Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Stanistani

Stanistani

I am running for the Arbitration Committee because I started here as an editor with the idealism many of you still share, and have some of the disillusionment that others here endure. My goals are simple. If elected, I will do the Committee's work, keep confidential information confidential, and represent no interest except the Community's.

I am not an administrator. If elected, I will subject myself to an RfA to obtain the tools, strictly for the purpose of handling ARBCOM duties, and resign the the admin rights at the end of my term.

My other well-known association with Wikipedia is as a system administrator and content creator for the Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy (member name Zoloft). I pledge to fully comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data, including not disclosing any such information I gain to Wikipediocracy (I do add a caveat that there are likely to be members of ARBCOM who are also members of Wikipediocracy. Discussions of ARBCOM confidential business by me will not be on Wikipediocracy, but on ARBCOM channels if I am elected.).

Why am I running? Because I feel the Wikipedia community needs a voice of reform and a critical eye on the Arbitration Committee. If elected, I promise you that I will work hard for you, be honest, be as transparent as confidentiality allows, and give you an exit interview when my term is over. Disclaimers: I have only the one account. I agree to identify to the Foundation if elected and comply with its rules as an Arbitrator.

Arbitration Committee Election 2014 candidate: Stanistani

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

It is 2:45 PM where this user lives. ^(Purge)

Questions from Collect

Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
I don't believe that sanctions are an inevitable result of an ARBCOM case. Nor should a case be opened with that assumption. That said, cases should be opened when there is a purpose, and often that will entail action.
Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?
My opinion is that any sanctions require specific findings that an editor violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines. AN/I is its own discussion.
Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
If I did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully I would abstain from commenting or voting.
"Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?
Stare decisis is the principle of precedent - previous decisions establish guidelines for current decisions. I don't believe that's how ARBCOM works, nor should it be. It's not a legal body. That said, you can look for guidance from previous decisions.
Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
The "Five Pillars" essay represents part of the community values the ARBCOM should uphold and use as input into its decisions.
Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?
For cases involving biographies, WP:BLP and related policies should weigh heavily. Damage to an article subject by incorporating unsourced allegations is wrong.
How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?
The word faction is a bit limiting. If a group of editors is holding a position, in some cases we call that a consensus. Other times, a group, even a large group, can be supressing article content which arguably belongs in that article. The evidence would need to be examined carefully in each case. If a group violates Wikipedia policy, then most times all members of that group should be sanctioned. There can be mitigating circumstances, of course.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda Arendt

Thanks for being ready to offer your service! Last year, I asked 3 questions, this year it's only one: imagine you are an arb, how would you comment in this case? Hint: you don't have to evaluate a whole case, just one request. My so far favourite comment has four words ;)
Go, and sin no more. :)
Who do you mean sinned (and how and why) and should go?
That was a quip, but in short (for this case and its requests are loooong) if an editor has been barred from a particular wiki-element such as an infobox, after a while they should be allowed to use it again, if they show they understand why they were barred in the first place. They should then, once allowed to return to a sensitive area, proceed with care and discretion and thoughts for the feelings of others. Equally, those who contended with them on this area should show some flexibility and collaboration as well, assuming good faith. See what the results are before viewing them with suspicion.
Thank you for a sensible approach, - DYK that your encouraging entry on my talk is the first now, after I let go of some past? But back to the question: what would you write in that particular situation, with colleagues who were serious about restrictions and perhaps not open to a quip that might mean their "sin"?
A caveat: I have not examined the evidence in that case. That said, I dislike narrow solutions. I'm inclined to start with a strict remedy and if requested, after a period of uneventful editing, loosen the cords. If I err, I prefer to err on the side of better content. I hope this suffices. If you wish a more detailed or longer examination, please drop me a note on my talk page.
Changed my answer. My comment in the original case would have been: Decline.

