Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/AGK

AGK

The Arbitration Committee is an important component of our project. I am willing to serve on the committee for two years, and submit myself for your consideration.

To summarise my experience on Wikipedia, aside from occasionally contributing to articles (when I have time), I am a former mediator (appointed to the Mediation Committee in May 2007) and I have helped to co-ordinate the MedCom as its Chair since April 2010. I've had administrator access for five years, and I currently sit on the

Audit Subcommittee which regulates the use by functionaries of the checkuser and oversight tools. Additionally, I am a CheckUser, and am one of the more active users in that capacity, and I have Oversight

access for my subcommittee term. Although I have had the pleasure of working with many editors and the opportunity to work in many backstage areas of Wikipedia, I do not think I have become one of its "insiders", and my role on the Audit Subcommittee requires that I maintain an amicable detachment from the other functionaries. I am also familiar with the administrative aspects of the arbitration process, having served with the arbitration clerks (the team that runs the clerical and procedural side of the committee's workload) for over 3 years.

In an administrative capacity, I was one of the team of administrators who regularly dealt with

Requests for Arbitration Enforcement

(AE). I have a great respect for the work of those administrators and for the efforts of those who contribute to our most contentious topic areas. However, one cannot stoke the fire without being burnt, and I suspect as a result of my work there, I have a lower tolerance for POV-pushing, unprofessional, and divisive editing than most. Having contributed to these areas, I nonetheless believe I have always been approachable and fair, and from anecdotal reports I understand that many contributors would agree with that assessment. As an arbitrator, I would be pleased to bring this experience and approach to ArbCom.

I am experienced, dedicated, and capable, and am happy to serve as an arbitrator. By way of a platform, some important issues to me are:

Effective resolutions to disputes: I see little use in recycling the same principles endlessly, when more time could be afforded to creating meaningful remedies
Intolerance for POV-pushing disputants: I will vote to topic-ban an editor who uses Wikipedia as a forum to continue a nationalist or cultural dispute
Creation of a usable public space for ArbCom discussions, to replace most of the unreliable and non-public mailing list
Liaising with the WMF: much of ArbCom's remit is partly the Foundation's as well, and there are areas in which we can work together.
Supporting content contributors above process, administration, and everything else. (As a principle, this is vague, but one that I will not forget if elected.)

I will not outline my views on more specific issues here, because a rambling statement is frankly tiring, but I will happily answer questions from all contributors. Thank you for your consideration.

Mandatory statement: Any accounts I have created are listed here, I have no undisclosed alternative accounts, and I am already identified.

AGK

Note from candidate: I'm in the process of answering all my questions, and setting aside about an hour per day to do so. I submitted my candidature early in the election, so I am not attempting to answer them all at once; as a result, there may be a small delay. If you have posted a question, I will respond soon, and thank you for your patience.
•] 14:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note from candidate: I have completed my questions.
•] 16:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

