Misplaced Pages

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:

#Question:
#:A:

Questions from Hurricanefan25

1. Question: Here you give an extremely weak argument that gives little information other than "I would allow it." If you have the time, can you explain your reasoning with additional details? (response is fine with me)

   • A: It is not entirely fair to pass by my countless decisions that had full rationales and pick one of the few in which I cast a straight !vote, but I'm happy to explain my thinking. However, please understand that I will struggle to elucidate my thinking in full when the enquiry is so belated. Essentially, I was satisfied that we could give Aganda a second chance: as Boris said, the initial sanction was severe (though not overly so), and I count a record of constructive editing after a topic ban in favour of the subject of the ban. I do not often agree with requests for "second chances", but in this case I was willing to allow the appeal. AGK 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Question: I see little major recent activity other than this in the venues of the Arbitration Committee. If you are successfully elected for the position in 2012, how active do you plan to be as an arbitrator?

   • A: I do not make a point of chiming in on every RFAR, because I do not believe that being an Arbitrator Lite is a productive way to spend my time on the project. However, I do give my view on situations I am involved in (such as the one you link to, which was an appeal of one of my enforcement actions). If I an elected, I will be adequately active, and if for some unforeseen reason I become unable to fulfil my commitment (which I do not anticipate), I would resign. I believe my record of activity elsewhere on the project is an adequate demonstration of my ability to fulfil my time commitments. AGK 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

The first 9 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

   • A: I cannot comment on what circumstances led to such a delay, but three months to resolve a case is of course unacceptable. The community has made it clear in the past, with such wrecks as the six-month-long Scientology, that the protracted delivery of resolutions to cases is intolerable. AGK 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?

   • A: WikiProjects are valuable because they allow editors with similar interests to triage their workload, identify articles that need improvement, and, yes, summarise site policy relating to article layout and other standards. However, I do not think such projects should be taking on an active enforcement role: that would be akin to a book club telling its members what book to read, and how quickly to read it. The entire community should be involved in formulating policy, and if a wikiproject member is taking on the role of enforcing community policy, they should not do so in any capacity other than as a community member, because the project would come to be a cabal. One great aspect of Misplaced Pages is that non-experts can become involved in the development of almost any article; I do not see how we can reconcile that principle with hobbyists becoming regulators of their pages. I would go so far as to say that such a practice is no better than tag-teaming. AGK 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

3. An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Misplaced Pages, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?

   • A: Misplaced Pages functions as well as it does because it has a dedicated base of contributors. Site discussions are rare in comparison to the volume of 'pure' article improvement that happens daily on this site. If a contributor is unable to participate in a professional way to meta-discussion, it would follow that we must resort to excluding them from projectspace discussions. If a contributor is unable to participate not only to administration meta-discussions but also to debates about the content of an article, for instance article talk or user talk threads about a given edit, then that editor could not comply with Misplaced Pages:Consensus, Misplaced Pages:Bold, revert, discuss, and related tenets of our community. In the former case, the editor should be excluded from the project space; that may alleviate the problem, but allow the contributor to continue his or her mainspace work. In the latter case, the only option would regretfully be to ban the editor from the project (or to place them on something like a civility parole, but frankly I think such things are a waste of our time). I do not believe that you or I or any other editor are above the expectation that one interact properly with our colleagues when necessary, and I would accord with that belief in my dealings as an arbitrator. AGK 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

4. An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?

   • A: In what way is the hypothetical editor incompetent? In some cases, for instance if an editor is so incompetent with a given topic area that they are only able to contribute nonsense, we could forcibly exclude the editor from the given topic area—such as with a topic ban. In other cases, for instance if the editor is unintelligible or is so socially inept as to be unable to interact professionally with other editors, then the only recourse would be to site ban him or her. It would depend very much on the specific case, and both how and to what degree the editor in question was incompetent. AGK 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?

