Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Courcelles/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Questions from Hhkohh

2. You are a 2014–15 Arbcom member, but why not attend Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016?

   In 2016 I was still virtually blind, I had sold my car, and let my license lapse, such was the edema in my corneas before my second round of surgeries. (I say this quite aside from a belief that people should take at least a year off between terms to recharge and refresh oneself. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Oshwah

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

   A CU or OS needs to possess excellent communication skills, have the ability to be discreet, and the judgment to know when not to use the tools (in the case of CU, at least, someone's personal information cannot be unseen. In the case of OS, I'm a big proponent of the theory of suppress first and then discuss on the list if you're not certain, since we can in recent years easily undo suppression actions.) Personally, I'm looking for judgment and temperament more than technical skills, what technical skills are needed for CU are fairly easy to teach; and I, personally, did not come to the role technically all that skilled. What is disqualifying to me? Chronic incivility, an inability to explain things you've done in a discreet manner, a "set in your ways" mentality that doesn't respond well to criticism or learn now ways to do things. I want people who can learn and grow more than people that show up with a bunch of edits and a masters in IT. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?

   Far be it from me to disagree with Opabinia on much of anything. . I think she's absolutely correct in the general case, and I hope you'll forgive me not using much internet chasing down the specifics of that exact ANI/RFARB. Civility isn't a game of the "word police", where the first person driven to cussing at someone else is the loser. Civility is a way of mind, a pattern of treating other Wikipedians with respect. It's not Arbcom's job to moderate mild incivility, and it isn't beneficial to slap templates and "civility warnings" on other established editors, either. It's all of our jobs to work together, and to foster a collaborative atmosphere. 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Rschen7754

2. You are married to a member of the WMF staff. What effects do you think this would have on your term, if elected? Rschen7754 05:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

   Well, you gave us some interesting discussion walking around Gran Canaria today. Actually, Kbrown (WMF) was hired during my last term on the Committee, so we already know what happens, and what is done differently. Not to sound flippant, but the difference was, and would be again, almost entirely on her side. Last time, she did not work with the enwp Arbcom during my term, letting the other members of the SuSa team take those duties (namely Kalliopie, at least at the time). The same would happen again, and given that there is plenty of SuSa work to go around on the team, even despite recent hires, there's still plenty for her to do without touching the Arbcom on enwp. On my end, the difference from her getting hired by the WMF was virtually non-existent. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from MONGO

2. Looking at some your past decisions when formerly a member of the committee, you impress me as someone who had a throw the book at them approach to sanctions, even going so far as to be the most vocal member supporting draconian or stiffer penalties. Can you elaborate on why you have a history of demanding such sanctions even when other members of the committee did not concur with your opinions?--MONGO (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

   I think a range of opinions from the various ends of this spectrum are good for a healthy committee. I think my record shows a healthy skepticism of misconduct, especially when such is done by administrators. I could point to a couple times I agree we were too harsh, but the funny thing is those are instances where the "strict" sanction was actually approved by vote. I don't think I've been to harsh in general, and sometimes a stiff sanction needs to be put on the table as a proverbial wake-up-call, even if it won't pass, given the near meaningless nature of admonishments. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Alex Shih

