Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/PaoloNapolitano

PaoloNapolitano

It is time to once again elect our Arbitrators. The ArbCom is intended to be the last resort of dispute resolution. The major problem of the Committee is that the its composition does not reflect the true range of Wikipedians. The ArbCom has never had a non-administrator member and that is in my eyes a major issue. The main concern is that many users involved in Arbitration procedures feel that they are being judged by a court of Wikipedian "elders". That is a very serious issue for Wikipedia and I believe that the Committee would only benefit from having a non-administrator Arbitrator. If I was a party in an Arbitration case I would be relieved to find a non-administrator in the committee that sees Wikipedia through the eyes of the vast majority of the community.

The other major concern is that the ArbCom deals with Administrator misconduct. I believe that it is unfair that the people who judge administrators' actions are administrators themselves. It gives the average user no say about administrators' actions. The administrators deals with the average users' conduct, but the average user does not deal with the administrators' conduct. Is that fair?

If I become the first ever non-administrator to be elected to the Committee I will be the voice of the "average Joe" of Wikipedia. While others might see my lack of administrative experience as a weakness, I see it as my strenght. Why? Because it gives me the advantage to make my statements and votes without any administrator bias.

A vote for me is a vote for a free and independent voice that represents the average user. Tick off my name when you vote. The Arbitration Committee needs an average guy the next years!

This candidate is willing to identify upon request.

Arbitration Committee Election 2011 candidate: PaoloNapolitano

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?

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.
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?
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.
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.
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.

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?

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.
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?

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?

c) Currently, much of ArbCom buisness 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?

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

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

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?
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?

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

c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
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.
Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

Individual questions

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is not limit on the number of questions which 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:

Question: What sort of content creation experience do you have on wikipedia and what article(s) do you think that you have done this on? --Guerillero | My Talk 20:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: Although I have created articles like Kristoffer Clausen and Rory Morrish, my emphasis has not been on article creation. Paolo Napolitano 20:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
A:
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:
An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
A:
Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
A:
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:
When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
A:
When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
A:
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A:
What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
A:

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

Question from User:Rainbow Dash

I personally like the idea of the "average joe" running for ArbCom, so you can expect a strong support from me. However, do you believe that we need major reform in the Committee regarding term length and the way things are handled? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: