Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates/SarekOfVulcan/Questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Questions from Collect

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

   No, just like a grand jury indicting someone doesn't mean they're guilty. Also, it's possible that talking through things in an arb case could lead to breakthroughs that just didn't happen in a less-structured environment.

4. If an administrator has openly stated a strong aversion to an editor's article edits on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

   No. Just because there's an issue with some edits doesn't mean there's an issue with the editor. Granted, human nature being what it is, it's definitely something that should be looked at closely.

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, ought there be a delay to give that editor sufficient time to address "new evidence"?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, ought space and time for rebuttal be given?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?

   a. It depends on the level of involvement, but it's not an unreasonable request in general.
   b. Certainly.
   c. Yes. Anything else can lead to gaming the system.
   d. Arbs should not hold back evidence for the purpose of only presenting it at PD time. If it's something that only shows up after evidence closes (assuming it wasn't held back to game the system), I think arbs should be able to mention it, if it's important enough to change the course of the case. If it's not that important, it should be left out, and if it is that important, the party it's relevant to should have a proper opportunity to respond.

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Thank you for standing! Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Which part? :-) I feel fairly strong about the need to interact civilly, but OR has a point that demanding civility is a bit like demanding gratitude - what you get might not be what you want. :-)

Question from User:ShakespeareFan00

2. The Arbitration Committee has to tackle many issues, but I will use a specific topical example, How would you if appointed handle an arbitration case where 'inappropriate' language or innuendo about a female BLP or contributor was alleged?

   I'd be surprised if that got as far as Arbcom, really. It should be handled by individual editors and admins first.

Question from WBG

2. In light of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#SarekOfVulcan, why shall I be convinced that if you were an arb, you would not use your position of a far-greater-authority to bait editors and 'use your tools?(esp. given that an arb can provide more evasive reasons for such purpose(s), which often can't be scrutineered by the community.)

   I hope that my editing behavor since that case closed 4 years ago has shown that I've learned that my old editing patterns did not serve the encyclopedia well, and that I've been working hard to be a better contributor.

Questions from InsaneHacker

2. The arbitration policy states that arbitrators are expected to recuse themselves from proceedings if they have a conflict of interest. What do you consider conflicts of interest? Are there any situations that may be considered COI "grey areas" that you have an opinion on?

   I don't currently have anything I would consider a conflict of interest. The only "marketing" content I'm responsible for is the Brewer Hometown Band, and I'll be very surprised if that ever comes to Arbcom. :-) Freemasonry and its assorted organizations could be a grey area, I suppose, but I'm not terribly worried. Diane Duane is a topic I would probably recuse on, in the unlikely event the Lone Power started messing around here - I've worked on her website.

4. There is currently no requirement that ArbCom members have to be administrators, but historically every arbitrator has also been an admin. Do you see any value in having non-administrators on the commitee, why/why not? (I'm especially interested in answers from non-admin nominees)

   I see nothing wrong with having non-admins on the committee. While there is occasionally need for admin tools to check things out (deleted pages, etc.), there are plenty of available admins on the committee who could forward the info.

6. Do you think that administrators or users in good standing who generally contribute to the project in a constructive manner should be given more leeway when it comes to sanctions against them (also referred to as the Super Mario problem)? If not, do you think this happens currently, and if so, what can be done to prevent it?

   I recognize the "problem", but I'm not sure to what degree it's actually a problem. Constructive editors should always get more leeway than vandals, and collaborative editors should get more leeway than combative ones. Is there really any way to avoid this? The only thing we can do it watch ourselves and make sure we're not giving unwarranted free passes for behavior that harms the encyclopedia.

Question from Carrite

2. You've run the vetting gauntlet and been elected an Administrator, which like it or not many regard as a prerequisite for election to ArbCom, and haven't run into any problems with that of which I'm aware. The obvious elephant in the room is the five tickets for edit-warring from about five or six years ago. What caused you to change your behavior after repeated warnings and blocks didn't seem to do the trick? Did you have a revelatory moment? How do you think your experiences being "on the wrong side of the law," so to speak, will inform your actions as a member of ArbCom? thanks, —tim

   The revelatory moment was here. Having that many arbs vote to desysop me made me realize that I probably was no longer acting with the support of the community, and that I needed to fix things as quickly as I could. That's why I resigned the bit. Having Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3 fail made it even more obvious that I needed to leave that editing style far behind.

Question from Banedon

2. Were there any Arbcom decisions in the recent past that you disagreed with? That is, were there any motions that you would have voted against the majority on, proposed decisions that you would have drafted differently, etc? If so, what would you have supported / drafted instead, and why? I am particularly interested in your position on contentious motions that split the current committee, e.g. this case request and this proposed remedy. Feel free to pick any contentious motion you are familiar with as an example as well.

