Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare

NuclearWarfare

[edit]
Hi, I'm NW. I have been an editor here since 2007 and an administrator since 2009. I have participated in a number of areas of the project, including article writing, arbitration, administrative work, OTRS, oversight, and policy discussion. I am running for the Committee because I feel like I have something to contribute in helping settle disputes in a manner that is most beneficial for those who want to be able to peacefully ignore the Wikipedia administration and edit according to our core content policies in peace.

I have certainly not been a perfect editor, and I have made my fair share of mistakes as well as taken actions that other editors have reasonably disagreed with. I imagine the same will continue to be the case if I am elected to the Committee. But I will also endeavor to always listen to and comprehend other editors' thoughts and only then take the actions that I feel is best supported by our core policies as I understand them.

I am by no means the most eloquent of people, so I would prefer to keep this fairly short. Please feel free to ask me questions if you have any.

I have already identified to the WMF and disclosed all alternate accounts to both the community and the Arbitration Committee.

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

[edit]

I'm going to go through and answer the general questions that I feel are going to be beneficial in getting my points across. Also, recognizing that most people do not want to sit and read through several novels before voting, I am going to keep my comments fairly short. If you would like me to answer any that I skipped over or expand upon one that I did answer, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Questions. Also, please feel free to ask me additional questions on topics not covered by the general questions. NW (Talk) 07:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Skills and experience:
    a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
    b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion are the two cases that I have had the most involvement with the Arbitration process, and I believe the latter is the only one where I have made a statement. As an arbitration clerk, I have clerked several cases. As far as the rest of dispute resolution goes: not all that much that was incredibly significant for me. I tend not to comment at AN or ANI all that much unless I feel that I have something important to contribute, and unless I have some personal involvement with an issue, I generally do nothing more than follow requests for comment and other disputes. NW (Talk) 02:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
    It would vary of course, but I suppose that I would probably lean towards the strict side. It depends on a number of factors, but one of the primary ones in many a dispute will be whether the user has made a good faith effort to follow our core content policies, including primarily sourcing and neutrality policies, and also has made an attempt to not be unnecessarily combative towards other editors. NW (Talk) 02:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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.
    As to the first question: of course. As User:Lar was fond of saying, policy is a descriptor of how we do things in practice. The written words are based on fundamental principles that are generally agreed upon by the community. There are times where they need to be interpreted in how they apply to a particular situation and it is not feasible for the Committee to throw up its hands and say that they are powerless to do their one job—solving a problem that the rest of the Community has not yet been able to do.

    As to the second question: no. Arbitrators should feel free to propose changes to policy but only while wearing their "community member" hat, not their "Arbitrator" hat. NW (Talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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?
    The Five Pillars is incredibly important—it is the underlying basis of essentially all Wikipedia policy. That being said, it's rather a high level summary, so Committee principles and findings probably ought to eschew it for the more detailed policies and guidelines if they wish to cite points from it. NW (Talk) 22:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    This is such a case-by-case issue that I don't think I can really make an appropriate comment here. User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011#Criteria has two quotes on BLPs that I strongly agree with, and I suppose you could go to them if you are looking for a quick summary on my beliefs. NW (Talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    Yes. The guiding principle behind everyone who wishes for Wikipedia to one day become a serious, well-respected reference work is for "articles [to] be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Committee would be remiss if it did not consider the conduct of editors in adhering to that philosophy while deciding disputes. Binding processes imposed by ArbCom can assist with allowing for a framework for such sources to be presented in a cohesive manner that breaks the back of a dispute, whether or not that decision is ultimately correct. NW (Talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    Non-amendment motions should be used when there are no serious disputes as to the facts of a situation and when the formal length of a case can be done away with. NW (Talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    If there is no dispute, by policy there is no role for the Arbitration Committee. NW (Talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    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?
    Yes. NW (Talk) 03:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    Such information should be purged periodically as needed. It's really a case by case basis, and I don't know if I can say any more without knowing more details. Institutional memory is good, and essentially it boils down to this for me: if old information has a reasonable chance of affecting the business of the current or a future Committee, it should be kept. Otherwise, it should be purged. NW (Talk) 03:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    Generally, no. I imagine that email is simply the most efficient way for a Committee the size of ArbCom to function effectively, and I certainly see the pros of drafting decisions off-wiki for a first pass before submitting them to community review or discussing ban appeals off-wiki. That being said, I think what people object to more about the lack of transparency with ArbCom is more what is being discussed on the mailing list than the fact that it is off-wiki. I have no issue with cases being discussed off-list; I do have an issue with ArbCom either discussing a sanctions matter offwiki before publicly voting upon it or with Arbitrators "conspiring" against the community, as was partially evidenced by the mailing list leak in 2011. I'm not sure what the solution to that is. Ny instinct is not to move away from email entirely but instead to hope that Arbitrators will be able to govern themselves as to the appropriateness of their email behavior by asking themselves "Is this something that, if it doesn't concern private information, I would be terrible upset if the contents of the discussion leaked?" NW (Talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
    No. NW (Talk) 04:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    There should almost never be private evidence submitted that an accused user does not have access to. Aside from some checkuser information, I cannot think of any. Things can be restricted a little more for the Community at large, but I would view the private submission of evidence poorly in general. NW (Talk) 03:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
    Former cases should be considered as persuasive case studies of how the Committee handled a particular situation in the past, no more. NW (Talk) 04:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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?
    Investigating issues of long-term abuse of editors really should be handled by the WMF and ArbCom/the functionaries really ought not to be saddled with that. See, e.g. Shell Kinney's resignation in July 2011[1]. I don't know how much has changed since then, but I hope it is a significant amount. NW (Talk) 04:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
    It's mostly pretty good. I can't really think of all that much that needs to change at this point. There has been a trend over the past few years of ArbCom handling fewer matters involving disputes between two or three editors. This is good, as it is something where often all that is needed is an administrator to cut a Gordian knot. There's a balance there that is important to keep, though I think a decent job of that is being done so far. NW (Talk) 20:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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?
    Yes, and this applies to part b of this question too. ArbCom can be more active in recognizing that violations of content policies are just as important as violations of conduct policies. See User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011#Criteria. NW (Talk) 04:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
    Yes, yes, and yes. The most important way the Committee can help is by creating an environment where productive editors are not pushed away by those who violate our policies. See this for example. NW (Talk) 04:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    d) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Ought the committee be concerned about any evidence of factionalism, or is the principle of WP:CONSENSUS sufficient for any article dispute, whether a "faction" is present or not? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, is the proper course of action elimination of such a faction, or ought the decision be aimed at reducing the size of such a faction on any given article or articles?
  6. 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.
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop was handed particularly poorly in some areas. In particular, in analyzing the evidence, one Arbitrator went far beyond his remit in terms of analyzing whether an editor was following content policies to actively deciding that one particular way of wording things was correct. See MastCell's comment at 00:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC). It is a reminder that while ArbCom needs to consider content policies as well as conduct policies, they need to be careful that in doing so, they don't cross lines to deciding content, especially when uninvolved experienced, neutral editors and administrators are telling them such.

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth: Rather arbitrarily harsh overall. I understand that there is a need to uphold the wheel warring policy, but there are times where it would be more beneficial to the encyclopedia to let things slide, per WP:IAR and "A plea for moderation". The sanctions handed out in that case were defensible (as one Arb at least made an effort to do), but were probably not what I would have done.

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review was all right in terms of the results, but it took a solid two months to get to the end when a series of quick administrative actions could have settled the matter ages prior to the case ending. In the end as well, ArbCom passed the buck for a problematic editor for WP:AE to deal with, where it was (but only after a long while). Leniency, especially for very experienced editors, is good. Decisiveness is good too. Striking the right balance between the two is important.

    ArbCom could have taken on the following cases: Youreallycan [and several other requests] (divisive dispute that the community had been unable to solve), FA process (narrowly, to look at the behavior of a few editors, not the process overall). NW (Talk) 22:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  7. Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

Individual questions

[edit]

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

[edit]

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.

  1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
    A: Two and a half months? That's pretty bad. Just from looking over the case talk pages, I understand what happened and why it did, but the drafting Arbitrator should have passed the job on to another Arbitrator once it became clear to her that it wouldn't be possible to draft the decision in a reasonable time frame. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
    A: To facilitate discussion among users who have like-minded interests and to allow to for discussion of issues common to a topic rather than a particular article. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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?
    A: Yes. It's a tricky line to draw between making sure you don't push away long time contributors who are simply trying to deal with new editors who don't entirely understand how we work and between dealing with an established editor who is using his or her editing history to quash legitimate criticism. I'm not sure if there is anything the Committee can do about the underlying problem but attempt to be more conscientious of all of these issues when it deals with individual cases. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
    A: If I felt that a reasonable portion of the Community had objectively reasonably (I recognize that this is a contradiction in terms) lost confidence in my ability to do my job well; if I could no longer put in sufficient time to do the job. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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?
    A: Sometimes, but not all the time. Sometimes one editor is simply being disruptive and the other editor is doing their best to work with or around them. For this reason, making sanctions proportional to the level of disruption caused by this individual (which may be none) is important. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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?
    A: It's, as with everything ArbCom deals with, a judgement call. There is definitely a possibility for a grey area and while reasonable actions by administrators can be overturned by later community or ArbCom agreement, this does not necessarily mean that the original action was "wrong." Nothing even comes to mind right now where the Committee could legitimately attempt to deal with such a situation without someone having brought the case to ArbCom. It has happened before (Durova/!!) but it should not have. NW (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 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?
    A: a) A user's action on another WMF site is not grounds by itself for ArbCom action, but such action may be introduced as evidence if there is spillover onto enwiki somehow. b) Yes, yes, and maybe (see the related general question above), though with the latter two, if it adversely affects any user, they should be offered a chance to view and rebut the evidence submission. NW (Talk) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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?
    A: Well, that article certainly encouraged me to beef up the security on my primary internet accounts. It would be bad if my account were hacked, yes, but is there something you are trying to say aside from that? NW (Talk) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just making sure that you've thought about that sort of thing, and that your online banking account username isn't nuclearwarfare, for example. --Rschen7754 05:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...it isn't now

    Just kidding. My bank, brokerage, work, email account, etc. are all well-protected. NW (Talk) 05:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
    A: Yes. NW (Talk) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you. Rschen7754 Rschen7754 04:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Hot Stop

[edit]
  1. In your statement you indicated that you've already disclosed alternate accounts to the community. Would you mind just pointing out where you've done that or disclosing them again here?
    A:I had thought they were on my userpage, but I guess I removed them at some point. User:NukeBot and User:NW's Public Sock are the only ones I have used for a significant amount of time. There are a couple of others that I have never really used (created as doppelgangers or potential renames); they should all be linked to from [2] in some capacity. That's all I can remember at this time. NW (Talk) 06:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is sort of piggybacking off of SirFozzie's Q below, but what do you think the most important role clerks perform (both as a whole and you individually, if they differ) for the committee?
    A: The most important is just making sure the trains run on time, which gets harder to do the fewer clerks you have, but a more important thing that clerks can do, and one that clerks historically have not been good at, is making sure case pages aren't filled with nonsense and invective. While theoretically, clerks are empowered to deal with violations of Arbitration and site policy, historically clerks had given a large amount of leeway to parties so as to allow them to make the best defense they wish to. This practice should probably change, but more clerks and/or additional arbitrator support is needed for that. NW (Talk) 16:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Also tangentially related to SF below, but I've noticed that over the past few years clerks are almost undefeated when running for seats. Do you think the community as a whole sees it as a arb training course? And if so, is that good or bad thing?
    A: I actually didn't know that this was the case. I don't see clerking as an Arb training course. It certainly exposes you to the area, but I think the primary reason why clerks have done so well in elections is that the type of people who apply and are selected to be clerks are generally calm, reasonable, and experienced editors who don't like stirring up controversy. NW (Talk) 16:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SirFozzie

[edit]
  1. I'm curious to see what your thoughts are. Does being familiar with the Committee's duties through being an Arbitration Clerk, in your opinion, help with taking that step into being an Arbitrator? Or in other terms, do you think you would have less of a culture shock stepping into the role of an Arbitrator than someone who hadn't been as familiar with the Committee and its processes? SirFozzie (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: An interesting question to be sure, and one I'm not really sure how to answer. I think that being a clerk in and of itself doesn't really have too much of an impact, unless you clerk a pretty contentious case (in which case you understand a little quicker the influence of a disruptive editor on the case pages). But I think the real effect comes from the fact that I have had to follow most cases, case requests, clarifications, amendments, and motions for the last year or two. You pick up a lot of minutia that way. I think it would help the learning curve a little bit but not do too much besides that. Anyway, my random thoughts for what they are worth. NW (Talk) 07:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leaky

[edit]
  1. In your own words, please define a Wikipedian. Leaky Caldron 13:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Any person who chooses to engage with the Community by making a constructive edit. Are you looking for me to comment about the recent statement by a particular arbitrator that a certain editor never was or ceased to be part of the community? NW (Talk) 16:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Responses moved by User:MBisanz to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Questions#Question from Leaky on 04:36, 2 December 2012‎ (UTC).

Questions from The Devil's Advocate

[edit]
  1. You clearly have a strong opinion on "civil POV-pushing", but how exactly would you define it and what specifically would you examine to determine this? For instance, how would you differentiate POV-pushing from efforts to balance an article that is biased?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Potter Stewart said it better 50 years ago than anyone else: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of [editing] I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["civil POV pushing"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it".

    That's a very unsatisfactory answer, I understand. I will do my best to ensure that "I know it when I see it" is not the same as "whatever I think is neutral is consistent with NPOV-compliant language." It involves getting into the discussion, evaluating whether the editors are trying to use the best quality sources they can find; whether they are trying to find expert opinion and build the article out of that rather than cherrypicking sources to suit their point of view; whether their behavior is tendentious and designed to exhaust the other editors to death. But ultimately it comes down to a judgement call. NW (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Do you believe that you have been sufficiently responsive when your use of the tools has been challenged?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Not always, no. Is there any specific instance that you have in mind? NW (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. How strictly would you interpret administrative involvement?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: This is too general of a question and too situation-dependent to properly answer. NW (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Recently you took a significant clerking action on a case request where you were a named party and you were one of the administrators whose previous actions were being questioned in the case. Would you explain why you felt this was appropriate at the time you took the action?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Are you referring to [3] or [4]? If you mean the latter, I didn't consider the involvement to be particularly meaningful (especially as it was in an administrative and not editorial capacity); there was a dearth of active clerks; I felt that the situation was fairly clear cut (and in fact, it could have been acted upon by any administrator, not just a clerk); and I left the affected party (later blocked as a sockpuppet) with clear instructions on how to proceed if they wished to do so. NW (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Do you believe one-way interaction bans should be more common or less common?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: I'm generally not a fan of them. If someone has gotten to the point where an administrator thinks that a one way interaction ban would be helpful, so would speedy closings of the relevant requests or a block for disruption. But I don't rule them out on principle—sometimes it doesn't take two to tango. NW (Talk) 20:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Do you believe incivility is treated too strictly or not strictly enough by administrators?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Superficial incivility is sometimes treaty too strictly, sometimes not strictly enough. That's situation dependent and really administrator dependent. Subtle incivility is much less dependent on either of those because it is so severely underaddressed as a problem. Insinuating that a long-time editor may be lying about real life health problems to avoid sanctions or generally denigrating the competence of your ideological "opponents" are far more damaging to a collaborative environment than using impolite language (not to discount the effects of the latter) but are generally hardly addressed by the community. NW (Talk) 20:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Do you think it is appropriate to suggest sanctions when you have not done a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding a case?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A: I stopped beating my wife last week.

    What I wrote was "I haven't taken as comprehensive a look as I would like to, but I did look in at this issue some time ago and again when I closed a topic ban removal discussion with regards to Tom harrison. Certainly few people in the topic area are free of fault (in fact, basically no one is, and I am not excluding MONGO from that), but it appears to me that The Devil's Advocate is one of the key problems with regards to the deterioration of the editing environment recently. I would propose a topic ban for TDA and a closing of this request without prejudice to refiling if things don't improve shortly. Thoughts?" followed by "Any other thoughts? I really don't want to spend the time to review properly if another administrator thinks that my suggestion is entirely off-base (as this report is one that I don't think I should close by myself)." The community is free to decide whether it thinks that was out of line or not. NW (Talk) 20:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses, follow-up questions and comments moved by User:MBisanz to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Questions#Moved comments from #Questions from The Devil's Advocate at 04:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC).

