Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/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

What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
I think this question is somewhat flawed. The Committee isn't here to hand out punishment. We have to try to do what is necessary to stop disruption of the encyclopaedia, but only what is sufficient to do so. That said, I think I tend to fall on the harsher side than average, especially as it concerns desysoppings, which is because I believe admins serve at the pleasure of the community, and a desysop has an immediate, clear appeals process; RFA. Courcelles 23:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
I've held these two flags since mid-2011, first as a member of the AUSC, and later as a confirmed permanent functionary. This would not change, and I doubt neither will my usage of them; running the occasional SPIs to help with the backlog, investigating vandalism, cleaning up issues. Courcelles 23:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
The first question is simple. Never. Not in a million years. There can be no secret trials, no Star Chamber. The second part is sometimes necessary, though. We do not, and cannot, share evidence that is protected by the privacy policy. We do not publicize or do anything to draw attention to child protection issues. That really is one of, if not the only, thing I've seen that we can't leave any on-wiki indication of. Almost everything else can be explained publicly, even if occasionally without the direct evidence. Courcelles 23:30, 19 November 2013 (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:

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

Question from Mark Arsten

Do you feel that the current Arbcom has been consistent in the way it deals with outing issues? If not, could you give an example of something that was handled poorly?

Question from SirFozzie

First off, thanks for stepping in front of the firing line that is ACE again ;).. My question is this: The last couple years have been trying times for the Committee, with members unable or unwilling to complete their terms,along with numerous strident disagreements. What needs to change, and do you think burnout amongst committee members is at an all-time high, and if so, why?

Questions by Sven Manguard

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?
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 ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
Please identify a few motions from 2013 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. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.
In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?
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 above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.
- If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?

- If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?

- All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?

Question from Iselilja

What do you think about a suggestion that arbitrators should more often recuse themselves on a time availability basis and be more hands-on and quickly to vote in those cases they do take part in?

Question from Tryptofish

What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?