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

   The mailing lists are a place for coordination of tasks and for sober discussion of matters germane to the Committee (And of course, some socializing within the subscriber base). They are not for gossip, rumour, or other such things. THe level of conduct on the lists should be what one would expect in a collaborative setting, debate, sometimes intense, is welcome, but should be held in an atmosphere or respect for each other, the matter under discussion, and respect for non-subscribers who are mentioned. Name-calling and personal attacks have no place on the lists. The lists are private because they contain discussions that are sensitive in discussion of other's privacy frequently; also, they're mostly boring, as you yourself well know. Discussions like "who will draft?" and "Good lord, can we get on with posting this PD" are fairly frequent! As to transparency, I don't know why the clerks-l list isn't visible to everyone since it is used purely for coordinating on-wiki actions. For arbcom-l, further transparency or open publication of the contents is difficult due to the sensitive matters discussed, and while I have advocated for the creation of a public list in the past (and would still support such a thing), the possibility of arbs getting confused and sending sensitive information to the public list is a significant argument against it; we already have the occasional mistaken "reply-all" from the existing lists, and while no case I know of was particularly revealing of someone's private information, the potential for unintentional misuse is absolutely there. Courcelles (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   First, let me start out by saying there are, unfortunately, extremely rare cases where informing someone they are under such a discussion is a bad idea, though most of these are now handed by the WMF's Trust and Safety team rather than the Arbcom as they used to be, In the case of on and particularly off-wiki harassment of an editor, discussing it with the accused editor can easily lead to the campaign of harassment being increased in intensity by revealing the harassed as a "tattle-tell". In most other cases, the best time to inform someone they have been discussed is when an initial investigation into a matter has revealed there is substance to a complaint, that there is misconduct going on, and that such misconduct is Arbcom's business. Only if all three conditions are satisfied should someone be approached -- to do so on the mere presence of a complaint is meaningless due to the volume of complaints Arbcom receives; to do it in cases where there is no or minimal misconduct is not suitable, either, in cases of minor misconduct an individual arbitrator might be best served with a private word with the editor (though this should only be done with the consent of the entire committee), and if Arbcom decides it isn't a matter suitable for in camera discussion, the complainant should be directed to file it somewhere on-wiki; be that a community noticeboard, AE, or a request for the Committee to act at either ARCA or RFARB. If there is serious misconduct, if it is decided to handle it in camera, then it is time to ask the other editor for a response, with should always be done in such a manner to preserve the privacy of the complaining editor. Only then should a disposition of the matter be discussed. Editors should not be removed from the community without a chance to respond to the complaint, except in the rarest of rare cases. Courcelles (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

6. This is related to 28bytes's question about linking to offsite court documents (which is still on the page) and the topic of vested contributors. What is your stance on longtime editors/administrators that breaks rules without justifiable cause, and have you or will you promote handling such instances without personal bias as a member of the committee if re-elected? Alex Shih (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

   I think my record shows that I will make decisions without bias or favouritism. I was the first to formulate the now well known "Super Mario Problem" and argue for it to be applied in practice. Lots of rules can be ignored sometimes, but some rules just have no exceptions. Outing is one of them. Long-term editors without a history of poor behaviour often deserve some slack, but it all depends on the severity and degree of the bahviour in question. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Peacemaker67

2. Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?

   Personally, I think there was ample evidence to simply harassment-block the editor that ended up banned (doing so as an admin, appeal only to arbcom, block) and then declining to take up the case. Outside of the harassment that was going on, the entire mess would have been too close to a content dispute for my taste. (Arbcom could, alternatively, have taken a limited case to investigate the harassment, but not a broad-based WWII case.) Either way you want to handle that -- and it needed to be handled -- I think the arbcom of the day got stuck in what was an out-of-scope content issue. Courcelles (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Collect

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

   Absolutely not. A case is just a fancy name for an in-depth investigation into an issue. Sometimes the best response is to either dismiss with no findings, or pass a few principles and findings of fact and move on. 13:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   The arbitration committee is intentionally big enough that the perception of fairness is just as important as the letter of WP:INVOLVED, If an arb has been heavily involved in criticizing the edits or actions of another editor, they should likely recuse as an arb and provided evidence in the case instead. Courcelles (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   For the first half, I would say that every party facing sanctions in a case deserves reasonable time to respond when needed. Lots of editors travel, and it isn't reasonable to expect one to drop everything in real life to respond to some criticism on a website. As to the second half, are we talking about a recused arbitrator who provided evidence? Or a arb/drafter who has kept evidence to themselves internally? If the first, a recused arb should be providing evidence in line with the standard schedule, so the close of evidence should be observed by them and the other parties have a natural chance to respond in the workshop. If you're referring to the second possibility, if a drafter has found something no one else has they wish to consider in the final decision, this would be one of the times for the drafter to use the workshop phase of the case to bring it before all parties (unless the evidence is dealing with private information, of course). Sometimes -- very rarely -- evidence has to be private, and providing it to anyone would breach the global privacy policy -- we can't just hand out CU results or oversighted edits just because they need to be used in a case, though as much information as can be given under global policy should be, as long as it can be done within policy and without compromising anyone's privacy. Courcelles (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Softlavender

