Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:43, 17 November 2018

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?

   Yes, I agree with the jist of Opabina's comment. Where an editor couches good points in blunt language, or uses an expletive to express them, they do not in all cases behave disruptively.

   I do not think we can pre-define incivility: I know it when I see it. In a recent RFC, the community was asked: Should the repetitive usage of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"? I think this question demonstrates a common, fundamental misunderstanding of civility – context matters. Opabina's comment, correctly, says incivility does not just mean "whose language is foul?" But neither can we set bright-line rules, like "Templating a regular is always uncivil" or "Always ignore an expletive". Such rules evade definition and would be the same mistake in reverse.

   AGK ■ 16:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Collect

2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?

   No, certainly not. We don't measure effectiveness by the number of sanctions the committee hands out or the length of its written decisions. During my previous terms, we closed some cases without action: SchuminWeb, Neelix, and Arbitration enforcement. Arbitration cases are a structured examination of disputes the community is unable to resolve. I approach cases with the mindset of asking "How can we try to resolve this dispute?". AGK ■ 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

4. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?

   Standards around conflicts of interest are unambigious: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy § Recusal of arbitrators. Rather uncontroversially, I think that where arbitrators have an actual or perceived inability to deal fairly, impartially, and legitimately with a user or topic, they must recuse.

   To your scenario, and without being given the particulars, I naturally agree that your hypothetical arbitrator obviously ought to recuse from any proceedings – relating to that editor, the related content area, or both. AGK ■ 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?

   Without knowing the particulars – in your hypothetical, no, it would never really be appropriate. Arbitration is by its nature a slow process. Characterised by legal-esque procedures, disputes spend days or weeks mired in the process. Some cases last months. Rarely would it be unfeasible to grant an extension for parties to rebut eleventh hour evidence. Being inflexible about clerical matters (evidence length or submission deadlines) creates a number of problems. Arbitrators can be denied useful information, evidence, or analysis. Disputants can be denied "due process"; while the committee isn't a court, the Misplaced Pages community still needs to live with its decisions – and a perceived injustice makes that harder. Rushing cases – even when done with good intent – can create a great deal of commentary and further discussion, which often turns the committee "into the story". And it is time not spent trying to resolve and decide the dispute itself. AGK ■ 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Rschen7754

2. I guess I'll ask the big question: you were mostly inactive for a few years. Do you expect that you will be active for a full term, if elected? Rschen7754 17:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

   I unequivocally commit to being active for a two-year term, subject to the normal, occasional short-term periods of IRL busyness.

   For the sake of precision, I was inactive for 1 year and 8 months after I stepped down from the committee. (While I see I made fewer edits than normal in 2015, I was active in committee business for most of my year and all of the prior 3 years.)

   During both my previous terms, I drafted more than the usual number of cases, at times was more active than most arbitrators, and overall was active for what I'd make a guess was at or above normal.

   After my last term on the committee, I did not run for re-election because I had planned to take an extended break from Misplaced Pages. Sitting on the committee is a large responsibility and I felt like the time was right for a break. Additionally, for real-life reasons I could not devote so much time to Misplaced Pages.

   Times have moved on once more. I am once again in the position to commit my time, and for that reason I am volunteering. When I started my break, I gave up my advanced permission (checkuser), did not request appointment as an oversighter (which most outgoing arbitrators do), and did not seek re-election to a post I could not then devote time to do. Whilst I think any other long-term contributor should take breaks "responsibly", as I did, I actually think that some time away from Misplaced Pages can give perspective and a better ability to perceive the "bigger picture" upon returning. AGK ■ 18:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

   For the record. When I was on the Committee with AGK, he stood out as an active, committed, focused, ethical, courageous, and polite Committee member. SilkTork (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Nick

2. I'd like to follow up on Rschen7754's question by asking you to discuss (your own) selection of three Arbitration cases which occurred during the period you were inactive - were the outcomes correct etc, and to quickly review any key changes to policies and guidelines you believe occurred during your absence - do you think these changes were good or bad for the project Nick (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Nick: If you are watching this page, you might wonder why I have passed your question by. While I have an answer in mind, I want to give it some additional thought. AGK ■ 18:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Banedon

2. I see you've said an Arbcom case doesn't have to result in sanctions above. Given that, what is your opinion of this?

   Generally, considering a case request involves an arbitrator in deciding whether some kind of problem exists which the community cannot resolve. On the other hand, conducting a case involves an arbitrator in deciding (i) how far that problem extends, (ii) the role of individual parties, and (iii) what solutions might bring an effective resolution to the dispute. The purposes are quite different.

   Much of the committee's work is about a broader question or subject area. The distinction is difficult when the request is about a single administrator's conduct. That said, the different phases still serve the same purposes. At the case request, arbitrators evaluate whether to open a full case or not. During the case, the committee examines the problem in detail and tries to work out how to resolve the problem. AGK ■ 18:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Follow-up to the above: does that mean that you will vote to accept a case as long as there's evidence that some kind of problem exists which the community cannot resolve? In other words, you expect there will be cases where the result is "User ___ acted admirably in this situation, we award her a barnstar and issue no sanctions"?

   Every problem that the community faces is unique, so in each case I would need to see the thing before knowing whether, in my judgment, the committee needs to do something. However, yes, I am willing to accept a case that subsequently see no individual editor named in a remedy about their misconduct. The committee's role involves it in reviewing the background to a dispute, refining the community's understanding of the dispute, and acting to resolve it where such actions are within its scope. I have discussed in other answers that not every case requires a sanction, or indeed a substantive decision. But, again, the committee exists as an entity to resolve any given, specific dispute. A universal approach evades definition because each dispute is unique in what it looks like, how it develops after the case is accepted, and what we find on closer examination. AGK ■ 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Hawkeye7

2. In the light of your answer to Collect's second question, in which you pointed at ArbCom's lax recusal policy, let me give you some particulars. In this case, an arb was politely requested to recuse on his talk page. The arb declined to do so. An uninvolved editor then filed a motion with ArbCom requesting that ArbCom direct the arb to recuse. There was a discussion on the mailing list, and a vote was apparently taken that was far from unanimous, but in the end the arb did not step down. Do you have any opinion on this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

   The arbitration policy expressly provides that Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal. I do not think there has been a significant shift in the community's view that they do not want arbitrators to recuse for previously crossing paths in an administrative capacity with users, all else being equal.

   The examples provided in that request all contain comments by Salvio as an administrator. Language like she has already lied before gives me pause, but on a closer examination the context is an allegation of sock-puppetry. Multiple times per day on Misplaced Pages, editors of all kinds review explanations and accounts given in a case of sockpuppetry. Part of that, indeed, involves debating whether we are convinced or not, given the present evidence and the editor's past.

   You asked for my opinion. I think the request deserved to be heard, but I also think I am comfortable with the outcome (that the arbitrator was not required to recuse). AGK ■ 18:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

4. In recent cases ArbCom has preferred to conduct discussions on the mailing list even though the matters at hand have not have been confidential in nature. While other editors are restricted to proposing remedies based solely on evidence presented on the evidence page, ArbCom has held that it is not so restricted. This has resulted in some comment from editors regarding ArbCom's use of alternative facts. Do you propose to take any steps to address this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

   At #Questions from Alex Shih, I discussed when I think arbitrators ought to use the mailing list. As an arbitrator, I would not bring new evidence into account without giving its subject an opportunity to respond. Arbitration is a method of resolving Misplaced Pages disputes and in my mind leaves no room for alternative facts. AGK ■ 21:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Softlavender

2. What has been the most rewarding aspect of your time spent on ArbCom? Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

   I find rewarding the knowledge that, in as many matters as possible, I have (tried to) provide the community with a solution to problems that otherwise would trouble it. Relative to the size of our community, few editors are willing to serve on the committee – I volunteer because I know it helps others to do work that is more immediately productive. AGK ■ 19:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Peacemaker67

2. Given the lack of prior attempts at dealing with the identified issues via the dramaboards, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?

   There do exist, on Misplaced Pages, large groups of editors who do not frequent noticeboards or other process pages – and would not be inclined to bring problems there. Whether or not that was the reason, when considering an arbitration request, I would not necessarily be blinkered by how often the dispute had been handled beforehand at eg ANI. Additionally, in German war effort, a number of complex problems would face the community in trying to unpick the dispute; for example, comments on non-Misplaced Pages websites. I think I would have accepted that case request. AGK ■ 19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Alex Shih

2. What is your stance on improving the transparency of ArbCom, and the idea of maintaining decorum and respect in mailing list discussions?

   I support the committee conducting its business on-wiki or transparently as far as possible.

   Deliberating in secret or unnecessarily excluding the community from proceedings has brought anger and opposition down on some prior sittings of the committee. In Muhammad images, I published a "drafter's summary" of the dispute that gave an insight into our draft decision before its finalisation and publication (see also this article in the Signpost) which was well-received. Transparency during case proceedings can require arbitrators to invest more time in a case but often results in a smoother, less controversial decision.

   However, when we discuss the committee, transparency can be:

   1. during case proceedings, as in my example above.
   2. of matters received privately by the committee, no matter how far they go
   3. of matters discussed, but not actioned, in private discussion
   4. of matters both discussed and decided in private discussion (eg private motions)

   Committee members see a lot of private material. Most of it is inconsequential, and goes no further than (2). Some of it gets discussed, but needs no formal action, or is relatively low-level – it stops at (3). In some matters (4), the committee actually takes action.

   I believe the community is content with (2) and (3) happening in private, and I tend to agree that there would be no material benefit to the community being told what material merely crosses an arbitrator's inbox. There is a rather large amount of it, and summarising it would require a lot of time. I could be convinced otherwise if a clear consensus was expressed by the community that they wish to see more of what the committee gets up to.

   More significant are matters that actually lead to some kind of decision – a block, a ban, a denied request, a referral to other bodies, an investigation of permissions use, and so on. I think the committee should conclude much of its deliberations on these matters in public, where possible. Privacy constraints sometimes mean that only the decision (but not the deliberations, evidence, or background) can be published on-wiki. Those are few and far between.

   On decorum and respect, I presume that you mean towards other arbitrators. The need for decorum goes without saying to me. Some prior sittings of the committee have been put at a disadvantage by internal friction. As elsewhere, respect for other arbitrators amounts to respect for the equal weight their view has with yours on a committee – and respect for the different perspective they bring to the table. I have had my eyes opened many times by colleagues who were not especially trying to be insightful or memorable, but just thinking how they do – differently to how I do. AGK ■ 19:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

4. When, how and to what extent do you think any editor should be informed if they are being actively discussed by ArbCom in a matter that would immediately affect their future in this community?

   This question and your last perhaps go hand in hand. Where significant decisions are being made about an editor, the matter should be heard on-wiki unless there exists a compelling need to hear the background or hold the voting in private. Even where the decision-making process is private, it would be extraordinary to exclude the editor themselves from the process and very good reason indeed would need to exist.

   My last answer also pairs with this one. Some material will cross an arbitrator's mailbox that mentions a user. Much of the time, that material is inconsequential. I do not think the committee needs to disclose a "mention" to the subject editor. The test is whether a "mention" is becoming a decision-making process of some kind. It is usually clear whether a matter is actionable or not, so I think it is simplest to draw our "right to be notified" around the same bar. AGK ■ 20:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Thank you for your answers to my questions. One quick additional question about activity requirements. I am under the impression that you have taken leading roles in enforcing these requirements for functionaries in the past, although the enforcement of these requirements by the committee has never seem to be consistent over the years. Will you be doing anything different if re-elected to another term? As a second part to this question, what is your opinion on arbitrators being inactive for extended period of time, such as almost one year in some isolated extreme cases? While we are all leading busy lives, do you think this is consistent with expectations described in WP:ARBCOND, and if not, do you have any suggestions in regards to this concern? Alex Shih (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

   Each term on the committee brings a different set of priorities. In the particular term you refer to, there was a large batch of functionaries – many of whom underused the tools or received them when standards were very different. Today's roster is different – although so too are the standards.

   An arbitrator being chronically inactive is not ideal, but I would like to consider with colleagues or the community how far the inactivity was impeding Misplaced Pages process. The community has always "over-staffed" the committee to allow for inactivity, although this changed with ACERFC2018 § Number of arbitrators. While we are now in uncharted territory, I would expect to closely watch whether the committee was becoming smaller than the community intended – and therefore devoid of variety. The arbitration policy deals with removal for inactivity and I would be content with using its provisions as a last resort. I do note that removal for inactivity has happened a few times before. AGK ■ 22:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Cinderella157

2. Arb policy makes a requirement for transparency and Arb cases make an explicit statement of intent to reach a "fair" decision.
   1. What are, in your opinion, the "principles and spirit" (per WP:5P5) that underpin the policy and statement?
   2. The policy in particular, requires "detailed rationales for decisions related to cases". Please comment on this duty as it might apply to you (say, as a drafting arbitrator) and the committee as a whole, in respect to how this duty is discharged (noting the underlying principles), particularly where the evidence presented might be in conflict.
   3. Do you consider that this duty has been complied with and what might you do to improve compliance?

   Cinderella157 (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

   (1) I suppose that the desires for fairness and transparency are best matched to the principle that Misplaced Pages's editors should treat each other with respect. Decision-making processes that mistreat volunteer editors will drive them, and others, away from Misplaced Pages. Whilst, in a rare few cases, the committee may have formally excluded (banned) an editor anyway, a number of banned editors have later successfully returned to Misplaced Pages. We should not be in the habit of burning bridges.

