Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Pgallert

Pgallert

I am contributing since 2008, my activity on Wikipedia is steady. Even though my edit count is just about to reach five digits, I am usually online for at least an hour a day, and when I'm not editing I spend that time reading, from time to time also teh dramah boards. I have pondered for a while whether and in which way I would like to take on more responsibility on Wikipedia. I believe that as an odd-one-out member of ArbCom my contribution could both be challenging for myself, and valuable to the community.

I am fully aware that no one has ever been elected into this body who did not have prior administrator status. This is not necessarily bad for ArbCom; prevalence of the admin bit and experience on Wikipedia correlate significantly. But I do think that this situation is not ideal for how the community and the rest of the world perceive how things work on Wikipedia. And true or not, these perceptions can damage our project.

If elected to ArbCom, I will neither seek nor accept administrator rights for the duration of my term. The CheckUser and Oversight permissions I will accept, though. The monitoring of their use is one of the Committee's functions, and it seems that most Arbs at some point in time join the Audit Subcommittee. I pledge to hand these privileges back once my term ends.

The most important right of an editor is to make edits, and ArbCom can take this right away for a considerable period. ArbCom is in an uncomfortable situation where arbitration is what it should do by virtue of its name, but a Supreme Court is what it really is. It also performs executive tasks in that it polices the use of advanced permissions. This is a lot of power in the hands of 15 people.

I wish to introduce a new view of arbitration to the Committee. I wish ArbCom's decisions to be more logical, and to be better explained. I also wish ArbCom to be a little less Supreme Court, and a little more Arbitration Committee, and I will do my best to popularise these views. 400 words limit mean that I cannot go into further detail at this point, but I am happy to clarify on the last two paragraphs on the Questions for the candidate page.

Pgallert (talk · contribs) is my only account on Wikipedia. I occasionally make a few IP edits for demonstration purposes in my lectures. I will create an account for public networks if elected. I fulfill the age restriction of the criteria for access to non-public data, and I will identify to the Foundation.

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?
Answer: IRL I am responsible for a department of 11 academics; dispute resolution is a small but not unimportant part of my work. I have been hearing disciplinary cases for both students and staff in the past few years, on a committee that pretty much works like ArbCom in that it makes final decisions. Ending more than a decade ago I was the president of a sports club for several years. There all I ever did was to resolve disputes.

On Wikipedia, I have a rather broad portfolio, even if my editing activities concentrate almost exclusively on Namibian topics. I am a coordinator of a large university project, I try to help getting the OshiNdonga, Otjiherero, and Khoekhoe Wikipedias up and running, and I write on Namibian geography, politics, and history.

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.
Answer: I have not been involved in arbitration or mediation on Wikipedia in any form. I have had a number of disputes. Sometimes I "won", sometimes I "lost", sometimes I walked away. I realise that an Arb cannot walk away, which frightens me a bit. Still I think that ArbCom should not exclusively consist of career mediators. That nobody knows me, and that next to nobody ever was in a conflict with me, can well be positive aspects of my candidacy.
Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?
Answer: Once ArbCom accepts a case there has been serious disruption of WP:ENC. This disruption needs to stop. If I see any chance to stop it in a lenient way (interaction ban, admonishment) then I would propose this. In situations of subtle vandalism or persistent POV pushing I would probably not be lenient. These are latent characteristics that are perhaps best treated by asking the contributor in question to suspend them, and if that's not working, to leave.
ArbCom Practices:
a) ArbCom and policies:
i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
Answer: ArbCom indirectly always comments on policy by interpreting it and applying it to a specific situation. Where it has difficulties interpreting certain policies—I'm thinking of the recent problems in the definition of "outing" and "civility"—it makes perfect sense for ArbCom to inform the community of this predicament, and not to bury it in case proceedings. ArbCom should also be in a position to recommend policy changes, but not from a position of authority.

ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
Answer: I am a bit surprised to see WP:5 characterised as an essay, I never saw it that way. Four of its items are policies in their own right. They are thus of direct importance to Wikipedia, even more so as they overlap with the founding principles on meta.

The pillar I have seen mentioned frequently in 2012 is WP:CIVIL. As the committee itself acknowledged, civility is wanted by everyone but hard to define, and it is one of the few policies on Wikipedia where I think that further polishing of the wording will not bring about any improvement in behaviour. The committee has started to assemble a few cases of precedence, and that's the only way civility disputes can ultimately be decided: ArbCom, but also lower-level dispute boards like AN/I, need to define a set of statements in a family of contexts that are considered insulting, and this blacklist needs to be published.

I think ArbCom could have been clearer in its documentation of its interpretation of civility. Instead of finding a fact like "X has communicated in an uncivil way" (several diffs), and then formulating a remedy like "X admonished", it could have published something like "X has called Y a Z" (diff), and "X is admonished for Finding-of-Fact N".

iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
Answer: The committee should consider legal concerns that the Wikimedia Foundation raises. That's one of the few cases where consensus is trumped by circumstances; it doesn't help if we all agree on something that will get WMF sued and WP taken offline. That's the only special thing about BLPs. Other than that, a biography is an article like any other, it neither deserves nor needs special treatment. It is a fallacy to assume that POV pushers will go away if we restrict BLP editing, and it is a fallacy to assume that tendentious editing on a town or a tribe or a historic article, will insult fewer people than if it happened on a BLP.

b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
Answer: I'd like to disagree with the presupposition phrase, as it does occasionally happen (e.g., here). ArbCom can and does aid in content disputes by suspending some problematic editors for a while. The Committee may establish procedures for the community to solve content disputes, that is specifically allowed by Arbitration Policy. Whether it should do that is a different question entirely. I'm sceptical of an ArbCom-imposed general procedure for solving content disputes. It is probably not feasible. But even if it were, it would be better in the form of a community-imposed procedure, possibly initiated by ArbCom. Analogous to my answer to 3. a) i) above, suggestions can always be made to the community, but they should not be bullied through. Outside of cases and motions, ArbCom is just a collection of 15 very experienced editors.

I should perhaps add that the separation of Wikipedia's content from its production process is somewhat artificial. With a bit of spin, every serious content dispute can be dressed as a conduct issue.

c) ArbCom and motions:
i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
Answer: The purpose of a motion is to provide a shortcut to prevent the workload of a full case. A motion is appropriate if a recent decision is to be amended in favour of a "convicted" party, if a scheduled appeal possibility is brought forward, or in a situation where the evidence phase can be skipped because the facts are not in dispute.

ii) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
Answer: I believe a motion that changes how ArbCom operates is not appropriate, see answer 4. b) below. Apart from that, no tool of ArbCom should be used to try to establish remedies for an editor for a second time for the same past violation, and in the absence of fresh transgressions no tool of ArbCom should be used to amend a remedy that already was agreed upon, to the disadvantage of an editor.

If there is no case before ArbCom a motion would in almost all cases that I can imagine be inappropriate. This has to do with the separation of powers that I hinted at in my nomination statement, and to which I still hope to get a question. If the Audit Subcommittee uncovered problematic behaviour, or if private communication to ArbCom suggested that some admin right needed to be reviewed, this might warrant a motion without an external filing party.