   I think I would have voted to accept the Joefromrandb case, but not necessarily to sanction him -- I would have liked to take a good hard look at the disputes he was having, and if the problems were his, or if they were being exacerbated by others. This seems to be something the Arbcom hasn't been terribly willing to do in recent history, but I admit that I haven't been tracking the cases closely. In the proposed remedy you point to, I'm highly alarmed that two arbs claimed they couldn't sanction non-parties. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Elements of a decision clearly states that remedies may apply to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct. (This also reminds me of a question I raised in an earlier arb proceeding - how is a party to a case defined? It doesn't seem to be actually written down anywhere I can find...) If there were editors engaging in stick-non-dropping, I see nothing wrong with a 1-month probation. If they couldn't keep to that, they probably should have been in the case all along. Checking through the other recent cases, I don't see any obvious points I disagree on.

4. Do you think an editor's content creation should be a factor in any proposed remedy? For example, suppose Alice and Bob end up in an arbitration case in which both editors violated WP:BATTLEGROUND equally. Alice has written 100 FAs and 200 GAs, while Bob only registered an account a month ago. Would you sanction them both equally? If yes, do you consider other candidates' statements detailing their content work to be irrelevant (because content creation does not matter to you when it comes to solving disputes)? If not, which editor would you sanction more, and why?

   I realize this is potentially a very loaded question and you might antagonize people no matter how you answer, so feel free to take your time.

   I can't answer this very well as stated -- I don't know what level of battleground behavior we're talking about, and that's relevant to how I think it should be handled. As I mentioned above, I think that contributions do matter - but that also means that a long-term editor should know the community expectations and be expected to be held to them. Just on what's been presented here, I suspect that the editor who just started and jumped right into battleground behavior would probably be sanctioned more heavily, but I wouldn't consider that a foregone conclusion. I'd consider each case on its merits, and each party on theirs.

Question from Nick

2. Pick three Arbitration cases from the last six years, explain in detail what aspects of the committee you agree with, what aspects you disagree with, and what you would attempt to do differently. Where you disagree with the previous outcomes and where you would do things differently, indicate how you would attempt to gain consensus and support from the other committee members. You can copy bits of your answers to the above question from Banedon if suitable/relevant.

   Well, let's start with the one I'm most familiar with, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. The parties are all still editing today in the fields of their interest, and many of the remedies have been motioned out. I call that a win, even if the one I'm subject to is still in place. One thing I was frustrated at during the course of the case was that there wasn't much input from the committee - much of the discussion felt like the parties and their opponents sniping at each other. If I were a committee member, I would like to show more progress in the cases going along. I will continue to review cases and expand this answer. I'm looking at War of the Pacific now, as I have no experience with the topic or with the editors, that I recall.

   Ok, in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific the committee members did a good job at looking past the presentation of the evidence to see the underlying issues. The final decision seems to be the minimum required to resolve the case, but as one of the disputants retired before the case closed, it's hard to tell if it would have been sufficient. The question of other editors contributing to the dispute was raised in passing, but quickly dismissed because it hadn't been raised in the evidence phase. I would have liked to have seen that investigated more closely, if possible.

   In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality, it felt like the Arbs were properly engaging with the case. There wasn't really anything I disagreed with here.

   I'm sorry that this answer is weaker than Nick seems to be calling for. I'd welcome followups on the above if anyone needs more detail.

Questions from DGG

2. Officially, Arbcom is supposed to deal primarily with conduct disputes, not content, and to interpret and apply policy, not make it. But it has always seemed to me that most conduct disputes have their origin in disagreements over content, and that Arb Com has in fact been most successful when actually dealing with content concerns, as in the pseudoscience and nationalism related cases, even though it may have to word it indirectly. And it has also always seemed to me that the necessary interpretation of policy can in effect amount to making policy, as with the cases involving BLP. What do you think? DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   It's very difficult to decouple conduct and content. To the degree it can be done, it should. However, as you point out above, it's not always possible, or even desirable, to do so. While ARBPOL is clear that Arbcom cannot impose policy by fiat, it can provide guidance to the community about what needs to be discussed in more detail.

4. There have been very few actual arb com cases in the last few years, which might indicate that the community is doing better with its problems, and that the basic rules are becoming well understood. It seems to me that most of the business at arb com has been dealing with ban appeals, which is done on the mailing list, and often involves considerations of privacy. I'm not sure we do very well at this. What do you think about this? DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   I can't speak to this, as I haven't been involved with any ban appeals lately, so I don't know how they have (or haven't) been handled.

6. When I joined arb com 3 years ago, most arbs thought that the terms of use were not necessarily enforceable policy at the English Wikipedia, and that arb com has no role in its enforcement. I strongly disagreed at the time--I think they are inherently policy to the extent they are applicable, and arb com has the same jurisdiction as for other behavioral policy. (Of course, we may want or need to interpret it further--and certainly can extend it.) To some degree, I think it possible that the prevailing opinion may have been changing a little towards the position I hold. Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   I think of the Arbitration Committee as the ultimate body responsible for keeping the editors working together as far as possible. Where the TOU speak to that, they should be considered enforceable policy. However, they're not our TOU, they're the Foundation's, and they're the ones ultimately responsible for enforcing them, not us. It would be a good thing to have a discussion about an internal TOU policy, indicating which parts of it we should enforce at our level before punting.