   • A: It would depend on the specific case, and I see limited usefulness in judging hypotheticals—although your questions are of course very valid. However, yes, if an editor is unable to participate constructively, some sort of restriction on their activities (for instance a namespace or subject area/topic ban) may in the end be warranted, as would a siteban. For whatever it's worth, I think the Arbitration Committee is today dealing much less with routine cases of editorial incompetence or editors with difficult temperaments, and more with editors who are deliberately disruptive or malicious. AGK 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

6. Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

   • A: I don't think that's a reasonable perspective to hold. ArbCom isn't a criminal court and does not take into account "mitigating circumstances" like one party being made to be abusive by another editor. That said, if an editor was obviously baited by another, the resulting discourse may not be an accurate representation of how the first editor routinely behaves, and I would imagine that the cause of the disruption would be held to be the second editor—not the first. It would depend on the specific case; the purpose of ArbCom is to resolve disputes and end drahmaz, and it must do whatever is necessary to achieve that aim in any given case. AGK 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

7. When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?

   • A: My views on this subject are conservative: ArbCom should be the body of last resort. I would only support our acceptance of a case where the community has been unable to provide a resolution (such as when other methods of dispute resolution have failed), or where the community would be unable to deliver a resolution (such as in the case of administrator abuse: the community has no "de-adminship" process). The array of cases which come to arbitration are more varied than in the past, which is a testament to the community's new-found proficiency at resolving disputes without arbitrator involvement, but broadly I think cases should be accepted when absolutely necessary. AGK 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

8. When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?

   • A: Presuming you mean an indefinite or one-year ban (or something similar), only where it was absolutely necessary. Most cases of outright abusiveness are dealt with at ANI today, so long-term bans (as oppose to non-sitebans such as topic bans) are only meted out when there is no other way to conclusively resolve a dispute. AGK 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?

   • A: Yes, absolutely. AGK 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

10. What are the current problems with the Misplaced Pages community?

    • A: Forthcoming. (Thinking; that's not an easy question. AGK 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Questions from Sven Manguard

1. Your nomination statement didn't carry too much enthusiasm. In elections past other candidates have put forward 'It's not that I really want to do this, but since nobody else is, I might as well' type statements, to mixed receptions. Is my assessment that you lack enthusiasm or any great want for the role accurate? If so, how would it effect your term?

   • A: Having worked with the arbitrators for some years, I perhaps am more aware than most candidates are that a seat on ArbCom is rarely pleasant. Nevertheless, I am pleased to serve on the committee, but I view it as a necessary duty—not something to look forward to. It would be fair to say that in the past, I have been generous to the project with my time, and when I make a commitment, I see it through. I do not view my candidature as being one designed to "fill out" the pool of nominees, as has been seen in past elections. AGK 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Many content disputes come through mediation on their way to ArbCom. Under what circumstances would you decided that you have had enough involvement in a case, prior to it winding up at ArbCom, to warrant you abstaining from the case? Do you foresee having to abstain often enough that it would negatively impact your effectiveness as an Arb?

   • A: If I had had a significant involvement in a dispute as a mediator, I would recuse, because any significant involvement with the disputants (even in a role as inherently neutral as that of the mediator) will inevitably cause one to prejudge the case. My primary duties as a mediator today is as the Chairman of MedCom, which is a role of administration and co-ordination, so I do not imagine that I would become a serial recusant. AGK 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

3. Which of the roles (other than Administrator) which you currently serve in, if any, will you resign if you are elected? If you feel as though you would have to resign multiple roles, please discuss what you perceive the net impact of the resignations to be. If you don't plan on resigning multiple roles, please discuss the ethical ramifications of holding outside roles and an ArbCom position.

   • A: Perhaps we might cross that bridge when we come to it, but I imagine that I would move from the role of community Audit Subcommittee member to arbitrator member. I would end my term as Chairman of MedCom. I doubt I would have enough time to continue using the checkuser tool regularly, but the impact of this on SPI would be negligible because we have had a new intake of community checkusers (who were appointed at the same time as was I, though I had been using the tool before then because of my AUSC appointment). I am no longer a clerk (I stepped down when I joined AUSC), and I do not fulfil any other functions on the project that would interfere with my work as an arbitrator. AGK 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions from Sven Manguard

Looking over ArbCom cases from the past few years, it is clear to me that many times, editors involved in the dispute being heard in a particular case use the Workshop page as a platform to continue their disputes. These Workshop posts tend to take the form of 'finding of facts that the people on the other side of the dispute have committed heinous acts, heavy sanctions for the people on the other side of the dispute, and people on my side of the dispute get off without even a warning' (it's usually less transparent than that, but barely).

1. Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.

   • A: I agree that the Workshop has been abused in the past. As a clerk, I occasionally spoke out when I thought a workshop proposal was a thinly-veiled dig at another contributor, and I would do so as an arbitrator too. AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

2. If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?

   • A: I would propose that the arbitrators stop spending so much time on the mailing list and doing other stuff, and focus on being involved in the actual cases. If the arbitrators took the time to read and comment on workshop proposals, problematic activity could be stamped out (or even discouraged, with increased arbitrator involvement implying that misbehaviour could more easily be reflected in the final decision than if the arbitrators were largely absent). If the committee was more involved, nonsense or malicious proposals could be shot down quickly, which is better than having them languish on the workshop and in the public record. AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from NuclearWarfare

Core questions

1. Please describe your opinion on the following proposals in relation to Misplaced Pages's BLP policy: an expanded version of opt-out , "targeted flagging", and a more permanent version of the old pending changes trial. In your answer, please discuss your personal views on the pending changes trial: what you thought of it, whether we should ultimately implement some form of it (and if so, what form?), whether the community failed to come to a decision about it, and what you believe the role of the Arbitration Committee should have been.

   • A: Given the amplified legal and moral issues with articles about living people, I simply do not think that the standard Wiki model of content-writing is adequate.

     (1) Opt-out: I define the opt-out system as "Permitting the administrator who closes an AFD for a BLP where the subject has marginal notability and has asked that they not be included on Misplaced Pages to take the subject's wishes into account". Where the subject is of marginal notability, it follows that their inclusion on Misplaced Pages is not a significant issue. For instance, whereas we would commit a gross oversight in the depth of our encyclopedia by granting Barack Obama's request to not have an article, we are not doing our readers a disservice by removing our entry on the 1993 winner of the Derby Parish Council Award for Best Gardener. Especially in the context of the ongoing Leveson inquiry in the United Kingdom, if there are no other significant factors (such as that the subject is of interest to the general public, or is otherwise notable in their field), it is simply due professionalism that we afford marginal-notability subjects the right to not be biographed on a public site if they have a keen desire for privacy. In short, there must be a presumption in favour of privacy. I support the opt-out policy for BLPs.

     (2) Targeted flagging: While I think that applying flagged revisions to under-watched BLPs is conducive to a more professional approach to BLPs, I do not think that it goes far enough. I support targeted flagging, but prefer a full roll-out of FlaggedRevs for all BLPs.

     (3) Flagged Revisions: As I mentioned earlier in this response, I do not think that the standard Wiki model provides adequate editorial review and oversight of submissions in the context of the importance of providing professional, reliable coverage of living people. Unreferenced, unverified changes to BLPs are already reverted liberally, and on balance I think it is an acceptable compromise on our completely open model of editing to review those changes before, rather than after, they are made. We ought to accept the reality that Misplaced Pages is a top 10 website for most Google searches, and that we cannot reasonably allow our website to become a free-for-all, especially with the potential legal ramifications—and to say nothing of the resultant damage to our credibility.

     I thought the Pending Changes (or FlaggedRevs) trial went well, but I was disappointed that the trial was not renewed and that it did not result in the retention of the system. I understand that this was largely an operational problem: the trial was meant to be temporary, but was retained for far longer than initially intended. The general annoyance that it was not removed when we said we would remove it was understandable, but also meant that the follow-up discussion did not focus on the actual merits of the system. Hearteningly, the discussion did suggest that most of the community continued to support Pending Changes after the trial, although we cannot take the most recent straw poll as hard evidence of that, because it did not have that issue at its core. I do not believe the Arbitration Committee should have had a role in Pending Changes (as it did with its May 2011 injunction), and I would not support it having one without a very explicit community consensus. Moreover, there was (and is) no need for arbitrator involvement: the community has not proven that it cannot settle the issue of BLPs and FlaggedRevs, neither to the general bar expected of issues that come to arbitration nor to the much higher level expected when the matter at hand has the potential to make ArbCom into GovCom. AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Please describe an experience you have had with a significant content dispute. If you have had any disputes where you felt that either yourself or another party was either not acting in good faith with respect to the neutrality policy or with regards to source gathering, I would be especially interested to hear about your experience. What do you feel you did incorrectly and how would you have realistically fixed that for future situations?