In the case described in the question, an unresolved issue that wasn't yet brought to ArbCom, I would not support a motion. Not escalating issues to ArbCom is not a very common challenge of the Wikipedia community, and probably the other methods of dispute resolution haven't been exhausted in such a situation.

iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
General Notice:^[1] Answer: The motion on civility enforcement was perfectly legitimate as the "topic ban" remedy for Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) was not consistent and needed to be clarified. What unfolded during this motion far exceeded what a motion should be used for. The motions on Iantresman, EncycloPetey, and India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, to name but a few, I found perfectly adequate, and I also agree with their outcomes. India/Pakistan was at mediation at the time of the motion, but then again the motion did not preempt any solution.

d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
Answer: ArbCom needs to keep those records. There is always the possibility of a case being reopened, amended by motion, or questioned informally, and someone should be in a position to recapitulate the findings.

ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
Answer: After all current Arbs' terms have expired (1-2 years, depending on the time of tabling) this information should no longer be kept. It should be stored in some sort of private Wiki with particular focus on the secrecy and integrity of data. Sitting Arbitrators should have access, plus the members of Auditing Subcommittee that serve on a community term. Nobody else should have access, particularly not the WMF.

iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
Answer: I have no intimate knowledge yet of how ArbCom exactly conducts their business. I could imagine that discussions of cases flow along a mix of public and private information. I further imagine that it would be difficult to split a discussion stream such that part of it happens on Wikipedia, and the other part on email or chat.

I thus don't think it is feasible to force ArbCom to have all discussions on-wiki. What I would like to see on-wiki is a shortened transcript where all unsuitable content is paraphrased or removed, but that still gives the picture of how and why a certain decision has been reached. Think of it like of a meeting protocol.

iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
Answer: It was hinted that the leaker was not a member of ArbCom, that the leak was an attack from outside. If this was the case, ArbCom members could have paid more attention to general security of their mailing lists, entropy of their passwords, possible weaknesses of their business processes, social engineering, or whatever else enabled this attack.

v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
Answer: My name is mentioned on my user page, and my real identity can easily be Googled.

vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?
Answer: Everyone has the right to see evidence presented against them. If that evidence is of the type that requires identification to the Foundation, then editors have to identify themselves before seeing it. If an editor wishes to question such evidence, this must also be made possible. The questioning should happen in camera in order not to perpetuate whatever violation took place. This recommendation bears the risk that the parties make the allegations public off-wiki. While this is a concern, it should not be a reason for trying anyone in absentia. I see one possible solution for this: That any evidence that would be regarded "private", can only be accepted after the presenter identified themselves with the Foundation. I think that should be logical, but I could not find any indication of it being current practice.

As for other evidence and uninvolved users, there is no right as such to examine it. It would, however, be advisable for ArbCom to make public whatever it can without repeating the harassment or outing editors. The absolute minimum to be presented to the community is a coherent explanation of its findings of fact, should that not be evident anyway.

e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
Answer: If ArbCom were strictly bound by precedence there would be no point electing new committee members every year. So the wording is correct, previous decisions cannot reasonably be binding for all eternity. On the other hand I think nobody wants the Committee to be completely unpredictable. If comparable cases are decided in entirely different ways ArbCom needs a strong motivation for that. Within one and the same year Arbcom should be very consistent in their decisions in order not to give the impression of being partisan. This necessitates admitting a mistake (if needed) rather than making a second ruling that is better, but different, or that is consistent, but again wrong.
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?
Answer: I am not aware of any functions that WMF should take over from ArbCom, or vice versa.

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?
Answer: The Committee came into this world not by community consensus but by the suggestion of Wikipedia's founder. That's not a perfect start but no one can change that now. What I think ArbCom should have no remit to do is changing its own ways to operate, in any significant manner, without community consensus. So I believe that although Arbcom policy allows it, the Committee should not have brought about motions on its modus operandi, and it should of course not have tabled a motion on future motions. That's pretty much like wishing yourself a magic wand, and meta-wishes are not allowed.
Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
Answer: It absolutely does. From an editor perspective there are many solutions. One that I found helpful is take on the editors in question, and if they return as socks, IPs, or meat puppets, unwatch the respective pages for some time. I wish we had an option to "take off my watchlist for 3/6/9/12 months", that would be helpful. Alternatively, recapitulating one's talk archive of last year will bring those old and fruitless debates back to mind. To me it happened more than once that the POV pusher had burned out in the mean time, and that I could silently get the article back to where it was before the war.

What can be done is to consider all of a user's contributions to an article or a field, and to evaluate whether consensus has repeatedly been violated. POV pushers should be indeffed long before the matter reaches ArbCom.

Moreover, ArbCom itself has a problem with civil POV pushers. Its pledge not to regulate article content gives it no other option than to consider behaviour only, and this can disenfranchise the subject expert who loses their temper over Randy.

b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
Answer: I believe factionalism is only a corollary of POV pushing. If a group of editors share an opinion, and if none of them is pushing a particular point of view, then we have consensus, not a faction.

Factionalism becomes problematic if we have many POV pushers instead of only one, and if they are pushing into the same direction. In this case the parties need to be reminded that consensus is not a head count. The task at hand is to enforce a holistic discussion of the problem in order to agree on a way forward, considering all arguments.

ArbCom should get involved only inasfar as the disagreement has become a conduct issue, but see my last remark in answer 3 b).

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?
Answer: English Wikipedia has fewer active editors than it did a few years ago. To a certain degree this is totally normal. The low-hanging fruits are plucked, and topics still in desperate need of editing require special abilities to be tackled. Not every Jill and Joe can do that. The aim should thus be not to recruit Jills and Joes but experts. All Jills and Joes are of course welcome per WP:ENC, but they do not need to be recruited through special awareness campaigns. ArbCom has no business here, this is the realm of the WMF.

ArbCom of course needs to consider the history and the abilities of editors when deciding remedies. This though should not lead to a situation where a vested editor holds the community at gunpoint, flashing their FA basket. Please note that this remark is general and does not constitute a comment on a particular recent case.
Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
General notice:^[1] Answer: I don't understand Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Final decision. No substantial critique intended, I just don't understand it. Such a situation opens a door for everyone and their dog to cry "cabal" and "abuse", and could have been avoided by better documentation.

To state the obvious, the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Final_decision remedies had a hole that MF subsequently discovered. With more precision in formulating the remedy this situation, including the unlucky motion that followed, could have been avoided. Looks to me like a concession made in order to close a case that was open for quite a while.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth#Final_decision—I cannot see how I would have decided differently.
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?
Answer: As mentioned in my nomination statement, I would like to influence two things which I think can be improved:
I wish ArbCom to make logical decisions. If I find someone guilty of insulting a neighbor the penalty cannot be to impound the car, or to end the work contract. Specifically I think the phrase "conduct expected of an administrator" has recently been overused to desysop administrators. If (only) editor conduct is a problem, and if that editor is an admin, I would propose to block or ban without desysopping (but see 2).

I wish to focus more on arbitration, less on sentencing. I think cases should normally end with the statement of who was at fault, and that any further similar behaviour of the guilty party will lead to blocks or bans through arbitration enforcement. I do not like to see ArbCom handing out these blocks or bans, as they are (after sometimes two months of proceedings) almost necessarily punitive.

1. is a change that I would immediately act upon. 2. is a change that I would propose to the other committee members for discussion. For as long as ArbCom still has the role of sentencing, I would vote on remedies like any other Arb.

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question: #:A:

Questions from Rschen7754

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

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

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
Answer: Eleven weeks is a long time for a case. It was affected by extremely engaged editors, none of which would wear out the slightest bit. Four of the main actors presented /Evidence far in excess of 500 words, the clerks could have been stricter on that. Much of the /Workshop page was misused to continue the ongoing conflict, and that should have been stopped much earlier. Jclemens indicated last year that it was the first primary drafting case for the drafting Arbitrator, it would probably be wise for the experienced Arbs to share best practices ahead of time, and to lend a hand when necessary.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
Answer: A Wikiproject serves as a platform for editors that regularly contribute to a specific topic. On its pages there is a possibility to discuss general strategy that does not apply to just one article, such as the priority of tasks, the handling of sets of similar articles, the interdependence of several articles on the same topic, and the development of agreements on the reliability of specific sources. A WikiProject further provides the possibility to address representative issues, for instance to discuss the inclusion of articles in offline Wikipedia.
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?
Answer: Vested contributors are an asset first. Every long-time editor will become somewhat attached to what they have done, and there will be methods to rub them the wrong way. I see a lot of the conflict arising from vested contributors arguing with each other. There is a problem there, as all parties could improve articles instead of bickering, but it is a relatively small problem: They are still improving articles, at some other time. A bigger problem would be if new editors were driven away by such actions. It is probably difficult to find evidence for that, but if it can be found, such behaviour needs to be addressed.
Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
Answer:

I would resign if I messed up so royally that my continued membership would pose the danger of bringing ArbCom itself into further disrepute. I don't think I need to link to a statement where I believe it happened in 2012.

Should my real life responsibilities require that I relocate to a place without Internet access, I would rather resign than becoming inactive for a long time. Please note that this is nothing more than a very remote possibility; I mention it to outline what generally would make me resign my place.
a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
Answer: Sometimes it indeed takes two, I'm thinking particularly of the vested editors again. Approaching an editor with known strong opinions, taking a side that this editor hates most, and then sieving the angry answer for possible violations of NPA is... weak. I wouldn't even offer mediation for something like this; they enjoy the dispute.

Sometimes it takes only one who is a pain for an innocent editor. However, I do not expect to see such cases at ArbCom. Once it has been escalated here, it is likely that more than one side has added fuel to the fire. I would not mitigate sanctions in such a situation, lest we want people to really start attacking each other, expecting to get a free attack for every punch they take. Two wrongs do not make a right.
ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
Answer:
There is a grey area in every policy. I would try to figure out whether the questionable action was a mistake, possibly a very stupid one, or if it was on purpose. Only if it was on purpose would I speak of "abuse" at all, and I would still apply in dubio pro reo. Also stupid mistakes can lead to desysopping, but there the chain of events should be considerably longer.
From a procedural point of view, being prosecutor and judge at the same time is not good. There are certain scenarios where only ArbCom can see that abuse took place, for instance from their work in the AUSC, or when untying the knots of a case. I would expect the filing Arb to recuse from the proceedings. The same applies by the way when adding involved parties—this should not be the task of Arbs, and if it is, they should recuse immediately thereafter.
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
Answer: ArbCom has no jurisdiction elsewhere. Actions on other WMF sites can affect users on en.wp, and where they do such evidence can be admitted, if public or admin-public.

I would be hesitant permitting outside evidence from non-WMF sites. It is difficult to draw the line of appropriateness, and while I would personally be sympathetic with someone who was e.g. harrassed off-wiki, I think it is inappropriate to retaliate right here.

I am a bit lost answering the part on private evidence. I guess I have no idea what sort of accusations land on the ArbCom mailing lists. Even with the restriction outlined in my answer to general question Practices d) vi) above my feeling is that such evidence should not be necessary to decide cases here: If there is no on-wiki indication of something fishy, why would we need ArbCom to act? Cases of stalking, grooming, or harrassment that purely or mainly take place off-wiki are probably for the Police, and the WMF should be the body aiding this process, not ArbCom.
What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
Answer: Apart from Wikipedia I do not have much of an online profile. There's no twitter account to take over, and there's no online access to my bank account. I have, however, changed my password to one of sufficient entropy as outlined on xkcd.
If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
Answer: Yes.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also a follow-up question: you say on your userpage that you don't edit on weekends. Would this remain true if you were elected? --Rs chen 7754 20:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Thanks for asking this question, I saw the concern in your voters' guide. What I wanted to say with my user page statement is that I am off duty on weekends. I might work, I might edit Wikipedia, but I do not feel obliged to do so, and I would normally not take on any new major tasks. If you go through my contributions you will notice that I actually edit on weekends. However, I'm from a different century compared to many Wikipedians, and I live in a very remote corner of the world.

This coming weekend I'll be camping at Blutkuppe [Blood Hill], a geographical feature so little known and so far away from everything that it doesn't even make sense yet to redlink it. I'll not have Internet access througout most of that tour. I will leave laptop and smart phone at home, or else I will not fully enjoy myself. Such trips will happen 6-8 times a year. On all other weekends, my sons will come first. Once they sleep—This is what will change should I be successful—I will feel that it is my duty to catch up on open issues and go online.

I will also regularly conduct business travel to areas that have no Internet access. I am involved in the Square Kilometre Array project where radio silence is a prerequisite, and I already outlined my involvement in offline Wikipedia projects on my user page. Such trips will happen 3-4 times a year. Each time I will be offline for 2-5 days, and I fear I cannot make any pledge to prevent that, or else my real life will suffer. I hope this answers your concerns, Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SirFozzie

Considering much of the Arbitration Committee's duties have to deal with administrator's actions, do you think the fact that you have never been an administrators would be a negative in attempting to judge such actions, since you haven't "walked a mile in their shoes?" SirFozzie (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Certainly, concerning issues of misuse of administrator's rights I would be the least experienced of the Committee, by a margin. Two possible answers seem to be appropriate. First, I will be one of fifteen people, and I am receptive to proper motivation. Neither would I have the desire to pick a fight in a situation of overwhelming consensus, nor would I attempt to judge an action that I do not fully understand. Second, and you might brush it off as naïve, I did not have the impression that decisions on administrator misconduct are particularly complex. Prior admonishments are an alarming sign, refusal to discuss own actions are problematic, WP:INVOLVED needs to be evaluated, the big no-no are wheel wars. If a wheel war was preceded by problematic behaviour, someone will propose desysopping. This is of course an extreme simplification of what the Committee is doing, but I hope that I have the maturity to abstain if I cannot make an informed decision.

