Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Courcelles/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

Skills and experience:
a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
In my time on Wikipedia, I've done at least a little bit of almost everything, and have gotten a perspective of the arbitration process through serving as a member of the audit subcommittee this term. I bring the experience of being a busy editor and administrator, who knows the reality of being on the ground, dealing with situations, explaining problems, explaining why a certain thing was done or not done, making decisions, and evaluating situations. Courcelles 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.
The only case I've been even tangentally involved in is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket. Courcelles 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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?
I'm glad the question acknowledges that all situations are different, because not only behaviour differs in every case, but so does the history of exactly how much leniency and second chances before a matter comes before the Committee. Let us be clear, desysopping and banning are remedies with entirely different standards for imposing them, and the standards for what level of misbehaviour should be met with a desysop is considerably lower than that for a ban. Further, ArbCom is the only body with power to perform an involuntary desysop on a (non-compromised) account, whereas the system through which the community may impose bans is well-developed. No one needs to be an admin to contribute to this project, and those who are repeatedly or egregiously misusing the tools should find themselves without them. Banning a user is a much more serious matter, and users who are blatantly disruptive are usually handled through community processes and not by the Committee. Even though I'd look for a higher level of misconduct for a ban than a desysop, I'm not in favour of taking a too-lenient hand to truly disruptive users. Courcelles 22:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom and policies: 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.
Let me be clear: the Arbitration Committee is not the English Wikipedia's government, and it should never be such a thing. In no case can ArbCom mandate a change to policy, and even suggesting such a thing as a body would be usually inappropriate. What policy says is ultimately the community's responsibility, no one else's; and the policies the community has established should guide and shape the Committee's thinking. That said, any matter that comes before the Committee that involves a user violating policy as written must be viewed through a filter of the spirit of the policies, and an eye that for just cause to improve the encyclopaedia, a user may rightfully ignore policy. If policy is not clear, members of the committee as individuals should work to have clearer language introduced into policy; I think we can all agree that ambiguous language in written documents usually leads to little more than drama. Courcelles 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom and 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.
The Committee should not be in the content business, and getting into that business would be a very bad idea, and a real expansion of the Committee's mandate. There are some things the Committee can do, either removing the most disruptive users, giving admins the ability to manage disruptive users through discretionary sanctions, or for the most unbreakable of disputes, having a final RFC on a matter, and then imposing a moratorium that that RFC's consensus would stand for a somewhat lengthy period as in the Ireland naming disputes. The latter is an interesting idea, but only works for things that do not have an infinite number of choices. If the community wants someone that can rule directly on content, they could create one; but I believe such a body should, even if created, be separate from the Arbitration Committee. Courcelles 23:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom and motions:
a) 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.
Motions are for simpler matters that either don't require a full case, or in situations that merely require a prior case to be modified. The less the facts are in dispute, the more suitable a particular situation becomes to being resolved via motion. Courcelles 00:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b) 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?
Motions are for doing things outside of the context of a formal case; and as I've already said, the more complicated something is, the better to handle it via a full case than an expedited format. If the community had handled an issue, the committee has no business changing that consensus by motion, assuming there exists a true consensus, and not an isolated discussion being claimed as consensus. As to the third part of the question, the situations where the Committee has any business getting involved in a matter the community is discussing without being directly asked to rule by the community are few and very far between; and any issue that would generate substantial community discussion that the Committee would have the jurisdiction to settle is almost surely too complicated for a simple motion, and would be better suited as a case. Courcelles 02:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 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.
I'm going to briefly touch on a few motions, in a chronological order, rather than by my opinions on them. I also will not comment on any motion that was directed towards a specific editor. The Omnibus motion that recently passed was purely clean-up to make terms of the discretionary sanctions consistent across cases, and reduce confusion on admins and editors, as we had a messy situation where the paperwork and rules on them all were slightly different. This was a good thing; paperwork and due process for editors working in these topic areas are very important, but the motion did not make the burden for imposing a discretionary sanction any lower, just the bureaucracy reduced. The "Motion regarding Arbitrator abstention votes" was largely, again, a paperwork change, but an important one, as arbitrators were uisng abstain votes to comment, but by formally abstaining, the support votes to pass certain parts of a decision was changed. This change lets an arb abstain specifically, if s/he is, say, recused in part of a case; but provides a venue for comment making without chaning the support needed to pass by merely doing so. Finally, the "Motion regarding Hyphens and dashes" was the mis-step here. While it ultimately worked, I do not think it was within the powers of the Arbitration Committee to fix thousands of titles at their current titles, and to do it with such a motion that basically said someone who accidentally created an article at the "wrong" title could not move it. The idea of a large, well-advertised RFC to resolve the issue was a good one, but the Arbitration Committee came too close to a content ruling in this motion for my comfort. Courcelles 02:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
a) 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?
The policy from the foundation is fairly clear, when you don't need non-public data anymore, you get rid of it. Part of that is tricky, as knowing when you're done with information is much more art than science, but the principle is sound; if we've got no more reason to hang onto some non-public information, it's time to clean it out. Courcelles 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b) 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?
While I believe we should destroy information we no longer need, as we are obligated to do by foundational policy, the tricky thing is determining when such information is no longer needed. To draw an analogue to checkuser practices; we never keep copies of routine checks, which are most of SPI’s business; but we do retain notes on our most persistent sockmasters, as the problem is, in these cases not resolved; and is ongoing for the foreseeable future. I won’t endorse any time limit, but at the point where we are reasonably confident the information is no longer useful to the legitimate business of the Committee, it should be destroyed. Sometimes this will be the conclusion of the case, and sometimes it may be longer. Once information is no longer actively being used by the committee, but is being retained for some legitimate purpose, it should be locked away in some fashion (I’m sorry, I’m not technically literate, so I’m speaking in concepts, not specific ideas) and access to such nformation being logged. I’m wary of any system that sets access to information under the control of specific arbitrators, as the principle of equality among the elected arbitrators is something I view as important. Whether than restricting access to certain members, or the WMF, I’d prefer to see developed a system that sees access to non-public data logged, and monitored by other arbitrators; and like running the checkuser tool, only accessed with just cause and logged reasoning. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

c) 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?
The Arbitration Committee is the elected body of the English Wikipedia’s community, and when privacy is not a concern, the deliberations of the Committee should be visible to the community. There was a proposal a few months back to create an arbcom-en-public mailing list for these discussions, and I would support that creation if elected. Obviously the decision where to host a discussion would be open to the judgment of the arbs, and if the topic strays towards anything that involves privacy the venue should change, (and I know it would be annoying to see a discussion end half-way through!) but the privacy of enwp’s contributors is a high calling of the Committee, even above transparency. But as long as that privacy is vigorously guarded, there needs to be a move towards greater openness of the business of the ‘’elected’’ Committee by the electorate, just as there is in any publically elected body. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

d) 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?
Hindsight is 20/20, and the scenario was obviously unprepared for. Security is easy to think about when you suddenly find you need it, and damned hard to give a damn about when you have no pressing concern to do so. The Committee was left scrambling in the wake of the leak, but at the point of the incident, I’m not sure what could have been done differently, as I would likewise have had no clue how to determine how the information was accessed by the leaker technically. A system that logged the IP and passworded identity of whoever accessed prior month’s archives of threads would have been a good idea beforehand, and I believe such a system has now been introduced. From a public relations standpoint, however, the Committee’s response was a bit of a mess; due to the volume of personal information contained in ArbCom’s archives, the Community needed a strong, confident response from the Committee, and the public response we received was somewhat disjointed, but I acknowledge that crisis management is insanely difficult, and that there are people who make handsome livings doing it well. In general, what people wanted to hear was “never again”, and for obvious reasons, no one could provide those sort of assurances. Courcelles 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
My name isn't a closely guarded secret or anything, but I don't intend to make it any easier to find than it already is. Who we are on Wikipedia matters, what we do as editors matters. Courcelles 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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?
In general, I think the WMF, through their new, under-discussion-on-Meta terms of use, take some of the more obvious and serious problems off ArbCom hands, as they are usually problems to the extent that they should make a user ‘’globally unwelcome’’. This would include serious off-wiki harassers, protecting children’s privacy issues, and the like. Such problems require more than a purely enwp solution, and the new terms of use will give the WMF the solid foundation to act in such cases. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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?
This is fairly settled after having an Arbitration Committee for almost eight years, and significant shifts of responsibility should not be the initiative of the Committee. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
Let us distinguish from the MeatballWiki definition linked above and the standard English-language meaning of the term. Standard English usage, a vested contributor is one who has invested their time and energy into something. This is a good thing. People who care, people who are willing to get their hands in the muck and give a damn make the encyclopaedia better! Producing anything that is worth having, much less can be passed through the GA, FL, or FA processes practically requires contributors to invest and care about the subject and the project; and in this sense, “vested contributors” are to be cherished, for the great work in improving the encyclopaedia can not be accomplished without them. (Just to be clear, I do not equate improving the encyclopaedia with producing audited content, it is merely an easy example to use of work that requires sustained involvement in a limited scope. Ways to improve the encyclopaedia are manifest.) Now to the MeatballWiki definition of the term; this definition implies that “vested contributors” feel entitled to exemption from the normal rules of the organization in which they are invested. This is not good, and, yeah, we do have issues with this. Editors are equal, you cannot earn a licence to behave poorly on a record of good contributions; the policies that govern behaviour on this project apply to all. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Of course we do, that so many cases have been argued over nationalistic and factionalist lines merely reflects the disputes that take place in the real world. Wikipedia exists in the real world, and with a worldwide editorship, it is inescapable that disputes that rage in the real world would find Wikipedia used as a front in the dispute. Our current policy seems to be that when a dispute flares up here, ArbCom spends two months thinking about it, and then imposes discretionary sanctions and the issues go off to AE, likely with some disruptive users either site or topic-banned. It isn’t a perfect model, but it works in most cases in letting administrators handle long-term disputes that have off-wiki origins as new editors join the fray; while this does devolve responsibility to administrators, it also saves the Committee from having to decide another case on the most volatile disputes every six months, though there is little doubt in my mind that the current system of discretionary sanctions can be improved, perhaps by moving imposing them to a more consensus based model, as cases filed at AE are settled, rather than a system of one-admin decisions that are (thankfully) becoming less common. Courcelles