2. What was the most rewarding aspect of your previous time spent on ArbCom? Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

   Being n Arbcom is an experience that could easily be likened to herding cats! But despite that, the most rewarding part of it all is the people. I was lucky enough to meet many of my fellow arbitrators in person over the years, and all were excellent people, and I enjoyed working with them, even when we disagreed strongly. I like to think the need for Arbcom to the encyclopaedia is decreasing, but there is great personal satisfaction to me in trying to solve things, even though sometimes we got it wrong. Arbcom isn't a fun job, but it is a necessary one, and a rewarding one if you're willing to approach it with an open mind. Courcelles (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Cinderella157

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

Cinderella157 (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

1. 1)The five pillars are such general statements than trying to find a rationale in them for every rule and line of policy is not going to work very well; some of them have been added because they have been found over the years to be necessary, or in these specific cases, because they are fair and people expect and deserve a fair hearing, not because there is some line in some document says so, but because that's what is, well, fair. 2) Generally a drafting arbitrator is expected to limit themselves to evidence that is submitted and that has had a chance to be responded to, to only propose to sanction individuals that are listed as parties to the case. Evidence often contradicts itself, or at least is in conflict with other evidence, part of drafting is akin to article writing, which often involves making judgment calls on the reliability and accuracy of sources; so must evidence be analyised to find the truth in a sea of submissions that may well be being misinterpreted or quoted out of context to make a certain point -- not all evidence submissions are equal by any rate. 3) I'll admit I've not been following Arbcom decisions much over the last year, even though there have been so few public cases. Ensuring a case reaches a fundamentally fair outcome is everyone's goal and responsibility, but more important than a perception of fairness is the actual encyclopaedia -- that's the ultimate job, the protection and cultivation of an encclopaedia written by volunteers. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   1) Derogatory statements related to gender, or other such classes (race, religion, etc.) should be nipped in the bud; I would not hesitate to either remove them myself, or instruct the clerks to do so, with warnings and eventual blocks going for severe or repeated such remarks. 2) An editor misinterpreting evidence should, in normal circumstances, be refuted by another editor putting the evidence in the correct context, either in the evidence phase itself or in the workshop phase. Arbs need to read all the evidence and make up their own minds, a party posting blatantly bad evidence would be, in the most extreme cases, be something I'd be willing to call out in a PD with an admonishment, but the evidence phase is to be left largely alone by the arbs, to let people make the arguments they find relevant (and to defend themselves). In extreme cases, ordering the clerks to remove evidence and warn the offending party can be in order, but I would prefer to usually notice the irrelevance of the evidence in deliberations rather than with formal actions. 3)Arbs who treat any party with personal attacks have almost certainly shown they are not approaching the case impartially, and should be recusing themselves from voting on the matter. In extreme cases, ArbPol provides the an arb can be forced to recuse by majority vote, though I do not believe this has ever happened. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   Civil POV pushing is one of the rare instances in which Arbcom needs to be careful assigning drafters, and liberal in granting extensions in evidence. You may notice, no venue at WP is good at dealing with it, but Arbcom offers the best chance to do so, given the obligation on arbs to actually read the evidence in its entirety before voting. It's why it is important to have arbs who know what writing articles is like on the committee, because civil POV pushing is the most difficult thing to spot if you're inexperienced in mainspace or unwilling to do all the reading -- including sometimes the actual sources in question. It's hard to deal with the problem because it feels like a content decision a lot of the time, to decide who is right and who is wrong in content is not Arbcom's jurisdiction; but to decide who is violating core content policies like NPOV is not a content issue, it is a behavioural one and within the committee's remit, and we need to elect arbs who are willing to stand stronger on dealing with civil-POV pushing. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from 28bytes

2. Recently an editor placed links to offsite court documents involving an ArbCom candidate on that candidate's question page. Without commenting on this specific case (unless you want to), what factors would you take into consideration when determining whether to allow or suppress similar links in an ArbCom election, or an RFA, or an AN/I report?