   (2) To your second question, I discussed some methods that I previously used, as a drafting arbitrator, in my answer to Alex Shih's first question. Other methods that can help in this area is full engagement by arbitrators with evidence submissions and the avoidance of cases going to voting without prior participation by arbitrators. Such methods are initiatives that I should say I think go beyond the requirements of our arbitration policy.

   The committee as a whole tries to make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases by using a prescribed format, which is adhered to in every full decision. Decisions set out context and thinking as "principles" and detail the committee's assessment of the evidence as "findings" before issuing the decision in "remedies". Requests disposed of by motion will usually be framed by the request itself, if not an actual statement of the rationale. Motions passed suo motu tend to deal with housekeeping issues, but again the committee adheres to its duty to publish a rationale by describing the background and making public the comments during voting by individual arbitrators.

   (3) In most matters, I think this aspect of the policy is complied with. AGK ■ 20:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

4. If you were to look outside WP for the "principles and spirit", would you change your response? Cinderella157 (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

   To the Golden Rule, or that virtue is the only real good. AGK ■ 21:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

6. There is something of a theme in questions regarding civility (and personal attacks). My question pertains to the conduct of cases (starting at the request phase) and not to cases about civility and personal attacks. I note that an ArbCom case is a place to address grievances and it is appropriate to make reasonable allegations in "good faith" supported by links. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL is relevant.
   1. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements in a case that contained derogatory gender-related comments by way of commentary?
   2. What actions would you take if you became aware of an editor making statements/submissions (such as evidence) in a case that were a significant misrepresentation of context? While this is uncivil, in such a context, I believe that it might rise to the level of a personal attack by virtue of the potential consequences if the statement/submission is taken at face value.
   3. While Arbs are not infallible, the community endowers Arbs with significant power and trust, and with virtually no recourse. What would be your expectations and your actions where an Arb has made an uncivil comment (rising to the level of a personal attack) openly in the course of a case? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   (1) Procedures exist to deal with abusive conduct during a case; I would want the clerks to use them. (2) Receiving evidence is a process. I would test the theory that it is a significant misrepresentation of context by inquiry. However, I don't know that I can agree with the implied assertion that arbitrators should do anything further than writing the decision. Exceptions apply if the editor submitting the evidence is part of the dispute being arbitrated: their conduct at Evidence can be a useful insight into their role in the wider matter. (3) Such a thing would be a serious breach of the community's expectations. Isolated cases might be cause for censure, or indeed a vote of removal, but I could not comment further without details. AGK ■ 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

8. In my assessment of Civil POV pushing: this behaviour is not readily apparent to those not affected; it requires a "body" of evidence over an extended period to establish a case; and, ArbCom has a poor record in dealing with it – perhaps, because of the dealing with the amount of evidence to sift through or because restrictions on the size of submissions. Please comment, with any insights or solutions you might offer. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   I think I have dealt with this at #Question from Beyond My Ken. The committee does have a poor record, but by paying attention to Evidence showing such conduct – and asking for clarification, where necessary – an arbitrator can avoid going for the "easy wins". AGK ■ 19:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Liz

2. Hello, Anthony. As you have previously served or are currently serving on the Arbitration Committee, will you state what you believe is biggest misconception most editors have about how ARBCOM works? What do you think editors SHOULD know about the operation of ARBCOM and how arbitrators collaborate that we probably don't realize? Any aspect of ARBCOM's operation that you would change if you could? Thanks and good luck! Liz 01:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   Hi Liz. First, I'd say that if users are becoming involved in the arbitration process, I or an arbitrator have a duty to make the process clear for them. We need to clearly communicate what participants are expected to do, and give up WP:ROPE in favour of sufficiently explaining and clarifying where it might help. This applies particularly during the Evidence phase, where the ability to present a balanced submission tends to evade participants.

   I suppose it is not helpful to explain that some people do not understand the committee cannot adjudicate questions of content, does not make policy, and is not a court. Most seasoned community editors understand that, to some degree or another. Perhaps what is absent from the mind of many contributors is the harm that arbitration proceedings can do:

   • every editor will be reverted at some time
   • most will have their edit questioned, if not actually criticised, on an article talk page
   • every editor who is an administrator will have an action appealed (eg an unblock request)
   • many admins will also have an action discussed by the community at large at some stage after getting the tools

   However, almost nobody will be an arbitration party. It is a long, involved process – the only one where your conduct is guaranteed to be the subject of thorough examination. Necessary evil though it often is, I think many editors do not entirely realise the effect it can have on a volunteer.