Question from Coren

You state in your statement that you have no intention to seek or use administrative powers. (Setting aside the fact that there may be reason why you might need some of them to do your duties, which may have technical solutions not involving "being an admin"). Could you elaborate on why that is the case?
Answer: Well, there have been several discussions on the necessary requirements of running for ArbCom. The official threshold is still at a few hundred edits, and a currently unblocked account. I don't believe in "show that you have the trust of the community by submitting an RfA". I believe I would pass RfA, even in its current form, but I would have to make certain adjustments as to why I need the tools. I do not need the tools. I would have to lie. I do not want to lie, I have worked hard (in real life) not to ever have to lie to anyone. It's a privilege that I won't easily give away.

Expanding on my nomination statement, I do not think we do a service to ArbCom or Wikipedia by de facto requesting admin status. It gives the impression that "administrator" is the stepping stone to any advanced permission on Wikipedia. Conversely, as improving articles requires no permission at all, a statement is implied that bureaucracy comes before anything else, and that writing Wikipedia is among the least valued tasks. All of these designations are wrong. Even the most hardcore conservatives will admit that "oppose - not an admin" is nothing more than a vehicle to express that this editor did never attempt to face scrutiny of their Wikipedia editing. Or are there really Wikipedians out there that think only janitors may sit on a School Board?

There have been non-admin nominations by several editors in the past. I respect most of them but I have the feeling that every of those candidates had some dark spot on their vest, apart from not being administrator. I have the feeling that "not an admin" is a red herring, and I wish that people come up with other reasons to oppose me, if oppose they must. A good candidate would be "no on-wiki experience in dispute resolution"; I would have to live with that.

Finally, I might lack perspective or imagination, but I cannot think of any Arb task that would require +sysop. The ability to view deleted content has been added to both CU and OS recently. Blocking editors and protecting pages can be done by clerks; at least one of them is administrator.

Answer shortened, was too chatty --06:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from The Devil's Advocate

How exactly how would you define civil POV-pushing and what would you examine to determine when there has been civil POV-pushing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Civil POV pushing := POV pushing without insulting anyone or blowing up. Indications are selective use of sources, irrational attack on the reliability of sources that the other party wants to use, ignorance to objections, and often the repetition of the same statements in re-hashed form. The difficulty is that any editor familiar with the subject immediately sees what is going on, but outsiders might take it as a normal argument aimed at improving the article. And the problem is that the other party might blow up eventually, and gets punished for that.
As a counter to the questions about your lack of admin status, would you say that being a non-admin gives you certain strengths that an admin would more likely not have and, if so, would you describe them?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: No, not strengths. I don't think someone loses certain abilities after passing RfA. But I think it would give credibility to ArbCom, and some editor might be more comfortable to approach a non-admin on the committee. If you went to court over a disputed speed ticket, and the bench was filled with Traffic Police, would you have confidence in a fair trial? If you knew in advance that this was going to happen, would you still go to court, rather than paying the damn ticket? Of course this analogy limps, but there is a grain of concern out there that this has happened, and might happen again.

Another general advantage, not a strength of mine, would be that a new and non-admin Arb has fewer prior involvements in disputes and would have to recuse less often.
You indicate that you strongly value honest so I am curious how seriously you would take dishonesty in a conduct dispute? What affect would deception from someone in a case have on your decision-making?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: I described it as a privilege, people lie and deceive all the time. If one party lied to ArbCom I would probably be emotionally affected, in that I would be less inclined to believe other statements of theirs, and in that I would assume a purpose rather than a mistake, see my answer to Rschen's Q6 a). It should however be considered that at young age, lying is sometimes a spontaneous reaction, and that there are quite a few editors in that age group. Lying itself is not against policy, IIRC, so I would not punish it in itself.

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
Answer: The Committee should ask the member if they would be willing to voluntarily vacate their seat. In extreme cases (many months of inactivity and/or lack of prior notice and/or doubt that they will ever come back) the Committee could vote to remove them per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators.
Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team? Why?
Answer: I'm not sure to what extent I would be allowed to pick this according to my preferences, and to a certain degree all Arbs' participations cover all topics. Probably not the Incoming Mail team, due to my lesser activity on weekends as noted above in the add-on question from Rschen. Probably also not the Higher Permissions team, at least not in the first year, as I have no experience in that area. Contrary to what my job title indicates I'm not a very technical person, so the Technical Team would probably not profit much from my help. Hence if I could choose it would be the Ban Appeals team. The Case Management team is not for newbies but I would help out there if necessary.

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.
There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.
How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?
Answer: I'm not sure I agree with your dichotomy of community and authority, particularly as you relate to how Wikipedia is run. Apart from the WMF I think no one here has authority over others. If I really have a good motivation I will win any argument. The user rights are not relevant, as every noticeboard is patrolled by the particular right holders to act on what is requested.

For content issues there are these two options, for instance if a somewhat unorthodox suggestion is posted to a WikiProject talk page. One can now either start a consensus-seeking discussion, or one wait for one of the lucid regulars to come online and brush off the suggestion with irony, sarcasm, or (hopefully) a very good argument.

For rules (that of course serve the community and the Wikipedia purpose, not the other way round) and their implementations there is that spectrum that some call strict-lenient, firm-soft, or the like. Applying a rule unconditionally is sometimes the easy way out: Nobody can whack me over doing that, and I do not need to become familiar with the background of the situation. For an Arb, this is always inappropriate. Things brought before the Committee are always multi-faceted, and if they had a simple policy solution, then that solution would have been applied instead of a case being requested.
What does "Civility" mean to you?
Answer: Every Wikipedian deserves to be treated politely and with respect. Civility is the means to achieve that. It means to assume good faith, to belittle neither editors nor edits, and if something is going on that one does not understand, to inquire before reverting even once. It also means to acknowledge that particularly on en.wp there are editors from different cultures, contributing on different levels of English and writing in different dialects. Something that for me is just plain English might be an insult to someone. Something that I consider free speech might be heresy to someone else. Instead of retaliating it is important to consider that, and to empathise, if at all possible, with the "other side".

Question from User:Casliber

I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Your thoughts don't give me much leeway to arrive at an independent answer, and to a certain degree I agree with your statements.

What I do disagree with is the implicit suggestion that rulings regarding content policies, including a few guidelines of very good standing, should be avoided whenever possible because they could be seen as rulings on article content. ArbCom's current remit is the final and near-final resolution of disputes, and the sanctioning of those editors that did not abide by the rules. All rules. Therefore content policies are not "off-limit" when examining editor conduct; otherwise civil POV pushing, the theme of this year's candidate questions, would be off-limit for ArbCom.

Investigations of breaches of content policies should, however, not go as far as ArbCom coming to an own opinion about which sources are reliable in a particular context. This would be dangerous, potentially imposing a non-subject expert's opinion on a panel of editors that have way more insight. Instead the Committee should investigate whether a consensus exists, and whether parties have violated that consensus, deliberately besmirched the reputation of other editors or their sources, formed a faction, and so on.

As already mentioned in my answer to the ArbCom Practices general question B.3, the complete separation of how content is produced and what content is produced is not entirely realistic. I further agree with Kww's statement that certain content disputes will not [soon] be solved: They are not yet solved in the real world, how can we skip that step and speculate? Nor should this ever happen, as Wikipedia by now has considerable influence on the real world, particularly the media.

