding the undeletion of a libellous BLP, you closed my original oversight request. What other role did you have in the arbcom-l/oversight-l discussion?
I performed a search for the information discussed to determine its veracity, and found some coverage of the allegations of the activity mentioned in the article, but nothing confirming definitively its occurrence. I commented as such on the ticket. Further discussion occurred by other parties, but my only other action on that matter was the discussion you and I had on IRC and my closing of the ticket once the article was deleted.

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. 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, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
From what is visible, it appears the case lingered for an unfortunately long amount of time. I don't see anything on the public page that could indicate why this specific case took such a while, but its possible there was some off-wiki discussion that required additional time to process. Its also possible that it just got lost... such things happen, but its everyone's responsibility to notice and follow up with the other arbs.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
WikiProjects allow for organising efforts on a particular subject area. Regular WiPr contributors are likely to be knowledgeable about an area, and for example may be adept at finding sources to justify notability in a deletion discussion. That said, members of WikiProjects are bound by community consensus and should not attempt to assert a right to control an article.
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?
I definitely would agree with the assertion that some people may hold attitudes related to their status as a result of their tenure that are perhaps detrimental to the project, but I think the best way to fix any problems that might exist here would be to strive for an even application of policy. Unfortunately, its hard to turn that into concrete actions.
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?
I think that in most every reasonable circumstance it is possible, although occasionally exceptionally difficult, to disengage. It is hoped that individuals learn how to do so over the course of their time here, but I recognise that in many situations actions in response to the actions of another have to be taken in context. I'd have to see a specific case to comment in more detail.
zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
I would hope that most cases of administrative abuse could be handled via community processes. In the case of prolonged or egregious abuses, the committee may may accept a case or, if the case is clear, take swift action to ensure public confidence in Wikipedia's governance is maintained.
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
Current policy precludes ArbCom from regulating things outside of things "under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation", but allows for such content to be used in ArbCom proceedings and as an indication of potential on-wiki bad faith. I am not sure whether I would be comfortable expanding the scope of ArbCom's control further, generally. Regardless, I would be opposed to any expansion of scope being retroactive; it must be clearly communicated what is and isn't in-scope.
What is your definition of "outing"?
Disclosing personally identifiable information about a user that the user has not made public on-wiki.
What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
I believe the CU/OS tools are mostly used appropriately, but I've seen the team struggle with a lack of clear guidance from the community and ArbCom. Some clarity here would allow functionaries to be more effective in confidently using their tools.
Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
I have been occasionally involved in content disputes, mostly revolving around the applicability of WP:BLP. I feel often these disputes are reduced to people talking past each other, where participants continue to assert things that are based on fundamental disagreements, of fact or ideology. Its often hard to get beyond that.
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
I would like to see more self-governance from the wider Wikipedia community. Consensus as a model is what we're based on; it is unfortunate that the Committee is currently necessary to resolve disputes.
Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
I have, and I will be able to comply with the policy as drafted.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:SirFozzie

First off, thank you for volunteering. I'm curious that in your statement that ArbCom could provide more clarity with regards to BLP articles. Would you please go into detail on how the Committee should provide that clarity and what the end result should be? SirFozzie (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the early days of WP:BLP, Wikipedia was reeling from issues relating to Daniel Brandt and others, and the Committee discussed "mercy" as a principle. While the the Committe does not decide on content issues care can be taken to made clear the importance of respecting living persons in the construction of articles about the same, when deciding whether to take on a case or how to proceed when closing such.

Questions from Collect

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.