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, we have a dual problem; keeping existing editors, and recruiting new ones. Editing Wikipedia is, over time, becoming a more stressful activity, and the learning curve is steep. I was discussing with another admin the other day that in some ways I found wiki-editing easier to pick up because I can’t write any of the common code for internet purposes, and I am the type to read anything and everything before I start pressing buttons. Those used to writing, say, HTML, not only have to learn our system of code, they have to refrain from their instinct to code things in formatting and language that is used on most other websites. The eventual WYSIWYG editor should help the immediate turnoff of the code for new editors, but keeping the editors we have is just as important, and is not so easily solved. In general, some of the problems are obvious, and are not necessarily problems at all; rudimentary articles on common encyclopaedic topics pretty much all exist, and a lot of the obvious work of improving the project at this point involves either researching obscure topics, or improving the core topics, which takes patience and the willingness to sort through a large body of published literature. The low-hanging fruit is gone, and the hard work remains. This is not really a bad thing, we have produced the most complete encyclopaedia ever written; and while we are nowhere near done (and never can be, knowledge is always expanding), the barrier to entry is higher than ever before. More help is always needed and appreciated, and newcomers to the community need to be valued and encouraged, because as editors naturally leave the project they must be replaced, or we risk at some point being unable to maintain the articles we have, much less improve and grow our collection. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda was the textbook example of a case; the dispute was somewhat simple, the case was decided with good speed, and the decision well thought out. If you’re looking for a model for future limited-scope cases, this is it. Even though it took longer, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands is worth a mention as it tries an innovative measure to prevent future disputes in similar territory from requiring a full case. While not perfect, it was relatively well-handled, and I like the innovative idea that could help matters broader than the Senkaku Islands dispute in the future. On the other end of the scale, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs was a bit of a mess that ended up in a result that basically told people to calm down, use the dispute resolution process, and come back in a month if problems persisted. There are two major problems I see here; first, the case accomplished nothing. Second, and most important, the Committee ignores the issues of external forces, that care little for our norms and policies trying to manipulate biographies here to push an agenda, which is a real problem, and not one easily solved. The AESH Case is a textbook example of the Committee taking two and a half months to accomplish nothing. This case was the perfect chance to reform the discretionary sanctions system, making it both more transparent, and easier to understand. The creation of a designated appeals body, rather than “whoever shows up at AE” would have been strongly worth considering as well, though I’m not certain such a system would be a good idea (it would be better than unilateral reversing, to be sure!). In the end, this case changed nothing from what was laid down in a 2010 motion]. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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?
The reason no one proposed an RFC to abolish the Arbitration Committee is because it works. Not perfectly, of course not, but it works as well as anything else we’ve tried as a project. Many of the small things that could be improved (I mentioned below, but posted earlier, the silliness I consider the “net four” rule to hear a case to be) are incremental. As much as the project as a whole may need governance reform, this has to come from the community, and cannot be the initiative of the Arbitration Committee, whose mandate is not to be a government, and should not be. Courcelles 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. 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, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