Questions from User:Hestiaea

As you can see from my edit history I've been asking questions about truth and honesty. I was interested to see that you are the only candidate who has so far made a statement about this. How far can you carry this principle, do you think? What would happen if telling the truth meant embarrassing the Committee, or Wikipedia? For example, if the truth hadn't been told soon enough, telling it now would be an embarrassment, for you and your fellow members. And if there is an easy avenue to avoid telling the truth, perhaps without actually lying, and if there is strong social pressure, what do you do? The fate of whistleblowers is well known, at least to those who know the world. Would you really tell the truth, if the consequences were possibly severe?

Answer: Wikipedia is my hobby. It cannot do anything harmful to me. I wouldn't even lie if my job depended on it, I would rather feel that I have the wrong job. See, I've practiced this a few hundred times: If something went wrong, I stand up and admit it. It is incredibly embarrassing the first few times, but one gets used to it eventually, and it completely disarms your opponents, if you have any. Over time it makes you strong, and after a dozen times you enjoy the freedom to do that. I do not foresee to change this behaviour should I be elected.

Whistleblowing is a different story. It is telling the truth to someone who didn't expect to hear it and who never asked. It is further telling the truth about someone else. This can take the form of gossip, that is not my task. I would of course not go out and spread stories about who is a Nazi, where does editor X live, and what user A wrote about user B. It can also be genuine whistleblowing of facts that I become aware of due to internal discussions or the use of CU/OS permissions. That would depend on the case, and I imagine that this situation is not entirely hypothetical for an Arbitrator.

Your core question is difficult to answer for me, as I lack the imagination of exactly what filth I would encounter in my work on the Committee. I believe that for ArbCom, as well as for Wikipedia itself and all its editors, it would be the best to stand up and admit errors and wrongdoings. I promise that I'll be the first to suggest that to the Committee, but without a concrete example I don't want to promise complete openness at this stage. There are situations where being silent gives strategic advantages, and there are situations where giving an honest opinion is the clumsiest thing to do ("Dear, how do I look in this dress?"). In severe danger (to my or my children's health, for example) I have lied before, and would do so again.

Questions from Cunard

Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closes

Anchor: #RfC closes

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
Answer: No, I still have my own backlog where it is unlikely that anyone would help me.
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review regarding review of closes of requests for comment.
Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."
Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.
Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
Answer: The RfC is still open. The discussion so far goes into exactly the direction that I would also support, that any experienced uninvolved editor may close, and that the situation that the closer was not an admin must not be the sole reason to overturn the closure. Closures, also those done by admins, may be reviewed by admins and non-admins alike.

I normally do not close discussions anymore, as I have experienced that my missing admin flag can be a straw that discussion parties hold onto. The opposite also holds: That a review of a closure, if partly requested due to non-admin status of the closer, can develop into a discussion whether non-admin closures are at all proper. Not that I cannot take the heat (otherwise I would have no business here), but if any admin can close with less drama, then any admin is more effective than I.
The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?"
Deletion discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5#Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#NAC, supervote and vote counting for several recent examples.

Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Move review, or something else.
Answer:

I do not agree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN, because editors on AN are not a representative sample of the Wikipedia community.

I do agree that an RfC can be overturned by consensus at WP:AN, insofar as this is just a statement of fact. Whether that should be the case is a different question; I assume that this is what you wanted to ask?
My answer to this would have two parts:
Any RfC closing should leave the option of being revised, and if necessary, overturned.

Revision and overturning should not happen on AN.

I like your implicit suggestion of creating Wikipedia:RfC closure review. Ultimately, the policies / guidelines point to Wikipedia:Closing discussions. There the wording is inconsistent; it starts with "editor/administrator", with only the closure of off-topic discussions delegated to "usually an administrator" (emphasis mine). Further down the page, there is no mention of "editor" anymore, only "administrator", but that may well be a lack of copyediting. If the community (still) is of the opinion that non-admins may close RfCs then the request for closure at a subpage of AN is misplaced, as is the discussion of that closure at AN.

Transparency

Anchor: #Transparency

Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
1. Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
2. If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.
  Answer: I believe I have answered that in the "General questions", 3. d) iii).

Recusals

Anchor: #Recusals

In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.
See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk regarding this case request.
See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."
Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.
Answer: If I felt so strongly about a fellow editor that I would make a remark like "You spat in my face", then I would recuse. The age of the incident is inconsequential in this case, as the remark itself was current. Previous disagreements, if unrelated to the case and not themselves fist fights, would be no sufficient reason for me to recuse. But I would seriously consider every good faith request.
Former arbitrator Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.
Answer: I have strong opinions about many things, that alone is no reason to recuse. I would recuse on all Namibian disputes, but I doubt we will ever get one. I would also recuse on cases involving editors that I was in conflict with but I only remember one such case.

Consensus

Anchor: #Consensus

Suppose non-admins can close controversial AfDs. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley?
If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?
Answer: I cannot really develop a strong opinion because I cannot see the deleted article. Remember, I'm not an admin, and due to the BLP categorisation the page has not been restored for deletion review. Judging what the consensus is in this case is also a bit fly-by-night. I would have to take all !votes at face value which is not possible in this case because they contradict each other.
After considering Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley?
Answer: I'm not interested in articles on minor celebrities and would therefore not !vote at all.
WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
Answer: (General answer, for reasons mentioned above, but please note that I am not requesting adminship) Low profile is the second condition, not the third. "Low profile" is a very muddy expression, and the linked essay does not do much to clarify that. Specific to your question, I would try to assess whether there is consensus that the person of the BLP has a low profile or not. Consensus in this case would mean that one party makes arguments that the other party cannot show to be invalid. In this type of evaluation I would discard opinions without proper rationale ("obviously" or "obviously not"), and those that do not mention the clause at all.
The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).
(a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?
Answer: If there is no consensus, then all remains as it was before. Deletion discussion: article kept, deletion review: original closure maintained or discussion relisted, contested page protection: protection lowered or lifted. I do not see the conflict. The logical undo for an AfD closure is to re-open the discussion, not to close it with a different result.

(b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?
Answer: If a block is contested, and the discussion arrives at no consensus, then the block should be reverted. In the inverse case, an unblock should probably be maintained if there is no consensus.
When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
Answer: The AfD you mention is with Keep: 28, Don't keep: 9 certainly an extreme case. But you can see that many of the keep votes refer to (here) irrelevant policies (WP:N), are arguments along Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, or do not offer any policy or guideline based rationale at all. There is consensus in the AfD that the scandal was significant. The last remaining question for closing "keep" or "no consensus" is whether or not her role in the scandal was significant. I cannot see consensus on this from the AfD, but again, I cannot see the article itself, so I'm uncomfortable criticising the close. Please !vote in the deletion review if you have a strong opinion, it is still open.

From my own experience I remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackmailer Paradox (now a new redirect, original article admin-only). I was very impressed that the closing admin actually read the rationale and saw that no "keep" voter addressed it.
Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
Answer: The closer, admin or not, should sieve out all non-policy based arguments. They should then check if there is consensus on the policy-based arguments. No head count. If the "keep" !voters refute the deletion rationale the page should be kept. If the nominator or its supporters raise arguments that no "keep" !voter can address the page should be deleted. Sometimes both happens, that's a "no consensus". Sometimes nothing happens, that's a relist.
Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?
Answer: I would have opposed because of the wording, per reasoning of SirFozzie.