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?
- A: The skills I would bring are: an aptitude for workload co-ordination and management; a seasoned view of many aspects of the project, both in the mainspace and behind-the-scenes; the ostensible wisdom that comes from six years of contributing to Wikipedia; and my experience of both the punitive (arbitration, arbitration enforcement, and administratorship) and conciliatory (mediation) elements of our dispute resolution process.
  •] 14:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the
Wikipedia dispute resolution
processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
A: I have been involved heavily [1] with the arbitration enforcement process (although as of recently, I no longer am), and in the arbitration process itself. I have been a mediator as of five years ago, and have Chaired the Mediation Committee for a year and a half. I was an arbitration clerk for three years, so I have an intimate knowledge with the procedures and daily operations of the process. Rather than engage in rambling self-flattery, I would prefer to, for the most part, let my record of experience with dispute resolution to speak for itself.
•] 14:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
A: As a general matter, I suspect that by the time a dispute has reached ArbCom, the time for leniency is a distant memory. However, I could not possibly speak for how I would vote in individual cases: every dispute is unique and would require a different solution in pursuit of its resolution. I don't think I have the inclination to be a
•] 14:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
A: ArbCom is not permitted to make or amend policy, because it is a dispute-resolution body, not a constitutional court. I support this principle and believe policy-making should be the domain of the whole community. Presently, the committee is empowered to clarify non-major components of site policy that are unclear or ambiguous if it needs to do so in pursuit of the resolution of a dispute; I believe that this status quo is adequate. I have seldom seen the committee being unable to resolve a dispute because site policy is ambiguous or undecided, and the current practice of deferring the matter back to the community with a "request to re-examine the policy" is how the committee should proceed in 2011–12.
Broadly, the justification for this is that policy is a codification of site practice and is not authoritative. Common practice shapes site policy, not vice versa, and so it is impossible to change policy by dictum (except in those few policies that relate to copyright or legal matters); accordingly, the whole community and nothing less must be involved in any proposal to change policy. If policy is changed (or even heavily influenced) by a ruling by a small committee, then the way our project functions will be in the hands of a perceivable elite or 'council of elders'; this would be wrong. Arbitrators are simply editors who have volunteered for a side job of adjudicating disputes (although that side job today will fast up all their wiki-time).
•] 09:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
A: I believe that ArbCom must face up to one of the most serious problems that our content-writers encounter: that of ostensibly constructive edits that are civilly presented, but that constitute, upon closer examination, shameless POV-pushing. Behaviour of this kind is often found in nationalist topics or on articles that relate to a subject that is the focus of real-life controversy. I will summarise my views on what ArbCom can do in these kinds of situations:
On Wikipedia, some individuals abuse our
•] 15:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

ArbCom and motions:
a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
A: Without descending into a recitation of the different motions available under Procedure, a motion is essentially a method of reaching a decision of the committee without a full case. I do not believe that the practice of holding an on-wiki motion in lieu of a full case is especially helpful, except in the simplest of disputes; I would prefer to open a case and simply reduce the length of the timetable if the dispute is not complex. I believe that the practice of holding off-wiki motions for decision-making not related to disputes (ie decisions about the committee's peripheral functions) is a good one because a clear "Do you support or oppose?" process avoids things like the Orangemarlin fiasco; however, I think the discussions for motions should be held in an on-wiki (albeit exclusive to arbitrators, to avoid excessive noise) forum unless confidentiality requires otherwise.
I believe the process of resolving clarifications by motion is helpful, because that process is normally not unduly complex. However, I think amendments should in most instances be given their own case because of their complexity. If issues are being handled by motion when they need a full case, then we have the potential for comments by involved or uninvolved editors to be missed, for the evidence process and workshop/evidence-analysis process to not be given enough weight, and accordingly for careless decision-making.
•] 09:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
A: As I mentioned in my previous question, it is not appropriate to hold a motion if a matter: 1) is new to the committee and not preceded by a full case; 2) at all complicated. If a motion is used under either of these circumstances, as opposed to a full case, then we have the potential for careless or rushed decision-making, and for the legitimacy of the decision to be reduced (because it was decided carelessly or because the views of the parties and the wider community have not been taken into account). I'm not sure I understand the question: do you mean that the involved editors have already settled the dispute among themselves, or are you talking about the type of case where the dispute is not editorial? Do you mean that the related policies are the cause of the dispute, but that the community's consensus was always clear—or, that the community had reached a consensus in parallel with the request for arbitration? Well, broadly, I do not think ArbCom can nor should overrule any clear consensus of the community, ever, although I do think it must have the ability to ask the community to re-visit a decision if the professional view of the arbitrators is that the consensus on an issue is problematic.
I believe ArbCom should be able to resolve such a dispute even if no member of the community can do so, but I think this must be preceded by a period of informal consultation with the community. ArbCom must be seen to become unilaterally involved only with great care, and should never wade in high-handedly; asking the community "Do you want us to take a look at this area?" doesn't take much time and is easy to do, and anyway might result in an editor bringing a case themselves to avoid all the bother! Also, I do not think such issues should ever be handled by motion; a full case is needed, to allow for the community to be consulted during the case and for evidence to be submitted as needed.
•] 09:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
A: The ongoing Motion on Arbcom-unblocked editors has passed the point of absurdity, and is a perfect illustration of the problems with the concept of "Motions". If it needs eleven motions, then it needs a full case, and I am very disappointed that the committee even entertained the idea of hearing that matter as a motion, not a case.
•] 11:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
A: The Arbitration Committee, in addition to its role as the final adjudicator of on-wiki disputes, has a secondary role of absolute jurisdiction over Wikipedia incidents which involve private, real-life, or confidential data or other information. I believe that this must continue, because the alternative is having such incidents being the purview of the community—and confidential information should not be in the public domain if we can help it. Nevertheless, the committee has a duty to ensure that private information is kept private. I cannot comment with any degree of confidence because I am not privy to the internal discussions of the committee, so I am not sure how often it finds itself having to consult old data, but I imagine that it must occasionally do so: the type of nasty incidents that the arbitrators deal with privately have an equally nasty habit of recurring. Yes, I think the committee should retain such data, but that it must not do so indefinitely. Some sort of fixed limit on the retention of such data might be an option, but if, say, the committee's policy is to delete data after three or four years, then the subjects of the data might simply wait until the data is passed before resuming their abuse. To offset this, perhaps data could be locked down after a few years, in a secure WMF archive for instance, such that it could only be accessed with the support of a majority of the arbitrators and with good cause. This would prevent old data being browsable by any Tom, Dick, or Harry, but also prevent users "waiting out" the deletion period before resuming behaviour that cannot be tackled without reference to private information. I don't think this would be an especially difficult thing to implement, and if appointed I would make it a priority to institute a better policy on the retention, handling, and accessing of the committee's years of archives.
•] 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

b) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
A: I think I covered this in the previous answer, but to be clear, only current arbitrators could archive old data, and only with good cause. Data could be kept indefinitely or for a long period like ten years, so long as it was held securely and remained inaccessible except by a motion of the committee.
•] 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

c) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
A: Yes, I do. I do not think the heavy use of Arbcom-l that takes place at present is justified, although I reserve the right to change that view if I am elected and I have reason to change my opinion after observing the committee's internal practices. Some sort of public discussion area, or even a separate public mailing list, would be preferable to having all discussion off-wiki that does not relate to an open case.
•] 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

d) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
A: All things considered, the committee handled the leak as best it could. The issue was how the leaks happened (in the technical sense), and the committee is not a body of professionals (nor does it have a network officer or security consultant) so it could not reasonably be expected to pin down the source immediately. In the panic to identify how the messages were leaked, I get the impression the arbitrators were chasing a lot of false leads—which explains the relatively confusing communication from them in the subsequent days. The communication could have been better, but it's far easier to say that in retrospect I suppose. I gather that they have improved their security policy (and if appointed, I will make a point of confirming that point in the early days), which is what I and any other reasonable contributor would have done. Ideally, they would have went a step further and undertaken some meaningful consultation with the MediaWiki folk; I do not think the current configuration for Mailman is ideal, from a usability, workload-management, nor security perspective. ArbCom recently created a WMF liaison position; I would pursue the creation of a MediaWiki liaison position also, because I don't think the current software the committee is using can be used for much longer.
•] 11:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
A: I do not intend to declare my public identity if elected, but I also do not care much if it is revealed. I have nothing to fear from having my identity outed, and I have only not revealed my public identity because I really don't think that anybody cares, nor that it matters.
•] 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Division of responsibilities:
a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
A: The Wikimedia Foundation, with their in-house counsel, has the resources to send
•] 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
A: Policy-making must be the domain of the community. Issues that require confidentiality must be the domain of the Arbitration Committee. Issues that cannot be settled by the community and that are proving seriously damaging or divisive should be settled by the committee. Problems that require the attention of the arbitrators should be brought to the committee by the community; arbitrator-led "inquests" would be abhorrent. Desysopping is currently the purview of the committee, but I think the community needs to be more involved in this process, with some kind of desysopping community process being created. The scrutiny of advanced permissions like CU and OS must continue to be the mandate of the committee, because the alternative is that the entire community would be involved in the scrutiny of these tools—which for privacy reasons is totally unworkable. Other than this, I don't think there is any unbalance in the committee's mandate.
•] 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
A: The Wikipedia community has a remarkable ability to stomp on people who collect hats or acquire an inflated sense of their own importance. Moreover, I think we inherently understand (though perhaps do not explicitly acknowledge) that our time as volunteers is extremely valuable, but conversely that every volunteer is valuable and that our time is no better than that of our peers. I do not think Wikipedia has a problem with vested contributors in that sense, and the Arbitration Committee even adopted this in one of its principles (at
•] 16:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with
factionalism
? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
A: As I have said elsewhere, I think tag-teaming and nationalist editing is a significant issue, and I have had the unpleasant experience of dealing with these issues extensively in my work at
•] 17:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