The first 9 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
A:A relatively simple, limited focus case still taking ten weeks is unacceptable. Some rare cases are so complicated and with so many parties that a ten week case is understandable, even though still not ideal; this was in no way such a case. Courcelles 17:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
A: No; Wikiprojects have the ability to suggest standards, but not to enforce them. Giving WikiProjects an enforceable ability like that would, IMO, inevitably lead to jurisdictional squabbles, as most articles are within the scope of two, three, or more Wikiprojects, even if not tagged as such at present. Standards are very useful when working on articles, but, one of our pillars is that with good cause, such standards on layout can be ignored; and the people with theit hands in the machinery of that particular article are the ones who have the best insights to when that is necessary; though I don't favour ignoring standards for no reason whatsoever, the key words are "with good cause". Courcelles 17:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
A: Well, ignoring consensus can be one form of disruptive editing, as well as some other behaviours that you mention. Really, this is one of those borderline cases where whether action is warranted or it is just a personality clash is going to depend entirely on the actual behavour, and this scenario is so vague as to be unanswerable. There could be a case made for everything from nothing at all to a mentor-ship, to a civility restriction, to, if after lesser steps are tried, a series of escalating blocks. The latter would be highly unfortunate, but in the worst case of possible scenarios that could fit within the uestion it may be necessary. Courcelles 04:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
A:In the first instance, try to find them some easier area of the project where they can be useful and attempt to educate them, as apparent competence issues can actually be a "good-faith but clueless" editor just needing a guiding hand for a while. If nothing helps, and the editor is still making a mess, it is time to go to ANI and consider a block until the editor shows they can be productive and edit without damaging the project through incompetence. The important thing about WP:COMPETENCE is that an editor can be acting in the best of faith, but still be making a mess, and it is not up to the community to be long-suffering in cleaning up after them unendingly. Courcelles 04:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
A: The situations are unlikely to (3, in the worst case scenario, again, the question is vague enough that no definitive statements can be made) need more than an informal, de facto ban, where an indefinite block is in place and no admin is willing to unblock. However, if events (for example sockpuppetry) makes the formal ban necessary, this is fine.
Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
A:Well, the behaviour of one party cannot entirely excuse the behaviour of another, we are all responsible for our own choices; that said, just because two or more editors are going at it doesn't mean that they are equally at fault, and I believe sanctions should be issued based on the responsibility of each party; if one party is pushing the other editor around, and the other editor snaps, clearly one party's fault is greater than the other. (With that said, it is of course possible for all parties in a dispute to be equally at fault; but Arbitration must examine any situation as a situation, and not as a series of diffs looking for offences against rules.) Courcelles 03:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
A:The ArbCom should hear cases when there is a problem that the community is unable (or highly unlikely) to resolve on its own. I say the highly unlikely caveat because just as much as I don't care for ArbCom being used as a end-run around other methods of dispute resolution, there are circumstances where sending a problem to an RFC is clearly more likely to be a "color-by-number" exercise than true resolution, and in those cases, the Committee should be willing to just take the case and resolve the problem. As a procedural note, I'm not a fan of the "net four" rule, that can see a case rejected despite a majority of voting Arbitrators voting to hear it, as the current rules require four more arbs wanting to accept a case than voting to reject it. Courcelles 04:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
A: Editors should be banned when, despite efforts to change their behaviour, they are a net negative on the project. The interesting thing in the ban process these days is that a great deal of them are community imposed, and I've handled a dozen or so ban discussions as an admin. It takes either prolonged misbehaviour or highly egregious misbehaviour to receive a ban; sitebans are not now, and never should be, imposed lightly. ArbCom bans are usually of editors who are not as clear-cut as the ones handled on AN, but the basic principle that anyone whose behaviour makes them a serious drain on community time should be removed from the community is one I agree with. Courcelles 04:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A: Of course. Courcelles 04:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
A: We have a number of them. Editor retention is a major one as some say that Wikipedia's "golden age" is in the past; I disagree with that, but the task of drawing and keeping editors is pressing, as a community, without replacement for those editors that leave, we will eventually be unable to maintain this encyclopaedia, much less be able to grown and improve it. We continue to have problems with our BLP's (to avoid repeating myself, I'll go into more detail on BLP's under NW's questions tomorrow when I answer them.) I think we are still undergoing the pains of moving from a growth model to an improvement one, where we already have articles on a great proportion of things readers come here to learn about (though we still have untapped realms of knowledge out there to create more articles) to a model where the growth in article count slows, but the focus on article quality becomes ever greater. This project works, but our challenges are ever changing as our footing as a community, and our place in the world is becoming more solid. Courcelles 04:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from NuclearWarfare