Desysopping

Anchor: #Desysopping

EncycloPetey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee on 8 September 2012. His last edit was four hours after the arbitration case was filed 29 August 2012. At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey, arbitrators Hersfold (talk · contribs) and Courcelles (talk · contribs) said they would have supported an admonishment and not a desysop had EncycloPetey acknowledged his errors and pledged not to make those mistakes in the future. But because he was non-responsive for a week, the Arbitration Committee opted to desysop him.
1. Would you have supported or opposed this motion to desysop? Would you have proposed a different motion?
  General notice:^[1] Comment: I disagree with your overall assessment that EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) was desysopped for being unresponsive in an ArbCom case. The main reason was his usage of the tools when involved, as described in the case request. A minor reason was his unresponsiveness with respect to his admin actions, before the case started and during the case.
  
  Answer: I would have supported the motion.
2. In his statement, former arbitrator Carcharoth (talk · contribs) mentioned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision#History of the case as a similar case where an admin left in the middle of a case. He wrote, "ArbCom is not a court, but being able to build in delays for single-party arbitration cases should not be impossible (this would not apply to multi-party arbitrations about a volatile and current issue)."
  Do you agree with his position on building in delays for single-party arbitration cases? If yes, describe how would you have built in a delay for EncycloPetey.
  Answer: I agree that cases can be interrupted if one party cannot respond in time. That was not the case here, EncycloPetey made a non-statement in the case request, said goodbye on a WikiProject, and did not edit ever since.
3. A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship?
  Answer: Since 2010 all desysopping included an explicit statement about how to get the tools back, with or without a minimum time between remedy and fresh RfA. I would not support a resysop through ArbCom in such situations. Clarification requests from older cases could be considered by ArbCom, some of their desysop remedies explicitly allow approaching the Committee.

Civility case clarification request

Anchor: #Civility case clarification request

A request for clarification was filed for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement in October 2012. See this permanent link before the discussion was archived by a clerk.
1. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, one arbitrator called Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) "a net negative". Do you agree or disagree that Malleus Fatuorum is a net negative?
  Comment: For this group of questions please also see my answers 3, 4.1, and 5 to Rschen. They apply because whenever the phrase "vested editor" is used I think of Malleus first, although there are many others.
  
  Answer: My potential term as Arb would be over before I would have vetted the 138K edits from MF. Even if I had the time, I would not attempt to judge the account-lifetime achievements of an editor who has contributed as much, and as much quality, as Malleus. From my point of view there is no question that he is an overwhelming net positive, although he has broken CIVIL more than once. I can only speculate why he does that, but let me try: It is his form of entertainment after a few hours of concentrated work on an article.
2. A second arbitrator wrote that "Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made." (He later revised the comment.)
  (a) One view is that this comment is an honest and justified—though perhaps overly frank and poorly worded—assessment of the situation that was mischaracterized by some members of the community. An opposing view is that this comment is a hurtful, inappropriate comment that kicked an editor when he was down and inflamed the situation. Please share your thoughts about this comment.
  Answer: "Not a Wikipedian" has become a meme that will be around for some time. The comment, coming from a sitting Arb, left me speechless---and I'm still speechless because I would be in danger of violating pillar 4 when trying to describe what I think about it.
  
  (b) Does this comment violate Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?
  Answer: The comment violated spirit and letter of Wikipedia:Civility because it was disrespectful. It further violated spirit and letter of Wikipedia:No personal attacks because "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (original emphasis): It is disparaging to tell MF, of all editors, that he does not belong here.
  
  (c) Was the block of this arbitrator for "personal attacks" justified or unjustified under Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?
  Answer: No, the block was over the top. Jclemens (talk · contribs) had no current warnings for incivility and was not under sanctions. I wonder if for an Arb {{uw-npa2}} or {{uw-npa4im}} would be appropriate, I would have picked something in that range.
  
  (d) Describe your thoughts about what it means to be a Wikipedian. Include discussion about indefinitely blocked editors and banned editors, both those who have contributed positively to the encyclopedia and those who have only vandalized the encyclopedia.
  Answer: In my opinion, everyone who positively and somewhat regularly contributes, is a Wikipedian. Vandals are not, but we can be lucky to have them here: Imagine they would hang out in bars instead and pick fights. Indef-blocked and banned users can be Wikipedians, too, if they contributed in good faith but lacked the competence or willingness to play along.
3. Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum?
  Answer: Opposed. The request was to clarify the topic ban. Without a new case this cannot be escalated into a site ban. Even if the evidence were undisputed (it wasn't) the shortcut of a motion cannot be taken to overturn decisions from a very recent full case.
4. The motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum and the comments made by some arbitrators sparked much dissent in the community. Some editors considered leaving Wikipedia: Sitush, Black Kite, Floquenbeam, John, Pablo X, RegentsPark, Boing! said Zebedee, Drmies, SpacemanSpiff, ThatPeskyCommoner, Beetstra, and Nortonius.
  (a) When there is such a backlash to a proposed decision, how does the backlash factor into your decision?
  Answer: Not really much, although it is another sign that this motion was not a good idea.
  
  (b) SilkTork (talk · contribs) withdrew his support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum the same day he wrote, "The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want."
  Do you agree or disagree with his opinion?
  Answer: I agree, with the caveat that commentators on an ArbCom page do not constitute a good sample of the community. A much better sample would be (in this particular case) the talk page of MF, where presumably everyone affected by MF's editing would have something positive or negative to say. (Disclosure: I also edited that page once, and I found him to be absolutely polite, even humble). And if I may offer another piece of speculation: MF's comments usually hurt an opaque group of editors, or one specific editor. To the peanut gallery they are often funny, intelligent, and outright lucid. That doesn't alleviate the civility problems but might explain the "silent majority".
5. Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to further restrict Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)'s participation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (2)?
  Answer: No, that motion lacked logic again. If MF now says "Oppose, concerns about maturity" and someone asks for diffs then he may neither supply them nor clarify his position in any other way.
6. If you would have opposed the above two motions, or if you believe a better decision could have been made, what action would you have suggested?
  Answer: A mutual interaction ban with administrators ;) No, seriously, that Malleus frequently makes snarky comments is undisputed. The case itself was thus not necessary. I would have proposed by motion to serve blocks of slowly ascending duration (e.g. 1 hour increment), for each comment that clearly is a breach of civility, as determined by a short discussion (For some of the comments that were singled out I'm not so sure they were). To any admin reverting such blocks I would propose to give an only warning with the prospect of a motion to desysop. The very slow increment I would have proposed to force MF to decide, Do I risk not being able to finish this GA review today, or can I just resist from making this comment in order to improve Wikipedia?
7. Courcelles (talk · contribs) wrote on his talk page, "As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying 'you get the admins you get, no opinions from you' but still having them be a member of the community."
  Do you agree or disagree with his need to have "an insanely high bar" to ban users from RfA?
  Answer: I disagree, although I think I understand the line of thought. One editor alone can change nothing at RfA, even a group cannot change much if it is too small.
8. Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?
  Answer: A net-positive editor should by definition not be banned, why should anyone want that? When ArbCom decides to topic or site-ban an editor, I would think that this exactly is the determination that is the background of the ban: That this particular editor has not been a net-positive in this topic area, or at all. However, net-positive is not just more good than bad edits. The time that other editors clean up copyvios behind them, make statements in dispute resolution, or try to talk other users out of retirement, if it was that user's fault, counts against them.