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. As a break from past years, I am not assigning "points" for the answers, but the answers to the questions, along with other material that I find in my research, will be what my guide is based on. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?
Like a lot of users here, I was looking for a piece of information. I was intrigued and registered an account. On a day-to-day basis (my frequency of editing varies, and has been less frequent of late) I am basically a minor gnome, correcting small errors and sometimes placing information for others to use on talk pages. I have never created an article.
What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?
I have had several different experiences. I worked with an editor I had disagreements with on a Lyndon LaRouche page, and we got along amicably enough. I have had some small arguments on various bits and pieces of content, sometimes coming to a compromise, and other times retreating to allow time to pass and perspective to develop. What have I learned? 1. Don't edit-war. It's pointless and irritating. 2. Bring others in when you have a dispute. Doesn't matter what 'side' they are on, although it's better to bring in folks who have no POV on an issue. 3. Communicate. Find out what people are trying to do. Many disputes start out as complete misunderstandings. 4. Be patient. Listen, absorb, wait, come back when things have calmed down.
Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?
I only know what I read in the papers. :) Seriously, I have read a number of cases, but the behind-the-scenes process is obscured terribly. I've picked up bits and pieces, but one of my reasons for running is to learn about ARBCOM case management (and other processes) first-hand. I am a believer in 'justice deferred is justice denied' but I remind everybody that ARBCOM is not a proper judicial body. I'd like to see a more even handling of cases. Once I've seen the process, I then can propose reforms.
Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?
From what I've read, a good deal of the tension arises from "subject matter experts" who see an inaccuracy in their field on Wikipedia, go to correct it, and get slammed for rules violations. This leads to anger and then a ban. "General editors" run the place, in one rank or another. There should (my opinion) be a policy of handing over outside experts to a group of Wikipedians who could verify these experts' identities and credentials and then bring their content into the encyclopedia in accordance with the rules and polices here.
In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?
Yes, admin removal should be community-driven. Lacking that, there should be term limits. No, I am not happy with the status quo.
Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
As an administrator for another online community, I have dealt directly with all of those issues concerning other users, although I am constrained by confidentiality from discussing them too closely. As far as my personal experiences, I have endured stalkers, real-life harassment, and doxing (although my identity is not hard to find). I am still willing to serve, even if this sort of thing increases. It doesn't deter me.
What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?
I have read them, and am now digging through them again. I'm thinking of writing a blog post on one or two of them. From what I've seen, the Wikimedia staff and volunteers handle private information mostly well, with a few exceptions. I've worked with volunteer organizations before, and it's always important to 1. Have sensible polices and procedures in place. 2. Train your staff and volunteers when you bring them on board. 3. Periodically review your policies and procedures. 4. Audit performance. 5. Retrain staff and volunteers on a regular basis.
The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?
Community: Determine content, scope, who belongs in the community, and to a certain extent, policy and procedures. Arbitration: Rein in intractable behavior and quell major disruption. Enforcement of their own decisions. There is some overlap between the two on behavior. Note: you left out the Foundation's responsibilities. :)

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gamaliel

Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?
We do have a problem with civility on Wikipedia, going on for years now. Civility is a pillar. Being able to work in a cordial environment is key to creating encyclopedia content. New users, if treated rudely, often disappear, never to return. Established users often tire of insults and arguments and retire. Problems occur under a few circumstances. One is using civility complaints to get rid of someone in a dispute. It happens. Another is an entrenched nastiness towards new users who don't understand the rules. One most recently in prominent view is the perceived entitlement of some content creators to be uncivil without permanent consequence. We don't appear to have a workable mechanism to handle these problems. We need to pursue solutions to this in good faith, not during a dispute.
Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?
The gender gap is a significant problem for Wikipedia for several reasons. First, we're too lopsided on male input and focus in terms of content. Second, it's not ethical to exclude a significant part of the population, whether deliberately or not. Third, it looks bad to the public. What can the Committee do? Help produce an editing environment and culture where everyone can feel more comfortable participating. Behind these problems are behaviors, and behaviors are certainly in the purview of the Committee.
Personalized followup question: Your answers indicate that you have a decent grasp of the issues facing Wikipedia and what is required for the role. However, given that Wikipediocracy has participated in revealing the identities of a number of WIkipedia editors, how would you reassure the community that you could be trusted with personal information about Wikipedia editors and important decisions affecting this community?
As I answered Rich Farmbrough, in his seventh question: "I consider access to the private information of users to be a trust. I have upheld that trust in a number of roles, both personal and professional. I would follow the Foundation's rules in full." I'll expand a bit on that answer. When I set up the Wikipediocracy site (with a great deal of assistance, I hasten to add) I restricted the number of people who could access IP and email addresses of members, to system administrators only. Even our governing group, the Trustees, don't have access to private information. I established the privacy policy and enforce it. A member's private information is more secure on Wikipediocracy than it is here at Wikipedia. We only check this data if there is obvious, shoot-off-a-flare socking or site sabotage, or potential criminal activity. Those folks get banned. The safety and privacy of Wikipediocracy members is paramount. If I am elected as a Committee member, I would take the same stance towards any information that passes through my hands. This assurance rests only on my reputation, of course.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from EllenCT

Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?
Content is not the responsibility of ARBCOM. Behavior is. If an editor's refusal to follow the reliable source criteria rises to the level of disruption, that would be within the purview of the Arbitration Committee.
When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?
Well, things are subtle because they are nuanced. Sometimes you have to dig down pretty far into the facts of what's going on before you can determine just where the line is that someone's stepped over, or even if they have. The Committee has had their share of complicated cases. So *peers at question again* No, it's not usually possible to figure out what someone did in a complicated wrangle without sorting out the facts.
How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?
If that was the case, I'd question their impartiality and honesty. You are using words like 'willfully' and 'admit' and 'personally disagree' - I'd have to see proof of those.
If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?
Yes, I would expect that example to be brought up when other COI issues concerning that editor arose, because in your example the editor provided a questionable example of a high quality source.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rich Farmbrough

Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?
That was indeed a sweeping change. How would I handle such changes? The way porcupines make love - very carefully. I would urge the Committee to provide several chances for community input and advice. I would much prefer such changes be made by a vote of the active community, rather than by Committee vote.
Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?
I have recently considerably reduced the amount of time spent on some other aspects of my life; as one example, caring for an elderly relative who passed on earlier this year, and another, dissolved a family business. I have the time now.
Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?
Such a solution bears examination. If elected, I would like to do process analysis on Committee work the last few years. It depends on how much data is available.
Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?
The last two-plus years of dealing with the most angry, disgruntled and disruptive Wikipedia editors (not that they ALL are) has taught me patience, and humbled me. I've had that time to season me some.
Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?
I wouldn't announce my opinion at the beginning of a case; indeed if I had an unshakeable opinion, I'd recuse myself. Adding parties to a case should be as the result of a vote of the whole or part of the Committee - not being a member yet - I call that my opinion at this time, not a promise.
The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?
I see no reason why an Arbitrator should not have the right of any editor to bring a case and immediately recuse themselves. Discuss this on my talk page and perhaps I'll agree with you.
As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?
I consider access to the private information of users to be a trust. I have upheld that trust in a number of roles, both personal and professional. I would follow the Foundation's rules in full. If given the administrator tools, I will not use the block tool unless it was an unanticipated emergency. I have a high threshold for the definition of 'emergency.' I intend to use the tools for Committee business, not for 'checkuser blocks.' Do I condone such? I'd prefer there be fewer, with more transparency.
The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?
Justice is commonly a judicial goal. The Committee is an administrative body, ill-equipped for justice. I do believe you should expect fairness, timeliness, transparency, and a decent regard for the human beings that come under Committee decisions.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Questions from Konveyor Belt

You've only made ~1500 edits here on wiki, but you have ~6000 on WO and are a site admin. So, how do you think your outsider status will allow you to get a better or different viewpoint on cases than people with tens of thousands of edits?
I'm not going to claim to be better than an editor with tens of thousands of edits. My original plan when I arrived at Wikipedia was to be a content provider. By avocation I'm a writer. I have some technical knowledge, gathered in a long career. I felt I could contribute. The poor governance, the toxic culture I found here, in contrast to the ideals espoused by the site's founders and notable members — it appalled me. I wandered over to the critical side, a most diverse group of characters. In the group of critics represented by Wikipedia Review and its successor Wikipediocracy, there are two main camps: Hasten the Day! which would like to speed the demise and eventual reform-by-reconstruction of this site, and So Fix it! which believes that Wikipedia (and the WMF's entire range of operations) are deeply flawed but salvageable. I'm trying to make a difference by running, and discussing the role of ARBCOM. If I am elected, I can perhaps help in its reform. I fall in the second camp of critics. Less of an outsider, perhaps, and more of an outlier to the ordinary editor. If the circumstances had been different, I would be that editor with tens of thousands of edits. I will add this: My experience as an admin at Wikipediocracy has given me a valuable look at the worst of Wikipedia's problems. I've seen the aftermath of ARBCOM decisions up close, and have had experience in conflict resolution unlike any arbitrator's — from the flip side.

Questions from Jehochman

I agree that your Wikipediocracy perspective is unique and what you learn there could be of value to Wikipedia. Why do you need a voting seat on the Arbitration Committee to convey this wisdom?
Hm. Wisdom is sometimes best not conveyed, but utilized quietly. This is not precisely why I'm running. I want to be of value to Wikipedia by participating at this level, because not only can I bring a different perspective, and do the work, and help balance the Committee, but also desire and work towards change. I feel having all, or nearly all, administrator members brings too much of the same mindset to the Committee. Another reason: There has been criticism aimed at the Arbitration Committee in recent years about its process and prformance. As I've said elsewhere in these questions, I'd like to analyze that process from the inside, and as a participant. Here, have a nice long slogan: Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.^{[citation needed]} Try something different this year for ARBCOM. Bring a non-admin on board.
Have you participated in any arbitration cases via the evidence, workshop or talk pages?
I don't believe I have. I've considered providing evidence in a few cases, then decided not to, even writing a statement in the editing window and then not submitting the text.

Questions from Everyking

How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved?
I feel that the Arbitration Committee should bring their internal discussions of cases into the open, with some information not made public for privacy reasons. Maybe redacted minutes would be the best way, after the case was over. I'm going to push for transparency if elected. A pledge to make my remarks public might result in my being excluded from all cases, so I am hesitant to make that pledge. I'm also obligated by the election rules to follow all Foundation rules regarding confidential information. I do pledge to reveal as much as I'm allowed, unless it's to the great detriment of a private individual.

Questions from Eric Corbett

You would no doubt characterise Wikipediocracy as a WP criticism site, yet to the casual observer it seems more like a personal attack and harassment site operating on the verge of legality. How would you square the circle of allowing personal attacks and harassment on WO while not allowing them here?
Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy are two completely different sites. They have different goals, different content, are markedly different in size of audience and rank, and most importantly, have different cultures. I do believe you are familiar with the clash of cultures here at Wikipedia — I remember hearing of some minor dispute regarding anatomical terms. :) Wikipedia has as its stated goal building an encyclopedia. Wikipediocracy has as its stated goal exposing and discussing problems at Wikipedia. They are about as alike as a piranha and a tuna. People are given considerable latitude at Wikipediocracy, because many of them have anger and psychic trauma from their experiences here. Members are enraged, obscene, petty, vindictive, generous, extroverted and introverted — and often insightful, intelligent and talented. Their behavior falls across a wide spectrum. But you know this. You participated there. Wikipediocracy has few written policies. Wikipedia has a vast maze of policies and guidelines. I can "square the circle" by being elected to a seat on the Committee. I would uphold the Foundation's policy, and work however I can within the rules of the Foundation and the expectations of the community to serve the community's interests, which I believe line up with reform and transparency. Rhetorical question time to all you voters: Are you happy with the status quo? Do you feel the other candidates have a desire to fix some of the structural problems plaguing the Committee? If you're going to bring up Wikipediocracy, either quietly in your head, or openly as a few questioners have, consider that I started here, as an editor, and saw the problems this site has, problems that could destroy it. Consider that now I'm coming back here with experience and knowledge gained from a site that's actively concerned with the problems you've seen here. Factor that in.
They are indeed two different sites, but even today the personal attacks and vilification continue on Wikipediocracy with your blessing, nothing at all to do with criticism of Wikipedia. You know why I resigned from WO, because I told you, and nothing has changed since then. Is there anything you can say to give me, and perhaps others, confidence that you can keep your roles separate?
There is a difference between blessing something and tolerating it. You and I have had our differences, but ultimately you were encouraged to stay a member and I respected your right to express yourself. I hope you know enough about me from that experience to consider me honest, and sincere. If you do, then you know that I can keep these roles separate, because I understand the difference in responsibilities.

Questions from QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV

Do you believe that competence should be a factor when making arbitration decisions? That is, should the expertise (or lack thereof) of a party to an arbitration case be a factor when deciding an arbitration case of Randy versus an expert?
Behavior and conduct of participants in a case are within the purview of the Committee. These are often driven by relative competence. There are many polices, guidelines, and unwritten practices an editor can run aground on, and Wikipedia's interface, structure, and tools are technically complex. Subject matter in articles can be complicated and often controversial. A basic competency in a number of areas is needed to contribute. If an editor lacks some of these skills, they often will be treated rudely, or over a long period of trying to cope with the time and damage they create, patience will wear thin and then run out. Competency thus can be a factor in cases. The intentions of the editor should be taken into consideration, but in severe, long-standing cases where disruption or damage to content or structure in articles is occurring, this factor can be large. A comment on experts: they can be competent in their area of expertise, but not competent at all in the complicated environment of editing at "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Questions from Carrite