An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
I do not believe that the opening of a case should commit the Committee to any action, including the issuing of sanctions. While sanctionless cases perhaps would indicate that the Committee that more care should have been taken in the acceptance of the case, it is better to close a case without sanctions than to assign them just because one must do so.
Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?
Most certainly one would want to ensure that any sanction against an editor is based on an honest belief that the action is needed to protect the integrity of the project. Assignment of sanctions without an evidence-based rationale would be purely unfair.
Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?
I will review all information on the case page and associated pages, including the evidence and workshop pages.
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?
The Committee would best serve the community if it were at least reasonably consistent, for an environment of uncertainty can lead to paralysis. That said, a future ArbCom should by no means feel bound to abide by every decision ever made by its predecessors, as consensus (both project-wide and within the Committee) can change.
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?
The Pillars are a concise statement of the critical policies on which Wikipedia is built. That said, they are merely a reflection of the longer-form policies from which they are derived, and while they may be in some cases appropriate the better option would be most usually to reference the source document.
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?
As I mentioned in my opening statement, WP:BLP is incredibly important to preserving the quality of our encyclopedia. I addressed the committee's role in BLP earlier in the first section, question 11.
"Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) 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?
I do not think the majority of participants in the encyclopedia can be assigned to any particular "faction", nor do I feel that it is a particularly productive exercise. That said, there are some cases where members of external groups with strong beliefs can be reasonably addressed as a group, as the Committee has done in the past with motions addressing classes of editors whose COI may prevent them from productively engaging with the encyclopedia on a topic.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?
Site bans are appropriate when a limited ban would not suffice to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia.
wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)
This is pretty straightforward. There are some editors, who, regardless of whether they intend to help or hinder, do in practice behave in a manner detrimental to the project. Those editors may say truthfully or not that they wish to be helpful, but the project would in fact be better off without such interactions. Is this unfortunate? Of course. Is it unavoidable, in some cases? Sadly, yes.
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 to...?)
If we imagine editors are volunteering at, say, a local non-profit, a full-site ban would be being asked to leave the premises.
The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?
I'm not sure how this is related to the actions of the Committee, and would prefer not to get into a political discussion.
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?
While content is the output of the project, it is not the project itself. Ensuring Wikipedia is not a hostile environment is important for its participants, and removing sources of disruption helps us all build an encyclopedia better. That is to say, an editors content contributions or potential contributions do not trump other policies.
I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.
I disagree that the required disclosure of this should be expected, as I'm not sure they're terribly relevant to most discussions. In my case, however, such facts have been disclosed by me previously.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Gerda Arendt

Thank you for volunteering.

Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summarial data about the subject in an infobox was moved from a collapsed block at the end of the article to the top of it.
Well observed. Second of three questions: Imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets imagine, sure. Of course, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this particular edit, so I'd of course want more context. For example, are these actions performed repeatedly in violation of local consensus, does the user fail to communicate with others over the dispute, edit war, etc.
Perhaps start with the history of this article. (It's short.) - Local "consensus", if against the MOS, might be questionable. Even if the user might fail to communicate with others, this action would be not a good example, right? What do you thinking of asking the colleague about reasons? - Final question: Imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, and an equal number of arbs voted against it, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. Assuming you lean towards it (or will you never?): will you?
I would be willing to cast the deciding vote, yes.

I assume providing some reasoning? Passed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:MONGO

Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.
I helped bring Ubuntu (operating system) to GA status.

Question from User:Worm That Turned

Firstly, please accept my apologies for adding to the list of questions! I'm one of the less controversial arbitrators but even I have had my writing twisted, my honesty questioned, my personality derided. I've been the target of unpleasant emails and real life actions. Other arbitrators have been subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?
Yes. I've ensured the relevant people are notified about the potential for problems, and am prepared to deal with things as they come.

Question from User:HectorMoffet

The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007.

This decline has been documented extensively:

In our own "Editor Trends Study"
In popular media ("Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore")
In scholarly literature ("How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline")

This raises several questions:

Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?
I would definitely assert that there is a lot left to be done; hardly anyone would argue that Wikipedia is comprehensive, and we've just scratched the surface as to the depths of coverage we can reach. So yes, editor retention and general growth is a problem.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?
The community would be well-poised to work on outreach programmes and improvements in the onboarding process. I've seen many new users react poorly to the way they are treated, getting confused by processes and others who expect them to be fully versed in policy.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?
The Foundation can support the above efforts and craft improvements to the editing experience, making contributing more widely accessible.
Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?
I don't think this is within the role of ArbCom.

Question from Carrite

Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?
I think it is useful for there to exist an off-wiki place for discussion of the project; that in and of itself isn't harmful. And to that end Wikipediocracy is a host to some quality discourse and criticism. That being said, Wikipediocracy also tends to attract those who bear grudges, often without basis, and is used by them as a soapbox for their concerns. Some of the content posted by members is downright hateful. In any case, I don't think Wikipedia the project can take any meaningful action on it. The Committee has previously stated that off-wiki issues are out of their scope; some recent actions may suggest otherwise. As stated previously, the most useful thing ArbCom can provide here is clarity as to how actions on other sites will be treated, including on Wikipediocracy.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from iantresman