Note to readers and respondents

These questions are partially my own and partially derived from a set of questions Lar asked in the 2009 and the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections.
The Arbitration Committee may not ever be required to directly rule on some of these matters. Nevertheless, I believe that they should impact the Committee's thinking significantly and am interested in the candidates' thoughts. The responses will likely influence significantly my voting guide for this year.
To those who have answered these questions in the past, please feel free to reuse old answers. I would however appreciate a comment about how and why your views have or have not changed in the past few years.
Candidates: I would request that you please make an attempt to answer the core questions at the least. If you have the inclination to answer the additional questions, please go ahead. Depending on your answers, I may ask follow-up questions.

Core questions

Please describe your opinion on the following proposals in relation to Wikipedia's BLP policy: an expanded version of opt-out , "targeted flagging", and a more permanent version of the old pending changes trial. In your answer, please discuss your personal views on the pending changes trial: what you thought of it, whether we should ultimately implement some form of it (and if so, what form?), whether the community failed to come to a decision about it, and what you believe the role of the Arbitration Committee should have been.
In general I support the idea of an opt-out system for people of marginal notability, especially given the large number of "directory-style" BLP's we have. Rather than any automatic system, I'd support the system like we use of AFD's, with the closing admin deciding how much weight to give the request, and given discretion towards deletion. I think it is obvious that people of more notability would not have the consensus to be opted-out of being covered by the project however, at the lower levels, I think this is something we should do for subjects that don't want to be part of this encyclopaedia, though we are never under obligation to do such deletions, and steps short of deletion can often assuage the subject. I like the idea of targeted flagging, as a large proportion of the BLP nonsense I've encountered that was there for more than a few hours was in severely under-watched articles. Ignoring high-profile articles with this system ends the problems some projects have (for example the Russian Wikipedia, where I have seen articles with hundreds of revisions waiting for review) where the system gets flooded in work. Pending Changes, in my opinion, was a failure. The focus on large and high-profile articles made for lots of work when vandalism was usually being caught anyway, the software itself was molasses-level slow, and the community's faith in something billed as a "trial" that kept going was shaken. It seemed to me that the more the community saw of that PC system, the less it cared for it, much the same as I did, as the system was slow; and with only 1,000 articles on it, there was actually only rarely reviewing work necessary, as opposed to eventually putting it on 100,000+ articles - we never tried it under "real-world" conditions like the German or Polish Wikipedias use the same software, where most or all articles are under the system. With the lack of work available, the reviewers forgot about the system; in a full-scale deployment on the type of articles we were using it under, I fear we would have drowned. I would support a re-implementation along the lines of the targeted flagging, where only low-watched, low-edited articles would be subject to the system. The Arbitration Committee had no role to play, this was a community decision to as to a major policy change, and ArbCom does not belong in policy discussions, though the ArbCom, in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes case, has already given admins broad authority to ensure BLP is complied with. Courcelles 00:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe an experience you have had with a significant content dispute. If you have had any disputes where you felt that either yourself or another party was either not acting in good faith with respect to the neutrality policy or with regards to source gathering, I would be especially interested to hear about your experience. What do you feel you did incorrectly and how would you have realistically fixed that for future situations?
In my 2010 voting guide, I highlighted several quotes by other editors. Please select two from "On Administration" and state why you agree or disagree with them. Bonus points if you give reasons for your answers
Do you believe that the policy on involved administrators using the admin tools should ever be relaxed to any extent? Does your answer change depending on whether general or discretionary sanctions are in place?
Administrators who are involved in a specific dispute should never use their tools as it relates to that dispute, but in a broader sense, the Community usually does not have objection (and I do not either) to an admin who is involved in a topic area doing things that are uncontroversial such as blocking a vandal or obvious sock. In general, though, there are 1,500 administrators, and the situations that require speed enough to justify an involved action are so rare, that the involved policy should be broadly respected and not loosened, admins stepping on involved in my experience only leads to drama. Topics heated enough to have discretionary sanctions imposed on them require more attention to admin actions as it relates to involved administrators, and the rules specifically require admins imposing such sanctions be uninvolved. Courcelles 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Wikipedia, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?