   • A: I don't edit contentious articles, mainly by coincidence: my interests are in subjects that are not widely edited. For instance, I collaborated at Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom with User:Ironholds. The article had not been widely edited before we re-wrote it, and all of the content expansion was simply fact-finding and prose refinement—rather than debate about the content of the article. I haven't been involved in any content disputes for a long time, because what article contributions I do make are pretty routine. Sorry I can't answer at greater length, but I can't answer this unless it is from the perspective of an uninvolved participant (which I could probably talk about for years…). AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

3. In my 2010 voting guide, I highlighted several quotes by other editors. Please select two from "On Administration" and state why you agree or disagree with them. Bonus points if you give reasons for your answers

   • A: I firmly agree with Heimstern's Essay on the Arbitration Committee. I find it repugnant that some of our contributors are permitted to do whatever they like with certain articles so long as they ostensibly embrace dispute resolution and discussion, and remain civil. I suspect that we have resorted to focussing, in many cases, on who is uncivil, rather than who is using Misplaced Pages for their own ends, because it is easier to do so. It takes far less time to slam the banhammer on a few diffs containing expletives than on an array of edits that prove a pattern of long-term POV-pushing or protracted edit-warring. I have spoken about this at length elsewhere, although not much recently because the issue is difficult to get much traction on, and I firmly agree that the spilling over of nationalist or real-life cultural disputes onto Misplaced Pages is one of the most serious issues this community faces. Civil but non-neutral or partisan speeches are not accepted in academia; why should they be on an online encyclopedia?

     I suspect that I have also responded to MastCell's comment in November 2010, but needless to say I agree with that too, for the same reasons as elucidated in the previous paragraph. I picked the first two because they are related (and because it's easier to just tackle the first two on the list), but if you want me to take a stab at Moreschi's essay, please feel free to ask a follow-up question. AGK 00:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

4. Do you believe that the policy on involved administrators using the admin tools should ever be relaxed to any extent? Does your answer change depending on whether general or discretionary sanctions are in place?

   • A: Like it or not, administratorship is not only a bunch of technical tools; it involves reasoned judgment. Nobody can reach a balanced conclusion if they are not impartial. Moreover, the legitimacy of their action is undermined if they are involved, because an involved administrator taking action gives the impression they are using their tools for their own ends. I do not think administrators should be using their tools in a situation in which they are not uninvolved, especially where the matter requires more balance and analysis (like the application of general or discretionary sanctions). We have enough problems with the body of administrators being perceived by non-sysops as an elite, without allowing administrators to use their tools in matters in which they are not impartial. The same applies to functionaries (like CU or OS access-holders), arbitrators, and so on. AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Misplaced Pages:No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Misplaced Pages, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?

   • A: The ostensible justification for blocking editors who make legal threats is that the dispute-resolution process would otherwise be undermined. From that perspective, legal action is identical to the threat of legal action. (Personally, I think we block editors who make legal threats because it's just not sporting, and must be especially discouraged in the context of the litigation-happy culture in some states in the USA.)

     I do not think any candidate could speak confidently about this issue, but I'll give it a shot. There are several scenarios under which two editors could become involved in legal proceedings after an action or action on this website:

     (1) If legal proceedings were initiated by editor A over editor B with regards to a disagreement over content, the matter would be laughed out of court; a public disagreement is not libellous, and neither volunteer could conceivably be liable in any other tort.
     (2) If editor A sued editor B with regards to a public insult or remark which caused offence, perhaps made in the course of a meta- or article-discussion, then the matter would again probably be dismissed by any reasonable court.
     (3) If editor B is sued by article-subject A for writing a verified, referenced, and accurate article that the subject nonetheless finds objectionable, the matter would not lead to legal action because: i) the article is valid because it is supported by sources and therefore truthful; and ii) it would anyway be publisher of the sources, not the Wikipedian, who is liable.
     (4) If editor B is sued by article-subject A for using Misplaced Pages to publish defamatory content, then editor B might conceivably be liable, but frankly we do not need to concern ourselves with such an individual.

     In all cases, the legal proceedings would be for insult or injury, rather than to obtain a legal ruling to change Misplaced Pages content. Accordingly, the respondent should not be blocked; and likewise, there is no need to prohibit mention of the proceedings (although the involved editors should be mindful of the doctrine of contempt of court). However, the appellant should be blocked, because by pursuing legal action he is (deliberately or inadvertently) intimidating the other editor into changing his views on content; such is not how Misplaced Pages functions.