8. As I see it, most arbs are of the opinion that the requirement that editors avoid outing applied equally to good faith and bad faith editors. I however think that it ought to be interpreted to apply with much less rigor to those who appear to be editing in bad faith or deliberately against the terms of use. (I recognize the difficulty in deciding initially who is editing in bad faith) Where do you stand? DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

   I stand on the side of caution. It can occasionally be difficult to determine reliably who's editing in good and bad faith, and in my experience, a good-faith editor can be provoked into a bad-faith action. The best way to prevent this is to make sure the policy applies equally.

Question from Rschen7754

2. Above, you wrote: I hope that my editing behavor since that case closed 4 years ago has shown that I've learned that my old editing patterns did not serve the encyclopedia well, and that I've been working hard to be a better contributor. Can you point to anything specific, or any specific contentious areas that you have worked on/in to show that things are different? --Rschen7754 07:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   At WP:ANI#Removal of important statistics from reliable references, I reviewed some of David A's extensive references and commented on a couple of their issues, and pointed out that he had been trying to get some of the references into articles for years, but intentionally left it to others to decide if a topic ban was merited. I did, however, nominate his full list of links for MfD, as it seemed to me to be SOAPBOXING rather than just a working list. During the recent dispute over Catalan Independence, I mostly kept to discussion on Talk:Catalonia and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive294#Proposing community sanctions on Catalan independence, rather than letting fly with admin tools. In a maintenance template dispute at Charles I's journey from Oxford to the Scottish army camp near Newark, I fairly quickly went for usage clarification instead of edit warring (though probably not as soon as I should have).

Question from SilkTork

2. Hi. Thanks for stepping forward. I am asking this same question to all candidates. What can the committee do that the rest of the community cannot? SilkTork (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Besides the obvious, handling non-public information, the committee can handle things in a more-structured manner, with restrictions on discussion and timelines that would not stand in the greater community. A panel of a dozen can discuss matters more efficiently than a group of several score.

Question from Biblioworm

2. On this page, I have drafted some detailed proposals (already written as formal motions) which would reform ArbCom's policies and procedures. As an arbitrator, would you propose and/or vote for these motions? If you only support some of the proposals, please name the ones that you support and the ones that you do not support. If you do not support a particular proposal, please elaborate as to what, if anything, would make the proposal acceptable to you.

   I'm not familiar enough with your proposals to take duties away from Arbcom, so I can't speak to them at this time. As far as the ones limiting scope, participation, etc, I'm definitely not in favor of them. Arbcom is supposed to be able to make final decisions on conduct issues that the community can't solve. Restricting their ability to deal with intractable disputes would be counterproductive. Not all AE decisions need the level of review you are attempting to mandate here, and I don't think opening up the motions page would be terribly useful - if you can't convince an Arb to bring it there for review, it shouldn't be there.

Question from Usernamekiran

2. Hi. You are the only editor other than Worm That Turned, that I am not familiar with. So I would like to ask, in your opinion what can be considered as "conflict of interest"? (Kindly read my second question before answering this.) —usernamekiran(talk) 09:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Without referring to the actual COI page, conflict of interest is when your interest in a subject outweighs your ability to edit fairly on it.

4. This is a follow-up question for the previous one. This one might look odd, or a little goofy/humorous; but kindly try to take this seriously. Given user Kudpung, and TonyBallioni's heavy involvement in NPP/R project, do you think it can be considered as COI if they process (approve/decline) a request for NPR user-right at WP:PERM? (Update:This is a hypothetical situation where Kudpung has not retired from co-ordinating NPP/R.) —usernamekiran(talk) 09:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   So, you're asking if people familiar with the NPP requirements should be disqualified from deciding if someone meets the requirements? I don't think that flies.

Question from Smallbones

2. I’m asking all candidates this question and will use the answers to make a voter guide. Please state whether you will enforce the Terms of Use section on ‘’’paid editing’’’. Should all undeclared paid editors be blocked (after one warning)? Are administrators allowed to accept payment for using their tools for a non-Wiki employer? Can admins do any paid editing and still maintain the neutrality needed to do their work? (Note that only one admin AFAIK has declared as a paid editor since the ToU change). Do you consider the work done at WP:COIN to be useful, or is it just another “drama board”? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   TOU violations are clear-cut things that should be handled before they get to Arbcom. If a violation came to my attention as an admin, I would deal with it as such. More to the point, the TOU fairly explicitly punt to the projects, so the governing policy I would be enforcing would be Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, rather than the TOU as such. Undeclared paid editors are in violation of the TOU and WP policy, and should be blocked after being warned and failing to comply. Admins should not accept pay for using their tools, but I see no reason they should not be held to the same standards as any other disclosed paid editor. I have no reason to consider COIN a drama board.