Many Wikipedians may not realize that you are the primary moderator of the discussion forum at Wikipediocracy. This is no doubt a time-intensive pursuit, as is ArbCom. Do you have any fears that being tied up with not just one but two time hogs will force you to give short shrift to one or the other? Do you have anything to say to reassure those who might feel there is a contradiction between your role as the moderator of a discussion forum populated by a certain percentage of outright enemies of Wikipedia and your assuming a place as a member of Wikipedia's elected disciplinary committee?
I've recently (as pointed out by me in another question) been relieved of much real-life responsibility, and correspondingly have more free time than before (less stress as well). At Wikipediocracy, I just caught up on a lot of unfinished tasks and enhancements, and maintaining the site should be easier now. There are also global moderators on the site, and it looks like we may be getting another, third, forum administrator soon.
The job that needs doing at the Arbitration Committee is important, and this is a chance for a transition from the current model to a more streamlined, more efficient, and more fair Committee. I believe reform is possible and urgently needed. Do I feel there is a contradiction between my role at Wikipediocracy and my proposed membership in the Committee? Not really. There may be Wikipediocracy members who hate Wikipedia, but I also see many more who love Wikipedia, and I share their desire to see it repaired, revamped, and recharged.
How frequently does Wikipediocracy engage in the public "outing" of Wikipedians and what is the rationale behind revelation of real life identities of anonymous Wikipedia editors? Is it ever appropriate to list a home address or a telephone number as part of such an identification?
Despite Wikipediocracy's reputation, outing members of Wikipedia is not a daily occurrence. Since its founding in March 2012, I remember only a dozen or so outings. I'm not keeping close track (Wikipedia Review member Silver Seren was tracking them for a while), as my focus on outing is usually asking for redaction of potentially harmful personal information. I've redacted such information on a number of occasions. The rationale for outing? If people are fulfilling their role as content creators and treating other people with dignity, leave them alone. If someone is using their Wikipedia-approved anonymity to escape scrutiny or to damage other people, take a moment to turn over the rock and see what crawls out. Remember Qworty, the failed novelist who was using Wikipedia as a revenge platform? Wikipediocracy unmasked him. There are monsters that walk your halls. Do you really want them to hide behind masks and act with impunity?
To answer the last part of your portmanteau question, I can't think of a reason to list a home address or telephone number of an editor or WMF employee. I'm sometimes uncomfortable listing even an editor's employer. Sadly, if you're looking for conflict of interest editing, finding the editor's employer is a vital part of that quest.
Arbcom is frequently the subject of bitter criticism at Wikipediocracy and as board moderator you have seen all of it. What would you say are the primary criticisms of ArbCom as an institution expressed at Wikipediocracy? What specific forms of change would you advocate to address these persistent criticisms?
Something to remember about Wikipediocracy is that it isn't a monolith. It's a salad of opinions, some quite reasoned, some ironic, cynical, tortured, and even some that are frankly unbalanced.
Some of the more common, reasonable concerns about the Arbitration Committee (for the authentic flavor, a casual reader should visit Wikipediocracy and register on the forum - there is much information that's members-only, and it's the juiciest part of the site) involve an administrator-ruled culture at Wikipedia that is amplified at the Arbitration Committee. You are all-but-disenfranchised if you are not an admin. Transgressions that earn a regular editor a ban will earn an admin an 'admonishment' or no action at all. Other criticisms involve the seemingly glacial pace of the Committee's case work. Cases drag on for months and the elephant eventually gives birth to a mouse. Another common meme is the obscurity in which the Committee works. There's no public record of discussions on the mailing list and whatever other venues the Committee members use to communicate.
How to change things at the Arbitration Committee?
Elect some non-admin members. I'm one. Elect me. There are others running. Pick the most able of them and dilute the power admins wield over Wikipedia's premier deliberative body.
Elect reformers, whether they are admins or not. Ask all the candidates what they feel the problems are and what they would do to fix them. I'm a reformer. Elect me. I'll look into everything the Committee does, analyze its processes, procedures and policies, and help develop solutions to the most intractable issues. Then I'll ask for a non-ARBCOM committee of Wikipedia editors to be appointed to sift through the findings and solutions and select the best. I will be as transparent as Wikimedia Foundation rules and policies allow. If that doesn't seem to be transparent enough, I will agitate for reform of those rules and policies.
It may come as a surprise to casual visitors of Wikipediocracy that the site is moderated at all given the comparatively unfettered vitriol expressed by some posters there. Nevertheless, long term participants there such as myself both recognize and appreciate that the site is indeed actively moderated and that disruptive elements are quietly shown to the door and banned off. Arbcom is itself the "moderating entity of last resort" at Wikipedia, in charge of identifying and dealing with disruptive elements and showing them the door. What have you learned about dealing with transgressors of community norms at Wikipediocracy that you feel could help Wikipedia's Arbcom "moderators" with performance of their task? Is Arbcom too profligate in dispensing bans of disruptionists or does it not attack the problem of banning off disruptive or tendentious editors aggressively enough?
Thank you for that positive comment, Carrite. I don't remember ever having to amend or redact any of your postings at Wikipediocracy.
What have I learned while dealing with "transgressors of community norms" at Wikipediocracy?
The most important is that they bleed, just like us non-transgressors. It's important to remember that a pile of letters on a computer monitor represents someone's feelings. Dealing with people is easier if you've gone to the trouble to learn more about them, discern their motives, and understand their goals. I've banned some members because they were disruptive, talked with them, reminded them of our goals, discussed how their goals overlap with ours, and been able to bring them back on board.
Circumstances vary, and you can't blindly apply one method of dealing with people to all situations. I've acted (perhaps a redaction of information in a member's post) and been sworn at, belittled, insulted and ignored by that member, and then patiently waited for them to cool off. Then, at that point I've been able to explain my actions and reason with them. In other cases, you have to swing hard and strike once for effect. Posting of illegal content, active sabotage, impersonation to destroy a reputation - members who do things like this you just ban and block.
It's important to take responsibility for your actions. I've made mistakes and alienated members. When I have, I think carefully about my motives and actions, and if I'm in the wrong, reverse these and sincerely apologize.
Any body that moderates or disciplines has to have a partnership with the people it exercises discipline over. If you 'community police' a group of people, they become part of you, and you part of them. It makes the disciplinary body far more efficient and fair.
Does the Arbitration Committee pass out too many or too few blocks? Is it effective in "banning off disruptive or tendentious editors aggressively enough?"
First, because the deliberations and conversations of the Committee members are not visible in any form, we may never know the answers to these questions. Second, "banning off" editors should be a last resort. I'd like to build spaces in Wikipedia (or outside it) for non-conventional or expert editors to work in, with the content then brought into Wikipedia in accordance with existing policies and guidelines. The Committee has too few tools, and is predisposed to the use of only a few. That's another reason to elect non-admins, by the way.
If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?
I would place a two-year term limit on Wikipedia administrators, bureaucrats, oversighters, checkusers, and stewards.