Note and thank you

I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to #RfC closes, #Transparency, and #Civility case clarification request, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.

Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from Risker

With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.

How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Yes, Wikipedia is a democracy in certain respects. I assume that decisions are not simply made by vote, but by a discussion followed by a vote. I further assume that whoever will be elected, and whoever is already sitting, is an intelligent individual who is open to rational arguments, and that all are keen to solve problems for the good of the project. In this case I would have every chance to convince my fellow members with a to-the-point rationale, and if I do not manage to "impose" my opinion on others I would only have myself to blame. I would as a matter of course stand by the majority decision in (almost) all cases: You can't have democracy and accept it only if it goes your way. Losing a vote (or an election, as might be likely in my case) is just as much part of democracy as winning one.

Regarding Committee solidarity, I find a well-documented dispute better than an official 11-0-0 decision which was behind the scenes actually 4-3-4. I think nobody expects ArbCom to be some sort of a hive, and I have seen several editors express preference for a well-mixed Committee.

Question from SilkTork

As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: My local time zone is UTC +1. I'll normally be available in the morning (07-10 UTC), and then late at night again (20-22 UTC).

Question from Bazonka

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: In Namibia I am the only active and regular editor, meetups are therefore difficult. I got a scholarship for Wikimania this year, the first time I met other Wikipedians in person. I am involved in a few outreach activities connected to my work: deploying offline Wikipedia to rural schools, conducting training on editing and (soon) interface translation, introducing the idea of the project to government. You can find details on my user page. I am currently co-authoring a small book chapter on the concept of reliable sources for indigenous knowledge.

I do not expect to be less involved if elected to ArbCom. It could actually become more should anyone in Namibia pick up what an arbitrator is, and that there is one in the country. Besides that, ArbCom work itself is largely off-wiki, so my involvement would naturally shift from on-wiki to off-wiki activities in a significant way.

Question from Giano

Firstly, let me say that I don’t think not being an admin should affect your chances of election at all – it probably will, but it shouldn’t. I have come here because your name was given to me as the sort of candidate that I might like. However, I am concerned about your commitment to the project.

Putting aside, for the moment, your low edit count. You say “I practice a thing called weekend, and I am part of an entity called family. Saturdays and Sundays I am off, also off Wikipedia.” You also say “I am usually online for at least an hour a day.” Do you feel that with such limited time, you can function effectively as an Arb – I have heard it described as almost a full time job. I know myself that just reading and evaluating the evidence on a complicated case can take an hour, catching up on a couple of case after a weekend can take two hours – and then having caught up, you will have to deliberate etc. Even if you are a fast reader, how is this achievable? The Arbcom is slow enough, will you be a passenger? If not, how will you be able to function with such limited time available? You then say “The CheckUser and Oversight permissions I will accept, though.” What if we have an emergency at a weekend – it has happened. I believe that Checkuser and Oversight are a responsibility rather than an honour: You won’t be around, does this mean that you think for over 30% of the time your share of responsibility should be permanently the burden of others? Might these rights be better given to someone else with more time available?

If you can convince me that you fully understand the meaning of responsibility and commitment, I will be happy to vote for you and encourage others to do the same. I think I can count five or six interrogation marks there, so that’s enough for now. Giano (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I have a full-time job, I have a family, and I will sacrifice neither of that for Wikipedia. I also think nobody else should. That said, the "one hour per day" was an at-least commitment. That's what I think I can contribute even if I am very busy, usually it will be more than that. I got an impression when browsing through past cases of the effort it takes to evaluate evidence, to discuss remedies, to formulate statements. I think I can do that, else I would not have offered my nomination. I cannot take another full-time job, though.

I will not be the ideal person to react to emergency situations on weekends. I wouldn't be able to do emergency blocks myself, there will be weekends when I'm not around at all, and I already indicated that the "incoming mail" task force would not be my favourite area. I can, however, assure you of my commitment to the project and my (for now at most partial) understanding of what it takes to be an Arb.

Question from Begoon

I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?

Answer: Lets me elaborate on two different aspects of your enquiry:

GOVCOM: Certain roles on Wikipedia need trusted individuals to fill them. What went wrong is that all sorts of different tasks were given to ArbCom, as if we had only 15 or 18 trustworthy editors on en.wp. As a result, Arbs have too many hats, judicative, legislative and executive. Within its judiciary powers, ArbCom members often take the roles of prosecutor, defence, judge, and jury---all at the same time. So in the wider sense of the term "government", ArbCom loosely governs Wikipedia in form of an oligarchy while it should be done by the community and the WMF. However, it was given this role.
I love analogies, so consider this: A plain-cloth Arb walks past your house and smells marihuana. He puts his magistrate robe on and issues a search warrant. Then he changes into a police uniform and enters the house. He finds something of which you don't know what it is. He says it is Marihuana in disguise, but he cannot show it to you, or else you would disguise it better next time, and he could not find it anymore. He then assumes a place in a jury, emails his fellow Arbs, and you are found guilty. Next they all put their judge robes on and sentence you. They execute the sentence themselves, on the spot. Nobody but Arbs may see the evidence, that's why it makes sense that you are only allowed to appeal to the very Arbs that convicted you.

Sounds familiar? Well, this is the normal case, without any wrongdoing by Arbs. All perfectly legal. Now imagine an Arb with somewhat sinister motives. No wonder the community is paranoid about who becomes Arbitrator. It is a lot of power, and it can be misused if desired.
Arbitration vs. Supreme Court: I have lived in three states with three different forms of government, and in all three arbitration boards and Supreme Court are two entirely opposite bodies. I therefore wrongly assumed that my election statement would be unambiguous when I stated that I wish ArbCom to be a little less Supreme Court, and a little more Arbitration Committee. What I meant is that arbitration should find who is at fault in a conflict and if possible propose a solution, whereas the courts should a) determine whether the arbitration got it right, and b) decide what the penalty shall be.
This is my idealised view of the future of Wikipedia governance: ArbCom as a group of volunteers that clarify what has happened, and whether certain disputes can go to court at all. The community as jury to confirm the verdict. A bench of judges to determine the sentence, and Admins as Police to check on parole conditions and to execute the sentence in form of bans and blocks.

That's of course very different from what we now have in place. I put my candidacy up not to scrap what has been done so far, but to be able to initiate discussion from within ArbCom about that future vision: The situation that the Committee is still procedurally appointed by the founder of WP makes me feel that Arbs as a group are pretty much untouchable, and that any change must come from the inside of that rather powerful body.

Questions from GabeMc

Questions: 1) Would you close an RfC that was happening as part of a formal mediation but wasn't to be closed by the mediator/s when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that resulted in said RfM and RfC? 2) Assuming this has happened inappropriately, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: If it was a discussion on the same topic, with some participants being the same, then I would consider myself involved, and not close the RfC. Generally, as an Arb or an ArbCom election candidate I would not close contentious RfCs or !vote on indef-blocks or community bans at all, as if it does come back to ArbCom one day, I would have to recuse.