   I don't know that it is easy to pin down how arbitrators collaborate. Every year's sitting of the committee has different members, each with different styles. Every year will bring a unique caseload and set of other matters to examine. The answer really does change every year. One constant is that a healthy culture – of professionalism, respect for colleagues, and willingness to change inherited practices that do not work – makes the committee less prone to error. And better able to listen to what the community is asking for.

   To your final question, I am not sure candidates can answer that – save by guesswork – unless they are elected and can see exactly how the committee is performing. AGK ■ 19:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Winged Blades of Godric

2. Hello, Anthony, thanks for putting your name in the fray.You mention DS to be a system which had lost balance, became known for harshness, and grown unfit for purpose over the years. What leads you the impression and (given that you were one of the chief designers), do you think the devaluation to stem from any manufacturing-defects (:-)) or from some other angle? How do you wish to reform the system? Can you offer some comments on the locus of this discussion? A prominent conflict as to enforcement of DS is with the discretionary nature in itself, which technically allows any admin to unilaterally overrule others and impose some measure, which can't be revoked without going through a lot of hoops. Do you agree, specifically? Thanks!

   Hi @Winged Blades of Godric: just to clarify, in my statement I said it was the older generation of discretionary sanctions that had lost balance, became known for harshness, and grown unfit for purpose over the years (emphasis added) rather than the current iteration. Do you wish me to pick out the other parts of your question and answer those in relation to the current version of discretionary sanctions? AGK ■ 18:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Ritchie333

2. Around the last time you ran for Arbcom, you had some flak over a contentious block of MZMcBride as discussed here, which you subsequently reversed and apologised for. Can you briefly give us your side of the story, and what if anything you would do differently today?

   This preceded the last time I was part of an election and I confess my memory of the incident is patchy. I wrote a rationale here at the time, which I do not think I can add much to at this stage. I should clarify that I did not apologise to MZ for blocking, which I think you have misread. I said I was sorry for not typing into the block reason field an explanation; the reason field was empty. While unblocking, I still asked MZ to consider not doing anything in the future to draw attention to pages that another editor in such a deliberately obvious manner. I think I, and the wider community, are more relaxed about Misplaced Pages critic websites than in 2012/13 – I would be surprised if that kind of situation came up today. Even if the context had not changed, I suspect today I would discuss the matter with MZ but would not have blocked. To comment on whether that means I mellowed in my last term on the committee is probably an exercise for someone else. AGK ■ 18:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for a good answer. Ritchie333 14:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Atsme

2. Do you have the time and patience necessary to devote to this highly taxing responsibility, and by that I mean not judging an editor based on preconceived notions without careful examination of the case or simply agreeing with aspersions cast by opposing editors you may know and trust without personally investigating the diffs in the context the challenged editor intended, or waiting until other arbs have posted their conclusions and simply agreeing in an effort to avoid making waves? My primary concern is that some arbs are accepting the position when it’s quite obvious they neither have the time nor the patience required to actually read the diffs provided as evidence to make sure they were presented in the context originally intended by the challenged editor.

   I think so. During my prior terms, and in my work elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, I have been willing to commit time to understanding the full background to matters before taking action; for example, my closure of the RfC on Wikidata and {{Commons}}. I also drafted a number of final decisions in my prior terms on the committee, which necessitates a careful examination of the evidence presented, discussion on the numerous pages that form part of a case, and interaction with the parties where complex or unclear issues require further discussion. I do not think I would at all be the type of arbitrator you have in mind. AGK ■ 19:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Under what conditions are you willing to recuse yourself from an arb case, particularly one involving an editor (either filer or filed against) that you have either previously shown ill-will toward, perceived or otherwise?

   During both my previous terms on the committee, I did not recuse in many matters. There are not many topic areas where I have a real-life conflict of interest or bias. If a matter arose where I thought I could not render impartial judgment, I would recuse. In over a decade on Misplaced Pages, I have worked harmoniously with almost every editor. Again, if a matter came up involving an editor about whom I could not render impartial judgment, I would recuse. In either case, if my prior actions gave cause for a reasonable editor to think it appeared I was incapable of participating in the process without bias, I would recuse – regardless of whether I, privately, thought I was biased or not. AGK ■ 19:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite

2. Hello, and thank you for running for ArbCom. There are a number of off-wiki venues for criticism of Misplaced Pages content, policy, processes, and participants. Such sites include Wikipediocracy, Genderdesk, Misplaced Pages Sucks!, Misplaced Pages Review (mark 2), and Reddit. Do you read content or participate by writing at any of these venues? If so, which? Do you feel that such sites have positive value in identifying and correcting such problems and abuses that emerge at Misplaced Pages or do you feel that such sites are wholly negative in essence, without redeeming value? Carrite (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   I read the Wikipediocracy blog (but not its forum). I do not read the other sites and I do not contribute to any.