Thank you for your answers. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from John Carter

As has been noted above, you are the primary moderator of the discussion threads at Wikipediocracy. As an irregular participant there, I believe you are to be very much commended for your efforts in keeping the threads there as reasonable as possible, given the often problematic nature of the motivations and interests of some of the contributors there. I am curious whether you ever receive or have received messages there, or perhaps participated in off-site discussion, regarding issues and/or individuals which might have bearing on any potential ArbCom cases you might be involved with here if you are elected, and how you might deal with such events should it happen after your election?
Thank you for your positive comment. As Wikipediocracy's primary site administrator (I do have a backup), I participate in back-end discussions about problematic members. I'm not a person who sets policies, but rather an enforcer of the small number of policies that Wikipediocracy does have. As an active content creator, I also discuss publicly and in the site forums (not so public) where blog posts and strategy are developed, the goings-on at Wikipedia. For blog posts, there is research and assembling information (and often suppression of information that would be dangerous to someone's personal safety). The level of conversation is equivalent to having a blog with an active comments section.
If elected, and if I have a severe and fixed opinion about a case participant, I'd likely recuse myself. That's just common sense. My opinions about most anybody tend to be gentler than most of my fellow Wikipediocracy members, which is probably why I'm an admin there. :)

Thank you for your response, and for your long history of service in duties similar to those of administrators and arbitrators here at another location. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Worm That Turned

Hi Stanistani, or rather as I better know you - Zoloft. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?
All of this has already happened to me as a result of my participation on Wikipediocracy. Only mildly concerning. I still have stalkers. I'm not making light of anyone else's experiences, but I am aware of what's possible, and still wish to participate.
Your case is rather unusual as you don't have an awful lot of experience on paper, but I've seen enough of you to know that you're actually a very good candidate. I do have concerns regarding the Wikipediocracy issue though as I believe Wikipediocracy would be a much worse place if you were not keeping such a close eye on the forum. With an increased workload as an Arbitrator, how would you balance this with your role on Wikipediocracy - as far as I can see, both would suffer.
As I've stated in a couple of other places, I recently have had circumstances change in my life which allow me more time to devote to my avocations. Also, I've caught up a lot of system administration work on Wikipediocracy, so administering the site has become less time-consuming. I promise I won't neglect the site. If my time truly becomes constrained, I will ask the global moderators at Wikipediocracy to take up some of the tasks. They do more of the work than they receive credit for. I'm looking forward to participating at the Committee, if elected. It may be a lot of work, but it's fresh, new work.
They say "no man can serve two masters". If your role on Wikipediocracy came into conflict with your role on Arbcom, say for example, you were given private information on one which would affect the other, what would you do?
I would recuse myself in that particular case. It wouldn't be fair for someone to be under my judgment if I had information coming in from left field, not independently verified, and quite possibly false or out of context. This is not too likely in my opinion. In my role at Wikipediocracy, I usually am looking at someone's behavior on the site, not what they have done elsewhere. My input from Wikipediocracy on most ARBCOM cases consists of forum posts any Committee member might read in the public forum. If my two roles came into conflict in some other way, I would consider the ethical ramifications, and maybe even ask for advice, either from my colleagues on the Committee, or possibly the Foundation. In life we play many roles, you know. We have to balance them every day.

