Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Questions

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions

I'm going to go through and answer the general questions that I feel are going to be beneficial in getting my points across. Also, recognizing that most people do not want to sit and read through several novels before voting, I am going to keep my comments fairly short. If you would like me to answer any that I skipped over or expand upon one that I did answer, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Questions. Also, please feel free to ask me additional questions on topics not covered by the general questions. NW (Talk) 07:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Skills and experience:

   a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?

   b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.

   Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion are the two cases that I have had the most involvement with the Arbitration process, and I believe the latter is the only one where I have made a statement. As an arbitration clerk, I have clerked several cases. As far as the rest of dispute resolution goes: not all that much that was incredibly significant for me. I tend not to comment at AN or ANI all that much unless I feel that I have something important to contribute, and unless I have some personal involvement with an issue, I generally do nothing more than follow requests for comment and other disputes. NW (Talk) 02:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?

   It would vary of course, but I suppose that I would probably lean towards the strict side. It depends on a number of factors, but one of the primary ones in many a dispute will be whether the user has made a good faith effort to follow our core content policies, including primarily sourcing and neutrality policies, and also has made an attempt to not be unnecessarily combative towards other editors. NW (Talk) 02:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

3. ArbCom Practices:

   a) ArbCom and policies:

   i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.

   As to the first question: of course. As User:Lar was fond of saying, policy is a descriptor of how we do things in practice. The written words are based on fundamental principles that are generally agreed upon by the community. There are times where they need to be interpreted in how they apply to a particular situation and it is not feasible for the Committee to throw up its hands and say that they are powerless to do their one job—solving a problem that the rest of the Community has not yet been able to do.

   As to the second question: no. Arbitrators should feel free to propose changes to policy but only while wearing their "community member" hat, not their "Arbitrator" hat. NW (Talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?

   iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?

   This is such a case-by-case issue that I don't think I can really make an appropriate comment here. User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011#Criteria has two quotes on BLPs that I strongly agree with, and I suppose you could go to them if you are looking for a quick summary on my beliefs. NW (Talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.

   Yes. The guiding principle behind everyone who wishes for Wikipedia to one day become a serious, well-respected reference work is for "articles [to] be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Committee would be remiss if it did not consider the conduct of editors in adhering to that philosophy while deciding disputes. Binding processes imposed by ArbCom can assist with allowing for a framework for such sources to be presented in a cohesive manner that breaks the back of a dispute, whether or not that decision is ultimately correct. NW (Talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   c) ArbCom and motions:

   i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.

   Non-amendment motions should be used when there are no serious disputes as to the facts of a situation and when the formal length of a case can be done away with. NW (Talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   ii) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?

   If there is no dispute, by policy there is no role for the Arbitration Committee. NW (Talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.

   d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:

   i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?

   Yes. NW (Talk) 03:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?

   Such information should be purged periodically as needed. It's really a case by case basis, and I don't know if I can say any more without knowing more details. Institutional memory is good, and essentially it boils down to this for me: if old information has a reasonable chance of affecting the business of the current or a future Committee, it should be kept. Otherwise, it should be purged. NW (Talk) 03:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?

   iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?

   v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?

   No. NW (Talk) 04:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?

   There should almost never be private evidence submitted that an accused user does not have access to. Aside from some checkuser information, I cannot think of any. Things can be restricted a little more for the Community at large, but I would view the private submission of evidence poorly in general. NW (Talk) 03:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?

   Former cases should be considered as persuasive case studies of how the Committee handled a particular situation in the past, no more. NW (Talk) 04:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

4. Division of responsibilities:

   a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?

   Investigating issues of long-term abuse of editors really should be handled by the WMF and ArbCom/the functionaries really ought not to be saddled with that. See, e.g. Shell Kinney's resignation in July 2011[1]. I don't know how much has changed since then, but I hope it is a significant amount. NW (Talk) 04:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?

5. Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.

   a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   Yes, and this applies to part b of this question too. ArbCom can be more active in recognizing that violations of content policies are just as important as violations of conduct policies. See User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011#Criteria. NW (Talk) 04:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?

   Yes, yes, and yes. The most important way the Committee can help is by creating an environment where productive editors are not pushed away by those who violate our policies. See this for example. NW (Talk) 04:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   d) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Ought the committee be concerned about any evidence of factionalism, or is the principle of WP:CONSENSUS sufficient for any article dispute, whether a "faction" is present or not? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, is the proper course of action elimination of such a faction, or ought the decision be aimed at reducing the size of such a faction on any given article or articles?

6. Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
7. Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

Individual questions

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question:
#:A:

---

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

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

   A: Two and a half months? That's pretty bad. Just from looking over the case talk pages, I understand what happened and why it did, but the drafting Arbitrator should have passed the job on to another Arbitrator once it became clear to her that it wouldn't be possible to draft the decision in a reasonable time frame. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A: To facilitate discussion among users who have like-minded interests and to allow to for discussion of issues common to a topic rather than a particular article. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

3. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   A: Yes. It's a tricky line to draw between making sure you don't push away long time contributors who are simply trying to deal with new editors who don't entirely understand how we work and between dealing with an established editor who is using his or her editing history to quash legitimate criticism. I'm not sure if there is anything the Committee can do about the underlying problem but attempt to be more conscientious of all of these issues when it deals with individual cases. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

4. Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?

   A: If I felt that a reasonable portion of the Community had objectively reasonably (I recognize that this is a contradiction in terms) lost confidence in my ability to do my job well; if I could no longer put in sufficient time to do the job. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

5. a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

   A: Sometimes, but not all the time. Sometimes one editor is simply being disruptive and the other editor is doing their best to work with or around them. For this reason, making sanctions proportional to the level of disruption caused by this individual (which may be none) is important. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

6. ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?

   A: It's, as with everything ArbCom deals with, a judgement call. There is definitely a possibility for a grey area and while reasonable actions by administrators can be overturned by later community or ArbCom agreement, this does not necessarily mean that the original action was "wrong." Nothing even comes to mind right now where the Committee could legitimately attempt to deal with such a situation without someone having brought the case to ArbCom. It has happened before (Durova/!!) but it should not have. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

7. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?

   A: a) A user's action on another WMF site is not grounds by itself for ArbCom action, but such action may be introduced as evidence if there is spillover onto enwiki somehow. b) Yes, yes, and maybe (see the related general question above), though with the latter two, if it adversely affects any user, they should be offered a chance to view and rebut the evidence submission. NW (Talk) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

8. What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?

   A: Well, that article certainly encouraged me to beef up the security on my primary internet accounts. It would be bad if my account were hacked, yes, but is there something you are trying to say aside from that? NW (Talk) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   Just making sure that you've thought about that sort of thing, and that your online banking account username isn't nuclearwarfare, for example. --Rschen7754 05:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   ...it isn't now

   Just kidding. My bank, brokerage, work, email account, etc. are all well-protected. NW (Talk) 05:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

   A: Yes. NW (Talk) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Rschen7754 Rschen7754 04:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Hot Stop

1. In your statement you indicated that you've already disclosed alternate accounts to the community. Would you mind just pointing out where you've done that or disclosing them again here?

   A:I had thought they were on my userpage, but I guess I removed them at some point. User:NukeBot and User:NW's Public Sock are the only ones I have used for a significant amount of time. There are a couple of others that I have never really used (created as doppelgangers or potential renames); they should all be linked to from [2] in some capacity. That's all I can remember at this time. NW (Talk) 06:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for that. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

2. This is sort of piggybacking off of SirFozzie's Q below, but what do you think the most important role clerks perform (both as a whole and you individually, if they differ) for the committee?

   A: The most important is just making sure the trains run on time, which gets harder to do the fewer clerks you have, but a more important thing that clerks can do, and one that clerks historically have not been good at, is making sure case pages aren't filled with nonsense and invective. While theoretically, clerks are empowered to deal with violations of Arbitration and site policy, historically clerks had given a large amount of leeway to parties so as to allow them to make the best defense they wish to. This practice should probably change, but more clerks and/or additional arbitrator support is needed for that. NW (Talk) 16:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

3. Also tangentially related to SF below, but I've noticed that over the past few years clerks are almost undefeated when running for seats. Do you think the community as a whole sees it as a arb training course? And if so, is that good or bad thing?

   A: I actually didn't know that this was the case. I don't see clerking as an Arb training course. It certainly exposes you to the area, but I think the primary reason why clerks have done so well in elections is that the type of people who apply and are selected to be clerks are generally calm, reasonable, and experienced editors who don't like stirring up controversy. NW (Talk) 16:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from SirFozzie

1. I'm curious to see what your thoughts are. Does being familiar with the Committee's duties through being an Arbitration Clerk, in your opinion, help with taking that step into being an Arbitrator? Or in other terms, do you think you would have less of a culture shock stepping into the role of an Arbitrator than someone who hadn't been as familiar with the Committee and its processes? SirFozzie (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   A: An interesting question to be sure, and one I'm not really sure how to answer. I think that being a clerk in and of itself doesn't really have too much of an impact, unless you clerk a pretty contentious case (in which case you understand a little quicker the influence of a disruptive editor on the case pages). But I think the real effect comes from the fact that I have had to follow most cases, case requests, clarifications, amendments, and motions for the last year or two. You pick up a lot of minutia that way. I think it would help the learning curve a little bit but not do too much besides that. Anyway, my random thoughts for what they are worth. NW (Talk) 07:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Leaky

1. In your own words, please define a Wikipedian. Leaky Caldron 13:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   A: Any person who chooses to engage with the Community by making a constructive edit. Are you looking for me to comment about the recent statement by a particular arbitrator that a certain editor never was or ceased to be part of the community? NW (Talk) 16:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your answer is complete for me, NW. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 17:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from The Devil's Advocate

1. You clearly have a strong opinion on "civil POV-pushing", but how exactly would you define it and what specifically would you examine to determine this? For instance, how would you differentiate POV-pushing from efforts to balance an article that is biased?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   A: Potter Stewart said it better 50 years ago than anyone else: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of [editing] I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["civil POV pushing"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it".

   That's a very unsatisfactory answer, I understand. I will do my best to ensure that "I know it when I see it" is not the same as "whatever I think is neutral is consistent with NPOV-compliant language." It involves getting into the discussion, evaluating whether the editors are trying to use the best quality sources they can find; whether they are trying to find expert opinion and build the article out of that rather than cherrypicking sources to suit their point of view; whether their behavior is tendentious and designed to exhaust the other editors to death. But ultimately it comes down to a judgement call. NW (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   When you say "tendentious" do you simply mean "biased" or are you referring to the type of behavior described in the essay on tendentious editing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   The latter. NW (Talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Do you believe that you have been sufficiently responsive when your use of the tools has been challenged?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   A: Not always, no. Is there any specific instance that you have in mind? NW (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   I don't wish to make this overly personal, but back in March you tagged a discussion with me as unresolved and pledged to respond, but never got back to me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   Indeed. Real life came up and I didn't edit Wikipedia until May. The issue had resolved by other administrators, which is partially why I didn't feel the need to reply. I can give you a (quite belated) answer now if you would like. But this is not an isolated incident; this has happened to other editors before and I apologize for that. NW (Talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   You can leave a comment on my talk page if you like.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   For those who wish to follow along or join in: User talk:The Devil's Advocate#Follow up. NW (Talk) 06:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

3. How strictly would you interpret administrative involvement?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   A: This is too general of a question and too situation-dependent to properly answer. NW (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

4. Recently you took a significant clerking action on a case request where you were a named party and you were one of the administrators whose previous actions were being questioned in the case. Would you explain why you felt this was appropriate at the time you took the action?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   A: Are you referring to [3] or [4]? If you mean the latter, I didn't consider the involvement to be particularly meaningful (especially as it was in an administrative and not editorial capacity); there was a dearth of active clerks; I felt that the situation was fairly clear cut (and in fact, it could have been acted upon by any administrator, not just a clerk); and I left the affected party (later blocked as a sockpuppet) with clear instructions on how to proceed if they wished to do so. NW (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   I was referring to the latter and I do not find your explanation here satisfactory. The case in question disputed sanctions issued as a result of an AE case where you had also pushed for sanctions. Your suggestion for sanctions was itself mentioned and disputed by the editor who filed the case as representing the administrative misconduct being alleged. Being involved in an administrative capacity is not a valid defense when one's actions in an administrative capacity are what is being questioned. As to being clear-cut, the comments were not significantly different from those of the filer and the Arbs commenting had already stated their opinion that such comments were appropriate. Indeed, your action was subsequently reverted with the approval of an Arbitrator who had already voted against ArbCom taking any action.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   I disagree with your contentions, but I don't believe that this is an appropriate place to re-litigate the dispute. But in short: when I referred to the issue being clearcut, I meant that the user was not a filing or appealing party and they were violating a legitimately issued one-way topic ban with their statement. That's all well and fine if they can get a waiver from ArbCom but they hadn't yet and administrators or clerks have no power to issue one. NW (Talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