   Overall, I find criticism sites a mixed bag. Commentary by some users is relevant, useful, and interesting. In particular, the sites often provide a useful perspective on the WMF, which has grown very quickly and is not independently covered in detail by any other means. Commentary on goings-on at Misplaced Pages (as opposed to Wikimedia) is there, but I do not know how generally effective it is. For instance, I don't think I could think of a recent example where something came to the attention of the community and was corrected as a direct result of coverage at a critic site. Plenty else is commented on but goes ignored by the community. It seems to me a hazy issue. AGK ■ 18:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

4. The Wikimedia foundation began issuing site bans (“SanFranBans”) of Wikipedians deemed unacceptable for participation several years ago, beginning by making a case for such exclusions on child protection grounds, but gradually disposing of inconvenient individuals for a range of other transparently obvious reasons. These exclusions are made by one or a very few individuals with no oversight and no process for appeal. Do you feel that this growing trend of WMF permanently banning individuals from participation on all Wikimedia projects is problematic, or is this intervention beneficial? Do you feel that each and every ban so far implemented by San Francisco has been justified? Do you feel that San Francisco banning individuals for reasons beyond child protection reasons or potential physical violence is an intervention into Arbcom's purview as Misplaced Pages's discipline committee? Carrite (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   (1) I think the trend has been some time coming. These bans happen for the most serious reasons, but for most of Misplaced Pages's existence have been assessed and implemented by unqualified volunteers – without legal advice, consultants, professional indemnity, or any training that was not self-taught. (2) I do not know why most of the bans were implemented. (3) As with all governance on Misplaced Pages, I think the trend needs monitoring – but at the minute there seems no encroachment on the community. Whether it encroaches on the committee specifically is irrelevant to me: ArbCom takes on the duties that our community needs it to, for only as long as needed. Its duties are not a fiefdom. AGK ■ 00:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from power~enwiki

2. Do you feel that Discretionary Sanctions, as currently construed, are a net benefit to the community? The theoretical power allowed has been cited as a reason why the barrier to pass WP:RFA is so high, yet generally they are not used without consensus at WP:AE except in the most obvious cases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

   Discretionary sanctions used to have far fewer checks; cf this earlier iteration. Sanctioned users now have more routes of review. Administrators now cannot sanction a user who was genuinely unaware that the topic operates special standards of conduct. Still, as you say, they allot a great deal of discretion to administrators, which can lead to inconsistency. On balance, I think we still need the facility to authorise and retain discretionary sanctions over problematic areas of the encyclopedia.

   However, I think we do not review the list of sanctions frequently enough. There seems little path for a topic, once under discretionary sanctions, to move back to less draconian community standards. AGK ■ 21:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Oshwah

2. Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?

   I look for community trust, carefulness, maturity, and objectivity. It is difficult to exhaustively list all the possible "red flags" in a candidate, but any evidence that they were not the sound candidate they first appeared would prompt me to about-turn. I view selecting as an iterative process, so I typically would want to hear the candidate's response to any significant concern before re-voting. AGK ■ 19:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Feminist

2. How can Misplaced Pages better communicate its processes to outsiders?

   Elegantly as we might frame any messaging, most outsiders still see or know that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Consequently they will already trust or mistrust our processes (ie what we do with edits that are made). Any communication needs to simultaneously welcome an edit and emphasise (or reassure) that Misplaced Pages's community may review, revert, or develop it.

   The WMF are helping here, with more significant software improvements in the recent few years than all of the prior years together. As a community, we too can help by not becoming attached to project content and ways of working that are unfriendly to outsiders. To answer in a phrase – keep developing. Other sites obsess over their messaging; we tend to get something working and leave it that way for years.

   (I did assume your question did not relate specifically to the arbitration process, which attracts few "outsiders".) AGK ■ 08:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. feminist (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Guerillero

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. I am rehashing most of my 2015 questions because I don't think that these issues have been resolved over the past three years. Enjoy!

Current Disputes and Cases

2. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?