Question from Coren

[edit]
  1. You state above that it is important for the Committee to provide an environment where "productive editors are not pushed away" [your emph.]. Please define "productive" in that context?
    A: Productive editors are those editors who would prefer to keep their heads down, read a number of high-quality sources, and write an article based on those. While they might have a point of view about the topic they are writing about, their primary objective is to accurately summarize the consensus of experts in the field and describe areas of prominent disagreement fairly.

    That's not to say of course that editors who don't write a FA a month are unproductive—I have written only two articles that I consider to be half decent in my tenure on Wikipedia. It's much more about an attitude about how one approaches Wikipedia and the community of editors who contribute to it. Those editors who follow those principles are the editors we need to expend the effort to keep and assist by giving a good working environment. NW (Talk) 20:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

[edit]
  1. How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
    A: The member should be marked as inactive (I imagine the clerks would have done this already), the Committee should consider removing temporarily advanced permissions as they would with any other functionary (though I think the line is 6 months for that), and depending if things look like they are likely to change, the Committee should consider removing other sensitive access (arbwiki, mailing list) until the arbitrator wishes to return. This should be done voluntarily if possible, and if the arbitrator in question is willing to either resign or set a date for return, so much the better. NW (Talk) 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team? Why?
    A: I'm sorry, I am not sure what you are asking. Are you asking which I would prefer to work on? NW (Talk) 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Responses moved by User:MBisanz to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Questions#Moved comments from #Questions from AlexandrDmitri on 04:41, 2 December 2012‎ (UTC).

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

[edit]
  1. 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?

    A:Authority vs. Community: I think that I would probably seen as a bit more of the authority-exercising type, but that by no means means that I don't see the value of community discussion. Consensus-based discussion, when the participants are acting in good faith, is how we should always attempt to run things on this site when feasible. ArbCom's primary purpose in this context is to break the back of a dispute that the community has not been able to resolve by itself. By the time that a dispute has gotten to ArbCom, it is often the case that further community-based consensus seeking will be difficult. If there is a clear path forward to utilize it, ArbCom should do so. Otherwise, removal of the key players and institution of rules that will assist in future dispute resolution ("authority") is probably the best way to go.

    Rules: There is a reason that WP:IAR has existed in essentially the same form since near the foundation of Wikipedia (see [5]). It is a wonderful guiding principle that gives us a great deal of discretion in how we approach situations. The policies and guidelines we edit under were created to help build the encyclopedia, and editors are able to do that in a manner that isn't driving off others, then there is no reason to intervene even if some rules are being broken. NW (Talk) 20:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  2. What does "Civility" mean to you?
    A:The civility policy is pretty vague, but the underlying principle of it is good: don't denigrate other editors and comment only on their actions. It also means that you are editing in good faith towards our common goal—building a comprehensive and respected encyclopedia. I recognize that editors will mess up every once in a while and also that civility is more than the sum of the individual words that have been said—it is about the intent of one's underlying message and how one reacts when challenged on the comments one made. NW (Talk) 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tony1

[edit]

I was surprised to see the apologetic bit in your candidate statement; not necessary. You're very solid in terms of social and personal trustworthiness; you're really bright guy; you're very cluey about some technical things that matter in some of the committee's work, like CU. And IMO you've been an excellent clerk. I do wish you were more adventurous on occasion <smile> ... more willing to rock the boat or take risks; but that's minor. I wonder whether you'd be on the tough-sanctions side of the spectrum as an arb—more traditional, simple remedies, rather than exploring ways of resolving disputes that might be less simple (and maybe even more prone to not working well, depending on unpredictables). I'd like that, but perhaps you might give your thoughts about it. And to what extent do you think ArbCom should take into account any need to keep experienced, otherwise valuable editors in the project, by adjusting remedies for this purpose? Please, short answers, because this page is always an unreasonable burden for candidates! Tony (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words!

Anyway, I would certainly be open to trying new methods out depending on the situation. The banhammer is a useful tool, but it is only one tool in ArbCom's arsenal. Sometimes editors just need to be removed from a topic area or even from the encyclopedia, but sometimes they just need a very structured discussion or tailored remedies to allow them to edit without conflict. I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts as to what new remedies ArbCom could try out, recognizing of course that some situations will simply not be able to make use of them.