5. Do you believe one-way interaction bans should be more common or less common?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   A: I'm generally not a fan of them. If someone has gotten to the point where an administrator thinks that a one way interaction ban would be helpful, so would speedy closings of the relevant requests or a block for disruption. But I don't rule them out on principle—sometimes it doesn't take two to tango. NW (Talk) 20:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

6. Do you believe incivility is treated too strictly or not strictly enough by administrators?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   A: Superficial incivility is sometimes treaty too strictly, sometimes not strictly enough. That's situation dependent and really administrator dependent. Subtle incivility is much less dependent on either of those because it is so severely underaddressed as a problem. Insinuating that a long-time editor may be lying about real life health problems to avoid sanctions or generally denigrating the competence of your ideological "opponents" are far more damaging to a collaborative environment than using impolite language (not to discount the effects of the latter) but are generally hardly addressed by the community. NW (Talk) 20:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   If you are somehow referring to me with those examples then you should understand that I was thinking of those who are known for being repeatedly subject to controversial civility blocks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   I wasn't referring to you in either case. Those who have been subject to multiple civility blocks, whether rightly or wrongly, fall into the first category where it is not clear cut enough to say one or the other definitively. NW (Talk) 02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

7. Do you think it is appropriate to suggest sanctions when you have not done a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding a case?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   A: I stopped beating my wife last week.

   What I wrote was "I haven't taken as comprehensive a look as I would like to, but I did look in at this issue some time ago and again when I closed a topic ban removal discussion with regards to Tom harrison. Certainly few people in the topic area are free of fault (in fact, basically no one is, and I am not excluding MONGO from that), but it appears to me that The Devil's Advocate is one of the key problems with regards to the deterioration of the editing environment recently. I would propose a topic ban for TDA and a closing of this request without prejudice to refiling if things don't improve shortly. Thoughts?" followed by "Any other thoughts? I really don't want to spend the time to review properly if another administrator thinks that my suggestion is entirely off-base (as this report is one that I don't think I should close by myself)." The community is free to decide whether it thinks that was out of line or not. NW (Talk) 20:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   If you believe you were not sufficiently informed about the case to act on your suggestion, as you indicate on my talk page, I do not see how you can justify making any suggestions on which someone else could act.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

   I felt I was not comfortable enough in my analysis to pull the trigger myself. That does not mean I was not comfortable enough to suggest potential courses of action that another administrator might care to investigate further, having seen that I already had some preliminary tendencies one way. NW (Talk) 02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Coren

1. You state above that it is important for the Committee to provide an environment where "productive editors are not pushed away" [your emph.]. Please define "productive" in that context?

   A: Productive editors are those editors who would prefer to keep their heads down, read a number of high-quality sources, and write an article based on those. While they might have a point of view about the topic they are writing about, their primary objective is to accurately summarize the consensus of experts in the field and describe areas of prominent disagreement fairly.

   That's not to say of course that editors who don't write a FA a month are unproductive—I have written only two articles that I consider to be half decent in my tenure on Wikipedia. It's much more about an attitude about how one approaches Wikipedia and the community of editors who contribute to it. Those editors who follow those principles are the editors we need to expend the effort to keep and assist by giving a good working environment. NW (Talk) 20:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

1. How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?

   A: The member should be marked as inactive (I imagine the clerks would have done this already), the Committee should consider removing temporarily advanced permissions as they would with any other functionary (though I think the line is 6 months for that), and depending if things look like they are likely to change, the Committee should consider removing other sensitive access (arbwiki, mailing list) until the arbitrator wishes to return. This should be done voluntarily if possible, and if the arbitrator in question is willing to either resign or set a date for return, so much the better. NW (Talk) 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team? Why?

   A: I'm sorry, I am not sure what you are asking. Are you asking which I would prefer to work on? NW (Talk) 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, on which internal team do you feel you are the best fit, would like to work on, and why. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

   Well, all are important, but the primary reason I am running is that I feel I have something to contribute to cases and dispute resolution. So I expect that case management is something I would like to focus my time on, in addition to addressing requests for amendment and clarification. Aside from that, I feel that I could help with incoming mail (as it is similar to the clerking that I have done before) and really all the rest (with the exception of the technical team, assuming by that you are referring to checkuser matters, which I simply wouldn't feel comfortable with for a while). NW (Talk) 23:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)