   I'm going to assume such material is no longer up -- it shouldn't be, if it was't posted by the editor whose real-life identity it concerned. Linking to off-site documentation and identities is never OK, it's part of the reason we even have an Arbcom and a SuSa team at WMF for when those things are germane and need to be investigated, but they can't be posted on-wiki due to the rules. AS close as I'll ever come to commenting on this case, is that the rules about not linking to off-site information are not changed by editors who either use their real name as their usernames or are openly known as a certain real name. That someone is standing for Arbcom, RFA or is the subject of an ANI thread doesn't change the rules, either; investigating and posting about another editor's real life identity or off-site activities just isn't appropriate for public forums. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Liz

2. Hello, Courcelles. As you have previously served or are currently serving on the Arbitration Committee, will you state what you believe is biggest misconception most editors have about how ARBCOM works? What do you think editors SHOULD know about the operation of ARBCOM and how arbitrators collaborate that we probably don't realize? Any aspect of ARBCOM's operation that you would change if you could? Thanks and good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   What don't people know? That often cases are drafted by one individual in reality, and that any disruption in their real life leads to late decisions. That many of the worst aspects of the job have been handed over to WMF's paid staff. That often PD's are prepared without much -- if any -- input from the non-drafting arbitrators. That the arbwiki is as boring as anything imaginable! SO is the mailing list for that matter, Arbcom business is 95% soporific, 5% high drama. What could be changed? More agressive marking of arbitrators as inactive would be good, as it makes decision making too difficult when you've got an arb you've not heard from in a week, but still marked as active. (Another thing people might not realise is that an active but non-voting arbitrator is effectively opposing all business before the committee. Kind of an info-dump answer, but I think the community has very little idea what arbs do on a day to day basis. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Shrike

2. There are currently ongoing ARCA could you state your opinion about the issue [[1]].

   Newyorkbrad is right, we're seemingly stuck with this "even on a first offence" language, and it needs to go ASAP. THe problem with it is that even long-standing editors get caught sometimes without reading every dot and letter of policy, notification of this special rule often relies only on edit notices, which I know many editors have deactivated as being excessive and frequently just annoying. It's too BITEy to newcomers and its too unfriendly to actual cases of ignorance. Log the standard DS warning on a first violation, and then expect people to comply in the future. They either will do so, or will be swiftly blocked, with only slightly less aggressive enforcement we can get the same results and be a friendlier place. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite

2. Hello, and thank you for running for ArbCom. There are a number of off-wiki venues for criticism of Wikipedia content, policy, processes, and participants. Such sites include Wikipediocracy, Genderdesk, Wikipedia Sucks!, Wikipedia Review (mark 2), and Reddit. Do you read content or participate by writing at any of these venues? If so, which? Do you feel that such sites have positive value in identifying and correcting such problems and abuses that emerge at Wikipedia or do you feel that such sites are wholly negative in essence, without redeeming value? Carrite (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

   I do not participate in, or read, any of those venues. In principle, the idea of an off-site place to discuss WIkipedia and point out its failings constructively is a laudable one, but all too often such off-site websites are used to dox and out Wikipedians. This is not a good thing, to say the least, as doxing other editors is so verboten that doing it on-wiki usually leads to a rapid site-ban, and this should not be going on on-or-off site. SO, my answer is a general "it depends" on which side of the line between fair criticism and harassment and doxing the material falls on. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   The San Francisco bans are a good thing, and there is a level of oversight -- I happen to know multiple people have to sign off on each and every global ban, and only after a thorough investigation; they are not just done on the whim of one or two individuals. I have no special insight into why they are done, but I trust the specific people involved not to do do these things lightly or for no reason. As to whether they are intervening in Arbcom's purview, I disagree, the arbcom can only issue bans on enwp; and the level of misconduct that gets one a San Francisco ban is often if not exclusively global in nature; rather than enwp Arbcom passing our problem users off to other projects as has happened in the past, now they are dealt with globally when it is appropriate. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Feminist