If it happens inappropriately, the actions that could follow depend a bit on the time when it is discovered: If concerns are brought up immediately, one can simply undo the closure and leave a reminder on the closer's talk page, explaining WP:INVOLVED (if one can reasonably agf on the closer's intentions). If it is only discovered at some later time, one could discuss the appropriateness of the closure and act on the result that this discussion arrives at.

Questions from Thryduulf

Question 1: You have stated that you do not want the admin tools, at least for the duration of your term. Can you elaborate on why this is (or link to where you have already done this if I've overlooked it)?
Answer: The gist of my view I provided in the answer to Coren's question 1, and to The Devil's Advocate's question 2. I don't think that "admin" is a good stepping stone to other responsibilities on English Wikipedia. It reinforces the "big deal" perception of adminship, and it might frighten those editors that wish to approach ArbCom precisely because of perceived admin wrongdoing.
Question 2: Do you foresee any problems that your not being an admin will cause? If so how do you plan to solve/work around these problems? Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Not being able to emergency-block an editor will certainly be a a disadvantage. Combined with the fact that I am relatively unknown I imagine a situation that I might post on AN/I something like "Please somebody immediately indef-block XY for reasons that I cannot disclose. I may request this because I am an arbitrator."---That's certainly a bit weird. It is also double work, but I think it will be valuable in the long run. Once ArbCom has one non-admin member, and provided that I do a good job there, others will have it easier to become elected in the future. If I can repudiate the "Oppose-not an admin" viewpoint then I will have achieved quite a bit already.
Thank you for the prompt answers. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

Civility enforcement questionnaire

Or more of a request: I'd appreciate it if you'd take part in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire, or if you decline, say here why you consider this questionnaire not to be worth your time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I don't think my answers to this questionnaire would be worth your time, that's why I do not intend to fill it in. It tries to take the concept of civility out of the context where it might be broken, and that's not a good idea. To most of the questions I would have to respond with "it depends", anyway. I'm sure you are aware of the rich negative commentary on the RfC talk page---count me as one of the civil opposers to this civility questionnaire.

Thanks for your reply. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions

when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
Answer: A site ban might be necessary for editors that get into the same type of conflict in the majority of areas they work on, or with a lot of editors they interact with. For single-purpose accounts, if their behaviour is repeatedly sanctionable and a topic ban would cover all their contributions, they might just as well be indef-blocked.
on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
Answer: I agree with your general assessment of what to consider, and I agree with a lot of statements elsewhere on that page. But I would believe that to assess an editor as net-positive or net-negative one would need more than "simple maths". It is sometimes not easy to see (let alone forecast) what ripples a ban sends out, or if and when an attack target will leave Wikipedia due to problematic fellow editors. So the variables (net positive/negative, improve/hamper the encyclopedia) are not very well measurable, and what we cannot have in place---even in ArbCom---is a system where the personal assessment of that variable becomes the only deciding factor.
to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
Answer: ...deportation to the country of origin.
do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
Answer: In a way, yes, and in another way, no. Yes when you think of protecting a society from danger. The individual is no longer able to do whatever the community thought is evil. No in the way of severely restricting individuality. The block from only one of the wikis of this world is, if you look at the bigger picture, no barrier to self-development, and no blemish on one's CV. No also if you think of personal punishment. A jail term has of course way more impact than a site ban. I should also add that in this analogy the prison walls are rather porous. With a bit of technical knowledge anyone can sock around a ban, and even without that knowledge anyone is free to continue the behaviour on other WMF projects for a while.
do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate) is something to applaud or criticize?
Answer: Neither, nor. Convicts play an important role for the society that keeps them behind bars: They form an outer perimeter of people that do not belong into that society, and they thus are useful to define the borders. There are quite a few scientific studies on this, showing that every society will have a certain amount of criminals, and if the populace just does not commit any crimes then new crimes will be defined to create and tag those outliers---down to a situation where punishable crimes will be so petty that certain members of society are willing to commit them to test the rule set they live under.

I'm sure there are also plenty of studies on why the US incarceration rate is so high, but I haven't read any of them yet. A possible hypothesis would be that the US has particular difficulties defining their borders of acceptable behaviour, and that they thus need more outliers to form a clearer picture. On criminals' side, the perception that there is a lot of individual freedom in the US might just lead to more individuals testing out the frontiers of that freedom.

Applied to Wikipedia: Our society needs a number of indef-blocked, banned, and sanctioned editors to define acceptable Wikipedia behaviour. We shouldn't have to go to a percentage comparable to that of states, because we have the possibility (and the habit) to excessively document every case, and to make that documentation available for public scrutiny.

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Martinevans123

Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.
Answer: No. It always depends on the context. I guess I could always say un-fuckin'-believable how many challenging questions I got, and it is not an attack at all. I could (but probably wouldn't) say Oh, fuck off to an editor bringing up the same concern for the umpteenth time when the matter has been thoroughly explained many times before. If, however, an inexperienced editor asks in a somewhat friendly way why I nominated their creation for XfD, and I only answer fuck off, then I should expect some repercussions from the Admin front.

The "same level" argument is not good at all. If we take that further, we could all accuse each other of being Nazis, or pedophile, or whatnot, that would also be the same level for all. We want to create a friendly atmosphere here in order to work together, or at least not to disturb each other.

Many thanks. I totally agree that a friendly atmosphere is needed in order to work together constructively. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Notice

^ ^a ^b ^c You have asked me to comment on the outcome of an ArbCom case or motion. I realise the idea behind it; you want to know whether I have followed the proceedings (Is Pgallert a serious candidate?), and whether I have sufficient insight in Wikipedia processes (Is Pgallert experienced enough to make any meaningful contribution to the committee?).
Still, your question puts me into an uncomfortable situation: I respect all sitting and former Arbs. They are among the most experienced Wikipedians we have on en.wp, and they have been put in place by popular vote---including my own. I don't even have half of the information that they had when deciding the case, and even if I had I would not normally assume that my own opinion weighs more than 15 of theirs.
So while I will eloborate a bit on my own perception of the outcome of the case or motion, I will stop short of making a verdict like "good decision" or "bad decision". In most cases it is not as easy as that.

[general_notice-1] You have asked me to comment on the outcome of an ArbCom case or motion. I realise the idea behind it; you want to know whether I have followed the proceedings (Is Pgallert a serious candidate?), and whether I have sufficient insight in Wikipedia processes (Is Pgallert experienced enough to make any meaningful contribution to the committee?).
Still, your question puts me into an uncomfortable situation: I respect all sitting and former Arbs. They are among the most experienced Wikipedians we have on en.wp, and they have been put in place by popular vote---including my own. I don't even have half of the information that they had when deciding the case, and even if I had I would not normally assume that my own opinion weighs more than 15 of theirs.
So while I will eloborate a bit on my own perception of the outcome of the case or motion, I will stop short of making a verdict like "good decision" or "bad decision". In most cases it is not as easy as that.

[1]