Additional questions

What is your opinion of specialized content guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Do you think it is a practice that we should encourage with other guidelines like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)?
Do you think we should have a policy for medicine and health in the same manner that we have WP:BLP for living people? What about for corporations?
Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy (1, 2). Do you agree or disagree?
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big (e.g. for major policy or software changes). Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it?
Some editors enforce the banning policy in a manner perhaps best described by {{BannedMeansBanned}}; others take a more lenient approach and only enforce the ban on what they believe to be "bad" editing. What is your opinion on this? Does the reason why an editor was banned have any impact in your analysis?

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification

Restraining aggrieved parties in emotionally charged scenarios is central to the Committee’s role, and arbitrators are in principle exposed to legal action by those parties in a real-world jurisdiction. It matters little whether an action is launched or merely threatened, and whether it is quite unreasonable: the costs for an individual arb to forestall a default judgment in a foreign court would be considerable (and I believe it’s not hard to transfer an order to the courts in one’s local jurisdiction). The risk is greater because as volunteers we can’t be expected to provide professional mediation as an intermediary between wiki and real-world judicial processes—mediation that might head off litigation in the first place.

Given the WMF's annual income of some $20M, what is your view on whether the Foundation should:

set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sven Manguard

Looking over ArbCom cases from the past few years, it is clear to me that many times, editors involved in the dispute being heard in a particular case use the Workshop page as a platform to continue their disputes. These Workshop posts tend to take the form of 'finding of facts that the people on the other side of the dispute have committed heinous acts, heavy sanctions for the people on the other side of the dispute, and people on my side of the dispute get off without even a warning' (it's usually less transparent than that, but barely).

Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.
A: I think some of the behaviour you're describing is only natural. I think it is easy to see the Arbitration process as a way to "punish wrongdoers", and usually people who think they are in the wrong would change their behaviour. Most of the people in disputes have the mindset, if not "I'm innocent, the other side is guilty", at least "The other side is more at fault than me". Workshop pages have their uses, but this problem is a hard one to fix in the light of normal human emotions. Courcelles 17:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?
A: Parties should continue to propose solutions on the workshop pages; at worst the proposals are useless and constitute taking potshots at the other side. In these cases, the clerks should be given latitude to remove any proposal they believe is so motivated, and have the ability to restrict the proposer with the power to make arbitration enforcement blocks if necessary. The Workshop phase of a case is not a venue where personal attacks and nonsense are allowed, and the most serious mis-steps there should be handled. The real solution to making the workshop pages more usable is to involve more outside editors, admins who have been somewhat involved in the topic area but are not "involved" in the dispute at hand, and arbitrators themselves in the workshop page. The Workshop page is most useful if many viewpoints, those bringing an outside perspective on the dispute especially, are involved and participate in drafting proposals. We can't change human nature to not see themselves as the party in the wrong, but we can get more eyes on this phase of the cases. Courcelles 17:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Off2riorob

As an administrator what is the fastest one your blocks has been overturned by community consensus? Your restriction of my editing privileges during my offer to assist the arbitration committee in the 2010 election, was rejected by the community in less than thirteen minutes, you self reverted as soon as it was obvious. Have there been any faster than that? Do you consider with hindsight that you were wrong to have blocked me during my offer to assist the project as an arbitration candidate or do you think you were right and that the consensus at ANI was wrong? If you think you were right please comment as regards blocks being preventative and punitive as the user Treasury Tag, now indefinitely blocked for such similar disruptions at multiple locations previous to this historic situation and after it, had been reverting my removal of their multiple questioning on my election discussion page and had been blocked by HJMitchel, removing the issue and ending any possibility of the situation continuing. User:Skomorokh acting as an election coordinator said, "Treasury Tag, the guidelines are clear as day in that voters may ask only one question per candidate on their Questions page" - Off2riorob (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]