2. How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?

   Wikipedia rules and processes are, at least in theory, spelled out on documentation pages. But, like the game of baseball, many of its "norms" are simply unspoken until someone has the misfortune of violating one of them. You can, unfortunately, read all the provided documentation and still have little idea how to be useful at AFD, or GAN, or in particular truly internal-facing processes like FAC and RFARB. We speak in acronym soup, I'm doing it now because I'm talking to Wikipedians, not outsiders, but to outsiders none of it makes a lick of sense. Now, how to communicate processes to outsiders depends on what type of outsiders are at question, which I'll divide into three main types 1) New editors; 2)Article subjects, and 3)The press. New editors need to be spoken to gently, to have the unwritten rules explained to them, and to be forgiven more readily when they do something wrong.. Article subjects need an even softer hand, we have a dedicated but poorly advertised OTRS queue just for inquiries from article subjects. Our policy that we report what RSs report and not what a subject says about themselves is often counter-intuitive to them, in particular those who have had a wrong detail about their lives spread across the internet. But, with a deft hand, usually there is a way to reach a solution, preferably without it all ending up on ANI! The press, on the other hand, has a mind of its own oftentimes. It ranges from yellow hit-pieces that have their story created and then go looking for the facts to support it, to the actual real journalists who are seeking the facts before writing a story. It's important to talk to both types, for the first, to get the truth on record even if it goes unused; for the second type you can change the narrative dramatically by explaining why something happened, because they are actually interested in what Wikipedia editors, functionaries, and the WMF have to say. A perfect example was the recent press drama about the most recent Nobel Laureate in Physics, the articles went from the hysterical to the calm and reasoned, even though everyone seemed to need to talk about why we didn't have an article on her. The press is just tricky to talk to, and almost entirely happens off-wiki, but is it important to do right? You'd better believe it. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. feminist (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Guerillero

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

Current Disputes and Cases

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

   To site ban someone from the project requires either grave misconducte like) (Harassment, sockpuppetry and th, or sufficient reason to believe a lesser sanction will work. (Or they have accumulated multiple lesser sanctions; if you're on your third topic ban the problem isn't the topics, it is most likely the editor). It's a fine line to be sure, and reasonable uninvolved arbs often disagree where the line in any particular case in. I tend to fall on the stricter side of average, to be fair. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   I think civility parole was a poor solution to a problem, as it just led to one editor being watched so carefully by others waiting for the paroled editor to sip up and be slightly rude, or say a "naughty" word that the way it worked in practice was a disaster. Civility isn't something that can be imposed from the Committee, and any desire for stricter enforcement than we have presently needs to come from a groundswell of support in the community. I wish it would be so, but I cannot see anything good coming from Arbcom trying to impose a stricter standard of civility than presently exists in standard administrator enforcement of the civility pillar. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   There is a certain irony in this question coming my way, as I was the first person to coin this term in an arbitration case! I think it was a really serious problem in the past, but with cases like the one you've linked to have made it a much lesser problem in recent years, as Arbcom has shown a willingness to issue sanctions beyond a mere desysopping when an admin's misconduct comes before the committee. This is a good thing, admin status should come with a higher expectation of conduct rather than serving as a shield to be given up or taken away in cases where the conduct would warrant the ultimate sanction on an editor not so fortunate to have that proverbial "extra life" to use. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

   I do, in that there is value in putting it on record that someone's conduct was substandard, and especally in cases where DS are authorized, it should show as a clear sign to admins enforcing the decision that said editor is already well aware of the problems with their editing, and was put on formal notice that such problems should not continue. I prefer the term warning to admonishment, as the word admonishment has the sense of shame or "finger-wagging" by Arbcom at another editor, where a warning is just a neutral notice that someone's conduct has been examined, found wanting but not worthy of a substantual sanction at this point in time