And ArbCom should certainly take the experience and prior contributions of an editor into account when tailoring sanctions. To me, that does not just mean time-limiting sanctions more so than otherwise might be done or admonishing an editor instead of placing them on 1RR but instead trying to find what the root cause of a problem is or was and see if it can be addressed with more narrow sanctions (or none at all) as the case might require. NW (Talk) 20:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Casliber

[edit]

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) 00:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're spot on, you and Heim and MastCell and Moreschi. I participated to some extent in both arbitration cases you cite, the former as a party. My submitted evidence probably makes it clear how I would examine behavior in similar situations. NW (Talk) 01:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Cunard

[edit]

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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?

    The closer of a contested RFC should be an experienced editor. I have no issue with an experienced non-administrator closing an RFC, but a safeguard to prevent inexperienced editors from closing contested RFCs should be there. A bright line like RFA is nice to have for this reason. A summary reversal ability probably tilts the scale too much towards the administrator reviewing it, but an agreement of a few administrators should be enough to reverse the closure without being overly bureaucratic about it. NW (Talk) 04:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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.

    WP:AN is our catch-all appeal board for places that don't have a formal process, so that seems like the best place to go to, yes. I'm not sure any sort of structure is really required; just let the discussion run its course. NW (Talk) 04:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask why you are asking these questions? I'm not sure I fully see the relevance to arbitration. NW (Talk) 04:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency
Anchor:
  • 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.
      Transparency is important, yes, for all the reasons that people have brought up dozens of times before. But offwiki discussion has its merits too—it permits Arbitrators to more freely speak their mind about an issue without worrying how things will be spun. If I am elected and once I read the mailing list, I end up discovering that there is too much internal politicking and scheming for my taste (I would be surprised if this is true. I imagine it is more contentious than oversight-l or functionaries-en, both of which I am on, but I can't imagine it to be so much worse.) I will likely change my mind so much more quickly. NW (Talk) 04:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
      I will work to set up discussion sections on the Arbitration pages to make onwiki discussion more natural and expected for Arbitrators. Hopefully it's a self-reinforcing effect—if a few arbs eschew the mailing list for onwiki discussion, then the rest might naturally follow. NW (Talk) 04:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recusals
Anchor:
  1. 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.

    If I have made a significant number of edits or administrative actions in either a topic area or with respect to a user. Most of the time, the user asking me to recuse and I will probably be in sync, but if not, I will try to examine whether I can examine a dispute fairly and will default to recusing if I am unsure if that is possible. NW (Talk) 04:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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.
    In the topic areas of climate change, abortion, and with respect to any of the articles I have significantly edited. I can't think of anything that immediately comes to mind besides those, but I'm sure they exist. Case by case basis, really. NW (Talk) 04:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus
Anchor:
  1. 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?

  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
    (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?
    I imagine I would have supported it, though I might have also recused—not fully sure in retrospect. I recall commenting a fair amount about BLP issues around then (it's hard to believe that was three years ago) and I was very clear about the fact that I felt that we needed to find a way to deal with the BLP issue that didn't involve saying "the natural editing process will take care of the matter over time." A series of mass desysoppings, which some were calling for, clearly wasn't going to help solve the problem. The commendations weren't particularly helpful; I remember a number of editors being quite disgruntled and saying that ArbCom ended up "choosing sides" by doing that, but the ultimate goal of the motion—to resolve the immediate issue and shunt everything towards an RFC—was a good one. NW (Talk) 04:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Desysopping
Anchor:
Civility case clarification request
Anchor:
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

[edit]

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) 08:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Healthy debate on an ArbCom proposal is excellent; healthy public debate from the start is often much better. But at the end of the day, a decision one way or another will be made and I would have to accept that, regardless of whether I like it or not. If the issue comes up again, I would vote my conscience, but it is incumbent upon those on the losing side to accept the decision of the majority and be willing to uphold it, both in public and in private, less the community lose all ability in the Arbitration Committee's ability to fairly and effectively resolve disputes. NW (Talk) 00:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SilkTork

[edit]

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 14:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Time Zone (UTC-4/-5). When I am on Wikipedia varies from day to day, but it is generally in the evenings and nights. NW (Talk) 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Bazonka

[edit]

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) 23:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I have gone to meetups. I haven't been to one in quite some time, though that is more because of scheduling conflicts than anything else. I will likely go to them in the future. I might in the future want to do outreach work to get new editors familiar with the project, but I doubt that I will have the time or inclination to do so in the near future, regardless of whether I am elected or not. NW (Talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Begoon

[edit]

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?

I'm not really sure that I accept the premise of your question. ArbCom is not GovCom, nor should it be, nor (most of the time), does it try to be. Sometimes it does an exceptionally poor job at resolving disputes, yes. And partially that's a result of the fact that you have fifteen people, all of whom approach Wikipedia in very different ways, and finding a decision that accommodates the views of even a majority of them is quite difficult. Sometimes those poor decisions are just a matter of ArbCom focusing on the wrong things, yes. But I don't think that any of the Arbitrators see their roles as legislators (not after how Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development was received anyway; regardless of whether that was the intent of that proposal, it certainly caused a backing off of ArbCom's involvement in policy matters). I think they generally do try to resolve the dispute at hand and resolve any likely potential future disputes in the related topic area.

I'm looking at the related context in which you posted this question[6] (I liked the Battlestar Galactica reference) and I think what you are trying to say is more that if ArbCom is trying to handle a situation like they are, then they need to do so expeditiously. I'm not really sure I see things in the same light as you do, but I'm also not really sure that I'm understanding your question.

Anyway, I know my answer was a bit of a ramble. If you want to post a follow-up/clarification, I will be happy to respond. NW (Talk) 06:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses moved by User:MBisanz to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Questions#Moved comments from #Question from Begoon on 04:44, 2 December 2012‎ (UTC).

Questions from GabeMc

[edit]
For follow-up comments and questions, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Questions § Comments_moved_from_.23Questions_from_GabeMc.

Questions: 1) Do you think it's appropriate for an admin to close an RfC/RfM when said admin had previously participated in an AN/I report discussion, supporting the resulting indef-block for a highly vocal party to the mediation from which the RfC originated? 2) Assuming that a) this has in fact happened, and b) you indeed think it's inappropriate, what then would you suggest as a remedy? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A:I do not think it would be appropriate to respond to a "hypothetical" like this that appears to be based on something that actually occurred, as I would want to read the details of what happened. NW (Talk) 18:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Responses moved by User:MBisanz to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Questions#Comments moved from #Questions from GabeMc on 21:56, 4 December 2012‎‎ (UTC).

Question from Piotrus

[edit]
Civility enforcement questionnaire
[edit]

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 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to decline, as I find myself agreeing with User:ErrantX and User:Squeamish Ossifrage, among others, in their comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. NW (Talk) 20:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions
[edit]
  1. 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:
  2. 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?
    Maybe it's because I have always liked game theory and the concept of Nash equilibria and so I have liked how you phrased it, but what you and Volunteer Marek (who you linked to) have written makes far more sense than my attempt to do so in some of the questions above on the same subject (see Cunard's Civility case clarification request question 8 above and Tony1's question among others). If one decides that they are going to intervene in a dispute, they should always have the goal of maximizing net benefit for the encyclopedia in the long run (recognizing of course, just as individuals are not homo economicus, neither is one omniscient about knowing what is best for the encyclopedia). NW (Talk) 16:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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...?)
    Deportation, but the first three words you began this question with is incredibly important. NW (Talk) 16:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
    Not really. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is just a website. While the community should always attempt to be fair and just among its internal deliberations, the consequences of a site ban vs. incarceration are orders of magnitude apart. NW (Talk) 16:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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?
    A short answer: the level itself inherently means nothing, but it should make policymakers stop and consider what it means to incarcerate over two million people, a significant minority of which were for non-violent crimes, for extreme lengths of time. I could go on and on about this topic in person, but it's probably not best suited for this page. NW (Talk) 16:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Martinevans123

[edit]
  1. 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A:Well, no. Cursing can be effective in making a point but rarely is it terribly helpful, and it certainly often degrades the quality of a conversation or drives people away.

    Do you want to follow up? It is hard to respond without knowing more of what you are trying to lead the conversation towards... NW (Talk) 22:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses moved by User:NuclearWarfare to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/NuclearWarfare/Questions#Moved comments from #Question from Martinevans123 on 06:08, 9 December 2012‎‎ (UTC).