   If someone were to join the committee with a ban abacus, I'd like to think their induction ceremony would see it grabbed, thrown down, and stomped into pieces by all the other arbitrators. You cannot easily set "standards" or measure these things, and banning somebody is rarely an easy choice. Pressed for an answer, I would say the subject would need to (1) be in the habit of misconduct widespread enough that we can safely say "rehabilitating" (a targeted set of lesser sanctions) is impractical. Or (2) have committed conduct egregious enough that it cannot, as a rule, be tolerated on a collaborative project. I have been for banning many, and against banning many others. I run on a platform of judgment good enough to make the right call when it comes. AGK ■ 20:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way, shape, or form. At one time, a remedy called a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?

   It quite depends on what kind of "incivility" we are dealing with. Is the editor making sound criticisms couched in brusque language? Are they personalising disputes and creating drama? Is there other misconduct? What is the venue and the context? Is this restricted to one person, one group, or everyone? Dealing with incivility can involve dealing with it in vacuo, or solving the underlying problem, or removing the user from the situation that brings out that side. I don't think we can innovate here. AGK ■ 20:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?

   Previously it did. By defining the thing, Misplaced Pages seems to have started to address it. Today, sanctions are routinely applied to administrators as Regular Mario – which seems to me like progress has been made since that article was published. AGK ■ 20:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

8. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?

   Yes: examining a dispute can throw up conduct that while problematic, can be addressed without substantive action. For example, an arbitrator might be convinced the user would not do the same thing again, or the circumstances are unique and unlikely to recur. Refusing to use this kind of remedy would create a perverse choice between failing to remark on conduct that should not be repeated and passing a sanction that is unnecessary. Admonishing can seem wishy-washy, but the main objective of Misplaced Pages arbitration is how to fix the problem – not being seen to dispense justice. AGK ■ 19:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Insider Baseball

2. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?

   Workshop is the least essential of the three, in that other phases can subsume it. Its usefulness rather depends on the parties themselves, how proactively the arbitrators use it, and on the nature of the specific case. Setting it out like a proposed decision often leads users away from focussing on the point – discussing "how the committee could resolve this problem" – which I think ought to change. Thanks for a thought-provoking question. AGK ■ 20:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

   I like AGK's idea of loosening the Workshop so it becomes more of an open discussion. SilkTork (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

   I would be very interested in that idea. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

2. Lots o' people seem to think this election is about civility, for some reason. ArbCom deals with the behavior of editors, of course, so civility will often play a part in the cases that are requested, and in those that are accepted and adjudicated, but damaging the integrity of the encyclopedia is also a behavioral issue, and it's one that has the potential for sinking Misplaced Pages by destroying the public's faith in the information we provide. Fortunately, much of the NPOV, racist, sexist, ethnic-biased and nationalistic edits and editors get caught by editors and admins, and those cases never reach the Committee, but I'm concerned that our current apparent fixation on civility might be distracting us from the more serious problem of NPOV editing. ArbCom has done a great deal -- with Discretionary Sanctions -- in trying to control this, but I wonder if there isn't more that can be done. Do you have any thoughts about how the Committee can assist the community -- both editors and admins -- to protect the integrity of our product?

   Some case decisions just "pick off" users whose conduct was the brashest, ugliest, or least peaceful. Regulating civility is important, but standards of civility are just one of our five pillars. In a dispute before the committee, we can look at other kinds of disruptive conduct. In a recent enforcement request, I sanctioned a user (AE 242 § last section) for this reason: I agree that sufficient evidence was presented of biasing content, selective sourcing, and other serious misconduct. ArbCom does not adjudicate content and is not an editorial board. But a useful arbitration process does more than search for inflammatory conduct, edit warring, and other easy wins. AGK ■ 17:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Amanda

2. If there was a block appeal to ArbCom by email for an indefinitely blocked user for spamming or BLP violations, and you were the one to reply to the user, how would you handle it? Would you discuss the block on the list first?

   Block appeals aren't public, so I would like to see how appeals are generally approached by the current committee before committing. That said, I do not think committee appeals of community blocks are anything more than a sanity check. Theoretically, some obvious merit to an appeal could be missed at the various earlier processes (talk page, UTRS, and any emailed appeals). Where the block is sound, I would uphold the decision – or refer it back if some time has elapsed since the last try (restoring talk page access, if necessary). I don't think ArbCom should be an adventurous body in this area. In any case, considering the substance of a block appeal is not a dark art – the same standards apply as do in an ordinary {{unblock}} request.

   As for discussing or not, I might propose an action to the list – and implement it later if there was no objection. This answer doesn't apply for appeals of ArbCom actions, which need handled exhaustively and very differently. AGK ■ 19:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Can you provide one diff of a well reasoned argument where you disagreed with the majority and took an unpopular view? The more recent, the more unpopular, the better.