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?
A: The statistics suggest that we have a problem with editor retention (cf.
•] 17:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
A: The decision reached in MickMacNee for the most part was useless waffle, and I got the impression from that case that the committee didn't really know what to do—or worse, it thought that the decision it reached was actually meaningful. The issues at play in that case were broader than the question of MMN's editing, and I was disappointed that the question of the reversal of administrator actions was not conclusively answered by ArbCom. Aside from that, I do not think any of the cases were badly-handled; the problem this year has been with the committee's decision-making outside of full cases, for instance in private or public motions. Please see my response to Q5(c) for my views on the committee's decision-making in motions for 2011.
•] 11:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
A: Forthcoming, but here is a preliminary list:
(1) The delivery of decisions needs to be overhauled. Workshops are mostly side-shows that seem to receive little arbitrator input (although the specific arbs involved does make a difference, with some being more hands-on than others). Arbitration case talk pages likewise need more committee involvement.
(2) Motions are overused. Motions for anything but internal matters or the simplest of matters will result in careless, rushed decision-making; I would prefer we open a full case.
(3) Routine internal discussion that does not involve aspects that require confidentiality should be held on-wiki, ideally in some arbitrator-only space of the Wikipedia: space but alternatively by e-mail on a mailing list with a public archive.
(4) Periodic reviews of the committee's performance (other than our annual elections, which any case are not well-suited to this purpose, or
•] 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question: #:A:

Questions from Hurricanefan25

Question: Here you give an extremely weak argument that gives little information other than "I would allow it." If you have the time, can you explain your reasoning with additional details? (response is fine with me)
- A: It is not entirely fair to pass by my countless decisions that had full rationales and pick one of the few in which I cast a straight !vote, but I'm happy to explain my thinking. However, please understand that I will struggle to elucidate my thinking in full when the enquiry is so belated. Essentially, I was satisfied that we could give Aganda a second chance: as Boris said, the initial sanction was severe (though not overly so), and I count a record of constructive editing after a topic ban in favour of the subject of the ban. I do not often agree with requests for "second chances", but in this case I was willing to allow the appeal.
  •] 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Question: I see little major recent activity other than this in the venues of the Arbitration Committee. If you are successfully elected for the position in 2012, how active do you plan to be as an arbitrator?
- A: I do not make a point of chiming in on every RFAR, because I do not believe that being an Arbitrator Lite is a productive way to spend my time on the project. However, I do give my view on situations I am involved in (such as the one you link to, which was an appeal of one of my enforcement actions). If I an elected, I will be adequately active, and if for some unforeseen reason I become unable to fulfil my commitment (which I do not anticipate), I would resign. I believe my record of activity elsewhere on the project is an adequate demonstration of my ability to fulfil my time commitments.
  •] 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

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

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
- A: I cannot comment on what circumstances led to such a delay, but three months to resolve a case is of course unacceptable. The community has made it clear in the past, with such wrecks as the six-month-long
  •] 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
A: WikiProjects are valuable because they allow editors with similar interests to triage their workload, identify articles that need improvement, and, yes, summarise site policy relating to article layout and other standards. However, I do not think such projects should be taking on an active enforcement role: that would be akin to a
•] 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
A: Wikipedia functions as well as it does because it has a dedicated base of contributors. Site discussions are rare in comparison to the volume of 'pure' article improvement that happens daily on this site. If a contributor is unable to participate in a professional way to meta-discussion, it would follow that we must resort to excluding them from projectspace discussions. If a contributor is unable to participate not only to administration meta-discussions but also to debates about the content of an article, for instance article talk or user talk threads about a given edit, then that editor could not comply with
•] 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