     I do not see why the Arbitration Committee should become involved, unless the editors who are subject to the legal proceedings cannot settle the content question even after the legal proceedings have ended (if indeed they ever began, an idea which in most cases is laughable). If a good-faith contributor has been sued under scenario 1 or 3, I believe the Wikimedia Foundation is obliged to provide legal counsel and assistance—although I understand that it is indemnified from doing so by the Terms of Use or some other document. If a contributor is sued under scenario 2, the Foundation may be obliged to provide assistance if the contributor was not deliberately obnoxious, harassing, or abusive. If a contributor is sued under scenario 4, no Misplaced Pages organisation should be obliged to assist them. AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions

1. What is your opinion of specialized content guidelines like Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Do you think it is a practice that we should encourage with other guidelines like Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) or Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (history)?

   • A: Yes, I think some topics require a more specialist approach than others. Medicine, for instance, demands a more refined approach to the verification of content and the use of reliable sources; to take that example, although the broad thrust of policy (that only mainstream sources may be used), the community has refined this further by, for example, requiring that we not use material that is not supported by mainstream scientific consensus or that contradicts mainstream consensus without systematic reviews. Medicine is a curious example, because although we do not give medical advice, we must accept that there is a high bar for such articles because our website is probably going to be the first hit for an ailment or condition a self-diagnostician is searching for. Scientific consensus also varies more drastically in the medical community, especially where new studies or emerging diseases are concerned, and so we require more a more specialised approach to content-building for medicine than we do in most other topics.

     If the users in the other major subject areas find that they require guidance for identifying reliable sources, then I do not see why we could not allow such a guideline to be created. However, I believe that in most cases, we must relegate such documents to "supplementary guideline" or even "essay" status, because we risk being overwhelmed by the weight of our own policies. I think Misplaced Pages's policy structure is quite complicated enough as it. AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Do you think we should have a policy for medicine and health in the same manner that we have WP:BLP for living people? What about for corporations?

   • A: The BLP policy is peculiar because it simply re-states what Misplaced Pages policy prescribes elsewhere. In theory, all articles are required in equal measure to conform to our core content policies and especially to be neutrally-written and verified with reliable sources. The BLP policy only re-states these ubiquitous requirements, and emphasises their special importance when the subject is a living or recently-deceased person. The policy implements the community's view that BLPs be carefully-written by establishing some special processes, like WP:BLPPROD (and previously, the FlaggedRevs Trial).

     Despite what our disclaimer for medical articles suggests, Misplaced Pages is one of the first stops for people who are researching their symptoms online, or are learning about conditions they (or a family member or friend) have been diagnosed with. Accordingly, I am of the view that medical articles must be as carefully written as are BLPs. Although policies are not prescriptive, their formulation does represent a community consensus on a particular issue. Just as we formed the BLP policy to show we are serious about tackling poorly-written BLPs, so too could we form a Medicine policy to show we do not accept quack medicine or wrong information on articles about medicine and health. I do not think we have a problem with our coverage in this topic, but if the community decided that we did, I would agree to forming a similar policy for medicine and health.

     For corporations, I do not think the stakes are as high, but conversely I think the problem is comparatively worse: many of our entries on organisations, especially small and medium-sized ones, are laughable at best. Moreover, many such entries are edited by employees of the actual organisation, and I do think this subject area is a serious problem. Similarly, if the community concluded that the state of our coverage about corporations is intolerable, the formulation of such a policy could be the solution.

     As an important addendum, I understand that it is important that you assess the candidates' views on these issues, but I do not think that this would be something for the Committee to address without consulting the community. While I think these subject areas need development, and that a BLP-like policy could be the answer, I do not think that ArbCom should be GovCom. AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

3. Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree?

   • A: Forthcoming. AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification

Restraining aggrieved parties in emotionally charged scenarios is central to the Committee’s role, and arbitrators are in principle exposed to legal action by those parties in a real-world jurisdiction. It matters little whether an action is launched or merely threatened, and whether it is quite unreasonable: the costs for an individual arb to forestall a default judgment in a foreign court would be considerable (and I believe it’s not hard to transfer an order to the courts in one’s local jurisdiction). The risk is greater because as volunteers we can’t be expected to provide professional mediation as an intermediary between wiki and real-world judicial processes—mediation that might head off litigation in the first place.