   . At this RFC, I thought even asking the question with a view to amending policy was unwise. Context matters with incivility and I did not think we can adopt bright lines in that way. As the RFC was then heavily attended, rather than closed, I suppose that the view was not popular. AGK ■ 18:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

6. Are you going to read each and every ArbCom email that comes across your desk?

   I shall try, but it depends what you mean by read. Looking at each thread is, in my book, the minimum. Researching every matter in detail – the links provided, more about the pages or users in question – is often not feasible. What matters is that some arbitrators are attending in detail to each item. I don't think it needs to be the same arbitrator in each case, or every arbitrator in each case. AGK ■ 17:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

8. Admin socking is a rare area ArbCom has the remit to deal with. If your brought a case of admin socking, are you willing to go through the investigatory process and potentially vote to desysop an admin? Especially if your met with silence (or a lack of a defense) from the admin?

   Yes, without hesitation. Whilst the adminship of the suspected sockmaster raises the stakes, I do not see that it changes how the allegation is investigated. Wilful silence – editing after the questions are asked – would layer on a second problem of the refusal to respond to serious questions. Other silence – no response and no edits – may require a "precautionary removal" but rather than concluding the investigation in absentia I think I would handle it like SchuminWeb. An unsatisfactory response would be handled as with any other allegation, and the bit removal (which seems inevitable) would be handled along the way. AGK ■ 00:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

10. How familiar are you with the privacy policy and access to non-public data policy? What is one part you find interesting about one of them and why?

    Rather familiar, I suppose – I operate under them every day as an active community checkuser (although the ANPD policy defers to a sub-policy, the CU policy). Of the latter policy, I find interesting what is not in it. It sets out its standards of use and access only in bare bones. The bar for accessing non-public technical data about an account is further solidified through community and team standards. How obvious does the suspicion of socking need to be? Is the bar higher for an established user? The policy is scant on specifics, which underlines the need for effective, trustworthy functionaries.

    Additionally, the privacy policy added significant language in 2013 relating to threats of harm to self or others. Users making threats of harm often fail to realise they have consented to their private information being used to trace and notify real-life authorities – and that threats are treated as genuine. AGK ■ 18:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question by K.e.coffman

2. With the rise of far-right and hate groups online, are you concerned that editors espousing such beliefs may try (or are already attempting) to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for propaganda? Why or why not? If yes, what role do you think ArbCom could play in counteracting their influence on Misplaced Pages? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, Misplaced Pages has had this problem since before Race and intelligence, but the methods of these groups have become more sophisticated in recent years. Biased use of sourcing and other neutrality problems are the first problem posed here; I discussed at #Question from Beyond My Ken ways in which arbitration can, to some extent, help here. The use of biased sourcing and other verifiability problems is the other problem. This is more difficult to tackle in arbitration (ArbCom cannot easily say "That source looks and sounds real, but it's a far-right mouthpiece and your use of it was disruptive"), but we make do with what we have. AGK ■ 00:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from User:Smallbones

2. Could you discuss your general philosophy toward enforcing our rules on undisclosed paid editing? Another candidate has said that our rules on UPE are weak, but the terms of use are quite specific: UPE is prohibited. What level of "proof" is required before you'd ban somebody for paid editing? Do admins need to follow these rules, or should they be held to a higher standard?

4. This summer I sent a private complaint to arbcom about an administrator who had very obviously inserted material from one of his employer's press releases into the article about the company without making a COI or Paid Editing disclosure. The arbcom ruling was that the admin was not paid editor, but had a conflict of interest. He was not required to declare the COI. I was not informed about how the proceedings were being conducted, or who actually voted on the decision, or why the admin was not considered to be a paid editor, or even why he did not have to declare his COI. I was informed in a very short email signed by a single arb when the decision had been made, but there was very little information in the email. My request for clarification didn't result in any clarification. I understand you can't comment on the case itself, but can you comment on how such a case should be conducted?

Questions from Hijiri88

2. What is your opinion on the essay WP:CPUSH, and do you think ArbCom should take special care in handling the kind of cases it is describing in the future.

4. Do you agree with this definition of "hounding", and the additional comment DGG left during ArbCom's !voting on it, particularly as it may relate to concerns over another editor's ability to properly read and interpret or concerns that an editor who has plagiarized a lot of text before may do so again? (Please note that this does not relate especially to my specific ArbCom case, nor to anyone involved in it; I just really like the definition as it is clearer than the one that's currently at WP:HOUND, and DGG's comment especially was something that honestly I would have liked to see enshrined in the final decision, and perhaps in any future statements ArbCom may make on the issue.)