How important do you think is transparency and accountability for Admins and Arbitrators, bearing in mind that: (a) Checkuser and Oversight have no public logs, even though we could say who accesses these features (without necessarily giving compromising information)? (b) ArbCom has its own off-site discussion area.
CheckUser and Oversight statistics are published at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics, albeit manually. Coincidentally, I'm currently investigating whether that data could be derived automatically from the database as a WMF Labs job. I've explained earlier my views on ArbCom transparency; that is, yes, more of its work should probably be conducted in public. I do think that an off-wiki discussion area is important for the handling of sensitive topics where discretion is required.
I see lots of ArbCom cases where editors contribute unsubstantiated acusations without provided diffs, and often provide diffs that don't backup the allegations. Do you think ArbCom should do anything about it? (ie. strike though allegations without diffs).
Allegations that are without merit should be marked as such. Striking would not be an unreasonable mechanism to do so.
Incivility on Wikipedia is rife. Sometimes it is ambiguous and subjective. But where it is clear, why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Editors whose username lets them be identified easily in real life, are frequently subjected to "oppositional research" by anonymous editors who can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY. Do you think this double standard is fair, and should anything be done?
Oppositional research is already discouraged by WP:PRIVACY. Could you clarify what you mean by "can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY"?
I see lots of ArbCom cases where Arbitrators appear to ignore the comments of the editors involved. Do you think that basic courtesies should require Arbitrators to make more than just an indirect statement, and actually address the points being made?
When arbitrators choose to accept a case, they are not binding themselves to respond to all comments people may have about matters related to the case. A resolution should of course be provided, but discretion should be used as to what merits explicit acknowledgement.

Question from Bazonka

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?
I regularly attended meetups hosted by the group that eventually met Wikimedia DC while I lived there. I'm offline-friends with several people involved in the project, the WMF, and MediaWiki from areas of interest both within Wikipedia and elsewhere. I have not attended Wikimania, but would like to attend the 2014 iteration. I do not believe my activities would be affected by my membership in the Committee.

Question from user:Ykantor

Should "Petit crimes" be sanctioned? and how ?
The present situation is described as User:Wikid77#Wiki opinions continued says: "some acting as "inter-wikicity gangs" with limited civility (speaking euphemistically)...Mob rule: Large areas of wikis are run by mobocracy voting. Numerous edit wars and conflicts exist in some highly popular groups of articles, especially in recent events or news articles. In those conflicts, typically 99% of debates are decided by mob rule, not mediated reason...Future open: From what I've seen, the Wiki concept could be extended to greatly improve reliability, but allow anonymous editing of articles outside a screening phase, warning users to refer to the fact-checked revision as screened for accuracy (this eventually happened in German Wikipedia"
At the moment there is no treatment of those little crimes. i.e. deleting while cheating, lying, arguing for a view with no support at all against a well supported opposite view, war of attrition tactics, deleting a supported sentence, etc. The result is distorted articles and some fed up editors who discontinue to edit. I can provide examples, if asked for.
In my view, each of these small scale problems does not worth a sanction , but the there should be a counting mechanism, such as a user who has accumulated a certain amount of them, should be sanctioned. What is your view?
You'd need to have a mechanism for objectively determining what constitutes a problem. It is difficult to address the broadness of your question, but I certainly I don't think Wikipedia should have a point system or something similar. That said, cumulative policy violations should of course be taken into account in an arbitration case.
Does Our NPOV policy mean that an editor is violating the policy if he only contributes to one side?
The issue is discussed her: [1].
In my opinion, the view that every post should be neutral leads to a built in absurd. Suppose that the best Wikipedia editor is editing a group of biased articles. He is doing a great job and the articles become neutral. The editor should be sanctioned because every single edit (as well as the pattern of edits) is biased toward the other side. !
WP:NPOV talks about articles, not editors, so no, an editor who acts within policy but only discusses a particular point of view in their edits should not be sanctioned.
There are ignored rules. Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
e.g.
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone
lying

I can show that those 2 rules were ignored in the wp:arbcom but those are just an example. There are more ignored rules. So, Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality is "guidance", not policy, despite NPOV being an important policy. WP:IUC is similarly worded.

Will it be possible for you to refer to "Lying" as well.?

for instance, an editor delete a supported sentence and say in the edit summary, that ""already written in the article "firmly opposed" or "opposed to any form of" means the same"". But it is not in the article, and the quotes are definitely not the same. (It is just an example, and I have no intention to use your reply anywhere). Ykantor (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from user:Martinevans123

Yo LF. Should articles ever use The Daily Mail as a reference source? Should articles ever use YouTube videos as external links? Is there still any place for a "WP:civility" policy, or does it depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes? Would you expect to see more or less ArbCom activity in the next 12 months? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao ME№123. It is difficult to categorically ban a source, regardless of the general quality. For example, that the Mail reported a particular thing may be in and of itself relevant, or it might be used in combination with other sources. That the reliability of the DM comes up so often is indicative that the issue is in dispute. YouTube links, like other links, are covered by WP:EL; they should be used when consistent with guidelines. Of course, civility is important, and past contributions to the project do not automatically excuse any inappropriate behaviour by an editor. It is hard to predict the future.

Thanks, LFaraone. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]