Thanks a lot of taking the time to answer these questions and indeed for putting yourself forward. I do wish you the best of luck and am sure you'll do well if elected. Worm^TT(talk) 09:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dennis Brown

Given human nature, the technical realities of the internet, as well as the international scope of the project, do you believe that a universally "fair" system can possibly exist on any Wiki of this size? One which the majority of injustices can be stopped, even if soon after the fact? Where people can express themselves freely, and heated debate is tolerated, but where there are lines drawn so clearly that personal attacks are rare? Not a Utopia, just a smooth, well oiled content machine where problems are handled quickly and very little falls through the cracks. What is realistically possible, in your eyes?
'Fair' is possible. 'Universally fair'... let's examine your definition. People expressing themselves freely during heated debates tend to engage in personal attacks. That's human nature. I've had leadership or enforcement duties in organizations where heated debates have occured. In one of them, where I'm employed, personal attacks are almost zero, because all of the participants know there will be immediate and unpleasant repercussions. In the other, which you know as the Wikipediocracy forums, personal attacks are common, to the point where they're almost ignored, primarily due to the lack of repercussions.
Which venue is 'fair?'
What about Wikipedia? There is a somewhat hypocritical culture here where we're all pinky-sworn to be civil, yet many insult others ... and nothing happens. It's pervasive. Then one editor comes into conflict with another and the 'civility card' is played as a tactic. The caste system at Wikipedia then comes into play.

The Wikipedia Caste System
Foundation employee > Admin > Prized content editor > Regular editor > Previously blocked editor > IP editor

Each caste grinds down on the lower ones.
You could make progress here. One way would be a training course, mandatory for new editors before they could participate. Just a brief overview on how to behave. What rules are important for content and conduct. How to bring in a verified edit. What it means to be reverted and not to take it personally.
Another reform would be to keep knocking the caste system down. Apply rules evenly across all levels. Admin calls a user an idiot? Blocked with a short comment for a day. No unblocks. 'Prized content editor' is churlish? Block for a day, close any protest. Jimbo Wales calls somebody 'a toxic personality?' Block for a day, email him that fair is fair, and if he wants the banana stand to stay in business, this is the only way.
In this case, you have to be tough on everybody to be fair.
How do you define "civility", as it is expressed in policy here? If you could boil it down to a few sentences of common sense that would work 98% of the time, what would those sentences be?
Those are two different definitions. As expressed in policy here, civility is defined as one of the five pillars, calling upon editors to treat each other with consideration and respect. It's stated in that policy that this expectation applies to all editors, anyplace on Wikipedia, and that editors are expected to cooperate and refrain from personal attacks. This policy is flouted so often that it's become laughable. It's a broken, cracked, non-load-bearing pillar. If you want a common sense definition, civility on Wikipedia should be defined as the minimum amount of courtesy, consideration and patience required to cooperate with people who may not share your goals. Here's an interesting definition: "Civility is about more than just politeness, although politeness is a necessary first step. It is about disagreeing without disrespect, seeking common ground as a starting point for dialogue about differences, listening past one’s preconceptions, and teaching others to do the same. Civility is the hard work of staying present even with those with whom we have deep-rooted and fierce disagreements." —The Institute for Civility in Government
Civility takes work. You have to 'think' — and sometimes we get in a bad habit, or in a hurry, or are stressed. We should try harder here.
Interesting answer on 1, worthy of many follow ups, but out of kindness I will limit to 1, which itself pairs up with Q2. Even if those were exactly the rules, how can you get hundreds of admin to follow them? The obvious stuff is obvious, but I'm talking about the grey area, all fuzzy because what is "uncivil" to an American may not be to a Brazilian or a Swede? That is where the overwhelming majority of enforcement would be, and why things tend to get underenforced, because that is safer than overenforced.
I was following your not-a-Utopia goal there. 'Universally fair' would mean the rules are enforced on everybody equally. As you say, 'things tend to get underenforced, because that is safer than overenforced.' Will there be cultural differences? Of course there will. But after they have been pointed out ONCE then it's required not to ignore them. It would of course be a massive amount of work, and one could justifiably say it's not worth it. But if you want it, that's how you get it.
In my priorities, transparency and fairness in the Committee come first, and are easier (although still difficult) to achieve. Baby steps. I might point out it takes a baby almost a year to learn how to walk. :)

Question from Tryptofish

What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!
I read the draft, and mulled it over for a while. The proposed procedures increase transparency, but do it piecemeal. They respect privacy, and if adopted would, if allowable under Foundation policy, be an improvement in the passage of information from the Committee to the community. I see some potential issues about such information percolating around during a case, however. There is also the problem of context. If one side of an email conversation gives permission to publish their emails, and the other side does not, the context of replies would suffer.

I suggest (and have alluded to in my reply to another question) that the whole of the Committee's work be subject to more disclosure.