Given the WMF's annual income of some $20M, what is your view on whether the Foundation should:

1. set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and

   • A: I do not imagine that mediation would be especially useful in such a situation, but if the arbitrators became involved in legal proceedings, then yes, I would hope the Foundation would provide assistance. As the Foundation retains an in-house counsel, I do not imagine that mediation would be especially expensive (at least in raw terms). Perhaps I am grossly naive, but I do not think we need to prepare for every eventuality—especially because most foreseeable legal proceedings are unreasonable or vexatious, and therefore unlikely to make it far before dismissal. AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

2. offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

   • A: Nothing in the Foundation's Terms of Use or other policies makes them liable to protect an arbitrator (or any editor) who becomes subject to legal action because of their constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee is a community process, not a WMF one, and I do not see why the Foundation would be obliged to offer legal indemnity. However, that does not mean that I think they should not offer assistance; I do. However, as I have opined elsewhere, I find it unlikely that an arbitrator would be the subject of legal action in the course of their routine work as a member of the committee. I may be naive in holding such a view, but in any case I am volunteering to arbitrate disputes—not to shape any debate on what the Foundation might do in the unlikely event that legal action might somewhere be taken against me or another arbitrator… AGK 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Russavia

There is a still open RfC at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. As evidenced at this request, there are numerous admins and editors who have serious doubts over the Committee's unblocking of what is suspected, with a high level of good faith and WP:DUCK evidence, to be a banned disruptive sockpuppet. Do you think it is appropriate that after nearly a month and a half:

1. the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.

   • A: No, the delay is excessive. I have not followed the RfCl, but from what you tell me, the communication of the committee leaves a lot to be desired. AGK 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

2. of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?

   • A: Presumably those responsible for the unblocking are publicly listed at WP:BASC. AGK 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

3. there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...

   • A: Of course I don't think it's appropriate, but I don't know why there may be such a conflict in communication. Presumably, the arbitrators just crossed wires on that particular aspect of the matter; on a Committee of nearly twenty, such things must be anticipated at least occasionally. I agree, however, that that issue should have been cleared up when the RfCl was filed. AGK 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

4. the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?

   • A: I don't know if they have, not being privy to their internal discussions, nor having even followed the RfCl. I would be loathe to judge the case based on your representation of the facts, especially because everybody views such incidents differently. However, I certainly think when the committee errs, it should hold its hands up and say so; brushing things under the carpet has been shown, especially when it comes from ArbCom, to not work, nor to be acceptable to the community. AGK 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
2. absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?
3. how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

1. Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.

   A: There are none, although if I had had a previous involvement in some specific incident that later came to arbitration, I would of course recuse. I would also reserve the right to recuse from a topic area in future. AGK 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

2. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?

   A: I would always respond in full to a request that I recuse, by rebutting the arguments made for my recusal or by saying I will recuse. I would respond in full irrespective of how advanced in the requests process the matter was. AGK 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

3. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?

   A: See above. AGK 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

4. What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?

   A: While I would tentatively be satisfied that most arbitrators would not seek to interfere with the committee's internal discussion about a case, I nevertheless think it is wrong for that arbitrator to even be privy to those deliberations. The committee's mailman software prevents 'selective unsubscription', and I think that is damaging. If the parties to a case know one of the parties has been able to read internal discussion (and maybe even participate in it), then the perceived legitimacy of the decision is lessened. The legitimacy of ArbCom's decisions is important. As for the arbitrator's involvement with the case before it comes to the committee: an arbitrator must either come to case proceedings with as much impartiality as we can expect from people, or must recuse. I do not think there can be much leeway here; a partisan arbitrator is a bad arbitrator. AGK 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

5. If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?

   A: In the situation of having been involved in the matter before it comes to arbitration? I plan to avoid involving myself in disputes except in an official capacity, and I do not often come across a situation in which I cannot be neutral. However, if I am not impartial because of prior involvement or my own prejudices, I would recuse. AGK 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

6. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?

   A: Yes, because an arbitrator is most useful in their official capacity - and such prior involvement breeds a propensity to the need to recusal. Also, as a solely practical point, I do not imagine that most arbitrators would have the time to dolly about on the drama boards or mediating a dispute; the committee's workload is already large enough. AGK 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

7. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?