Insider Baseball

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

   When used well, it does. One thing I'd like to do, if elected again, is when I am drafting arbitrator is to make an effort to post what I'm planning to propose as a PD to instead post it on the workshop page a few days before the PD date, so things can get fixed and criticised before they begin to get voted on. (In most cases at present, the workshop isn't used that usefully, with random proposals that the drafting arbitrators often ignore and in some cases even fail to read being put up.) So it's something that needs reform, not abolishing. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Atsme

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

   If anyone is actually voting on cases without reading the evidence page in its entirety, though should go inactive on that case. This job can't be half-assed, or it just turns into a matter of sanctioning whoever is the most unpopular in any given case. If I ever find myself lacking the time to properly put in to any particular matter, I'll pledge to have myself marked as inactive on it, rather than casting votes based on nothing (or worse, on preconceived notions) We're a small community of truly active editors, and it's hard not to have some preconception about another username when you see it, but that's the job here, and I promise to either do it right every time or stay out of matters. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Are you willing to recuse yourself from an arb case involving an editor (either filer or filed against) with whom you have adamantly opposed in a prior argument or whose ideology you view unfavorably?

   For the first part, absolutely. For cases where there are mere ideological differences, I would say no to a recusal request, because that way leads to cases being decided by a very small committee if we start accepting that disagreeing with someone's ideology. Besides, how would you define an ideological recusal? Deletionists recusing from cases involving inclusionists? Conservatives from those involving liberals? Atheists from those involving religion? I could go on and on, and you could end up with an ideological warrior where there were no arbs left to hear the case if you went on with the recusals to even just a few of these ideological differences. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

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

   It's been a while since we've had a case of true abuse of the encyclopaedia come to Arbcom, I think one of the more recent ones is still WifiOne, which was years ago. Discretionary sanctions handle things in the modern life of the encyclopaedia that used to take an entire drawn-out case to reach the same resolution that is now reached by a single admin, or a few of them at AE. Outside of the DS areas, the community has shown an increased willingness to deal with things on AN or ANI, either by authorizing general sanctions or by topic (or site) banning individual abusers of content. Personally I think DS areas need to be expanded slightly in some areas (that the Israel-Iran conflict isn't covered by them is a travesty, for example). The committee can't be creating new rules out of whole cloth again, though, it could instruct that there be an RFC to discuss new ways to combat the plague of POV editing that exists. Dealing with otherwise civil editors who are nonetheless violating NPOV is one of the hardest things to do, because the cases that still reach Arbitration are ones that either are being done by a sysop or have divided the community. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from Amanda

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

   These might take me all day, or even into Saturday, so forgive me in advance. The initial reply to a ban appeal is usually just an acknowledgment of receipt, and a promise that we'll be in touch if we need more information (or an immediate request for more information when the appeal is clearly deficient in some critical point, say the all-too-common appeal without a username being provided). Anything beyond such an initial reply needs discussion, as no one arb has any authority outside a committee vote, and even the most obvious appeals in either direction need to be put up for an informal vote first. (By informal, I mean a straw-poll on the list rather than a formal vote on arbwiki) So the job of the first responder is two-fold: to acknowledge the appeal and to provide initial commentary or suggestion on the list to get the process of reaching a decision started. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

   I'm not only willing to vote to desysop, I have done so in the past. Admin socking is one of the most surprising abuses of responsibility that can take place on our project, so an admin caught socking needs to have those responsibilities removed from them absent a very convincing explanation. When met with silence or deflection from the admin, we have to rely on the same process we'd use at an SPI, a thorough examination of the CU data and the behavioural evidence. In no way is refusing to engage with Arbcom by an admin a get-out-of-jail-free card, indeed, per WP:ADMINACCT such silence can even make my vote to desysop more resolute. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)