Suggestions:
1. Notice will be given to all participants that emails and all other communications sent to the Committee may be quoted in whole or in part after the case is decided.
2. Committee procedure annotated to state that all emails and other communications between arbitrators and between arbitrators and parties to the case will be provided to the Committee before the case is decided, and may be quoted in whole or in part.
3. Minutes will be kept of audio or IRC deliberations between Arbitration members, and these will be published after the case is decided.
4. All materials for the case will be published in a timely manner after the case decision.
5. Private information selected by the Committee, subject also to review by the Wikimedia Foundation legal staff, may be redacted from all materials before publication, and upon due application by a party to the case, approved by the Committee or Foundation to be redacted after.
Let the sunshine in!

Question from The Devil's Advocate

Cats or dogs?
Raised as a child by a bulldog and a Cocker Spaniel/Spitz mix. Cat person as an adult, no pet at present, after losing our Maine Coon to cancer a few years back. :(
Boxers or briefs?
Muhammad Ali at his peak beat any lawyer's case documents out there.
Pepsi or Coke?
Orange Pekoe, poured hot over ice, add lemon wedge (no seeds, please). Soda is just, to quote one of Berkley Breathed's characters, "malted battery acid."

Question from Carcharoth

Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you would respond to these and similar situations you will probably encounter if elected.
Note: These questions were submitted several days after voting began.

Q: Real life intervenes while you are halfway through voting on a case and you don't know when you will be able to continue - (Georgewilliamherbert)
A: Voting is a responsibility to be taken seriously. If I can't be available for a long or unknown period of time, I'd take myself out of consideration for the case.

Q: You fall out with a fellow arbitrator and have a big argument on the mailing list - (GiacomoReturned)
A: First, I'd try to act in an adult fashion and not have the big argument. I'd step away from the keyboard before I responded, and think. Upon my return, I would answer any concern reasonably, concisely, and without invective. If that didn't work, I'd suggest privately to the contentious arbitrator that we have to work together on the case, I was willing to listen to their concerns, and ask that they do the same. If it's all-out war regardless of my conciliatory actions, I would appeal to another Arbitrator to try to corral the mess. They are supposed to be good at that sort of thing, right?

Q: Parties (or potential parties) to a case fail to make a statement and/or retire - (PhilKnight)
A: Proceed with the case and bring down sanctions if needed. This convenient retirement syndrome sometimes appears to be a tactic. If it's egregious enough, temporarily suspend the case and block indefinitely until the party is ready to respond.

Q: You disagree with an action taken by a clerk and tensions rise as a result - (David Fuchs)
A: I am relatively easygoing. If I have a problem with a co-worker, I ask them what they are about, politely. If they are actually doing something unacceptable, I'd ask them to stop until we can get another opinion. Then I'd ask an arbitrator who had more experience than I to have a look. Many fights start from simple misunderstandings.

Q: Parties to a case make strident and repeated calls for your recusal - (Sandstein)
A: Recusal is a personal decision, based on your own judgment. I would review my interactions and possible prejudices, but once I had done so, I would be unlikely to change my mind from that point. If my fellow arbitrators asked me to recuse, I'd give them my reasoning.
Possible exception: since people are anonymous here, if a party turned out to be someone that I'd interacted in real life in a way that might affect my impartiality, I would then recuse. In the same way, if a party turned out to be a sock of someone I was biased about, I would recuse.

Q: You are last to vote on a case and want to copyedit and/or rewrite parts of the proposed decision - (unassigned)
A: I feel this act would be unwise and inconsiderate.. I'd rather propose the amendments in a comment and see if the other arbs approve (reconfirm their votes) before changing.

Q: You are trying to do some work on articles and someone pesters you about arbitration matters - (Iridescent)
A: I would politely inform them that I was in the article space to work on the article, and link them to the appropriate discussion venue.

Questions from Bazonka

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?
My Wikipedia work has been wholly online. Whether or not I'm elected, I'd like to begin attending Wikipedia events in person. There haven't been many where I live, and I'd like to help change that. I would also like to attend some meetups and the next Wikimania if possible.
One of the Arbcom candidates is standing on a pro-pie policy. Whilst you may find that to be a flippant approach, many editors do appreciate pie. What is your favourite kind of pie?
I have been an advocate of pecan pie for a long time.

Questions from Fæ

I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?
I identify as male. If elected, the nature of my gender identity will not bring greater diversity to the Committee. My life experiences are only germane in that I've met a lot of people across a number of walks of life. I was a minor member of the San Diego art community during the late 1970s and early 1980s and made friends in what was then called the gay community during those years. I helped set up a web server for an LGBT family outreach group in the 1990s. I've marched in a pride parade or two. Been to a few gay weddings. Still, I'm just another straight white guy, just like a majority of Wikipedia editors. I'm not an LGBT activist by any definition.