   A: I don't think that would be a useful practice. Arbitrators are experienced members of the community and could have a lot to offer such discussions. Moreover, I view being an arbitrator as being a regular editor but with an extra (albeit time-intensive) duty. If an arbitrator withdrew from important community discussions, the impression would be that they had "graduated" to a seat on the committee and was no longer involved (or in touch) with the community at large. However, to recycle that catchy phrase we use a lot now, ArbCom is not GovCom, and an arbitrator's involvement in policy discussions must be only as an editor. AGK 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

8. In what circumstances can incivility be excused?

   A:

Questions from Joe Gazz84

I would like to apologize for the late questions, I've only just gotten the time to write them. If you see a question that you've already answered or one that is similar, please proceed to answer it, you may think of a new way to explain your idea/answer. Please answer all of these questions, they will weigh in heavily when I vote.

1. Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?

   A: I think it is helpful that a candidate declare what his or her "agenda for reform" is, and I will happily do so, but I initially emphasise two issues. First, I am being elected as an arbitrator, and my primary responsibilities would be to ensure that the committee's workload is despatched efficiently and to resolve disputes. While I have helped to drive reform at other Misplaced Pages bodies and would do so if elected, I do not intend to flog the metaphorical dead horse of my reform agenda. Second, I am being elected as one arbitrator of fifteen; even with the recent reduction of eighteen, I am still a significant minority. If I cannot effect reform on the following issues because of opposition from my colleagues (who are all also elected by the community) on the committee, I would have to acquiesce.

   The following issues are what I think need changed:

   (1) WMF consignation: The Wikimedia Foundation should continue to take on those aspects of ArbCom's remit that it is better qualified to handle. ArbCom has become to go-to body for every issue that is sensitive due to legal, privacy, or other real-life issues, which is not ideal because common editors are unqualified for a task with such high stakes.
   (2) Public discussions:' ArbCom needs to shake off the (rather sucky) notion that it is entitled to hold most of its discussion in private; a public mailing list or public discussion space should be created, because the us versus them mentality of some of the arbitrators that was evident in the recent leaks has undermined the community's confidence in the value of Arbcom-l.
   (3) Arbitrator involvement in cases: Arbitrators need to be more involved in the case process, including on workshops, evidence talk pages, and similar. Arbitration case talk pages likewise need more committee involvement. Arbitrator detachment from the users involved in the case gives the impression that arbitration proceedings are an unstoppable juggernaut that the parties can do nothing to change the course of, which really isn't a good thing: the committee must be receptive, and be seen to be receptive, to outside (and inside) views. Drafting the proposed decision and posting it on the workshop in good time seems to have fell out of practice, but is good because it allows the parties to read it (and post rebuttals if necessary, as well as to offer alternatives that could be considered). We must not forget that the aim of ArbCom is to resolve a dispute, not mete out street justice and silence the involved parties. I do not, of course, forget that many parties to arbitration have often behaved in such a way that they probably need to be site-banned, and I do not propose that we "go soft" and play nice with every party; I just think that bringing a modicum of discussion to the process is a good idea.
   (4) Overuse of motions: Motions are overused, and using them for anything but internal matters or the simplest of disputes means that the resulting decision is more likely to be rushed and flawed. I would lobby for a full case to be opened more often than would most arbitrators.
   (5) Periodic reviews of the committee's performance should be held (other than our annual elections, which any case are not well-suited to this purpose, or WT:AC/N, which is too informal). Most other comparable public bodies have a complaints process; I do not think it would use many resources to have a similar system for ArbCom. We need to be more receptive to the community's thoughts on the committee's business, as well as to genuine complaints about the actions of specific arbitrators or the conduct of specific cases or proceedings. I hope we can create a subpage of the main ArbCom case page that is an RFC Lite forum to which people can post their grievances about the committee. At present, the community can rant at WT:AC/N, or join (and rant at) Misplaced Pages Review. ArbCom should allow these editors to periodically rant directly at the subjects of their anger; without good feedback, I do not see how the committee can ever improve.

   If you would like me to talk at greater length about any of these issues, please feel free to ask. AGK 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?

   A: No, I do not think the committee should create policy. Please see my answer to Gen. Qu. 3. I think the committee should refer all issues of policy to the community for consideration. AGK 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

3. An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and its surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?

   A: Forthcoming. AGK 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

4. How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)

   A: Odd question, but let me think and I'll get back to you. AGK 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Q: If you could sum-up your experience here at Misplaced Pages, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)

   A: Forthcoming. AGK 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you,  JoeGazz  ♂  22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)