An editor fails
WP:COMPETENCE
. What should be done in this situation?
A: In what way is the hypothetical editor incompetent? In some cases, for instance if an editor is so incompetent with a given topic area that they are only able to contribute nonsense, we could forcibly exclude the editor from the given topic area—such as with a topic ban. In other cases, for instance if the editor is unintelligible or is so socially inept as to be unable to interact professionally with other editors, then the only recourse would be to site ban him or her. It would depend very much on the specific case, and both how and to what degree the editor in question was incompetent.
•] 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
A: It would depend on the specific case, and I see limited usefulness in judging hypotheticals—although your questions are of course very valid. However, yes, if an editor is unable to participate constructively, some sort of restriction on their activities (for instance a namespace or subject area/topic ban) may in the end be warranted, as would a siteban. For whatever it's worth, I think the Arbitration Committee is today dealing much less with routine cases of editorial incompetence or editors with difficult temperaments, and more with editors who are deliberately disruptive or malicious.
•] 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
A: I don't think that's a reasonable perspective to hold. ArbCom isn't a criminal court and does not take into account "mitigating circumstances" like one party being made to be abusive by another editor. That said, if an editor was obviously baited by another, the resulting discourse may not be an accurate representation of how the first editor routinely behaves, and I would imagine that the cause of the disruption would be held to be the second editor—not the first. It would depend on the specific case; the purpose of ArbCom is to resolve disputes and end drahmaz, and it must do whatever is necessary to achieve that aim in any given case.
•] 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
A: My views on this subject are conservative: ArbCom should be the body of last resort. I would only support our acceptance of a case where the community has been unable to provide a resolution (such as when other methods of dispute resolution have failed), or where the community would be unable to deliver a resolution (such as in the case of administrator abuse: the community has no "de-adminship" process). The array of cases which come to arbitration are more varied than in the past, which is a testament to the community's new-found proficiency at resolving disputes without arbitrator involvement, but broadly I think cases should be accepted when absolutely necessary.
•] 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
A: Presuming you mean an indefinite or one-year ban (or something similar), only where it was absolutely necessary. Most cases of outright abusiveness are dealt with at ANI today, so long-term bans (as oppose to non-sitebans such as topic bans) are only meted out when there is no other way to conclusively resolve a dispute.
•] 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
A: Yes, absolutely.
•] 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

Questions from
Sven Manguard

Your nomination statement didn't carry too much enthusiasm. In elections past other candidates have put forward 'It's not that I really want to do this, but since nobody else is, I might as well' type statements, to mixed receptions. Is my assessment that you lack enthusiasm or any great want for the role accurate? If so, how would it effect your term?
- A: Having worked with the arbitrators for some years, I perhaps am more aware than most candidates are that a seat on ArbCom is rarely pleasant. Nevertheless, I am pleased to serve on the committee, but I view it as a necessary duty—not something to look forward to. It would be fair to say that in the past, I have been generous to the project with my time, and when I make a commitment, I see it through. I do not view my candidature as being one designed to "fill out" the pool of nominees, as has been seen in past elections.
  •] 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Many content disputes come through mediation on their way to ArbCom. Under what circumstances would you decided that you have had enough involvement in a case, prior to it winding up at ArbCom, to warrant you abstaining from the case? Do you foresee having to abstain often enough that it would negatively impact your effectiveness as an Arb?
A: If I had had a significant involvement in a dispute as a mediator, I would recuse, because any significant involvement with the disputants (even in a role as inherently neutral as that of the mediator) will inevitably cause one to prejudge the case. My primary duties as a mediator today is as the Chairman of MedCom, which is a role of administration and co-ordination, so I do not imagine that I would become a serial recusant.
•] 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Which of the roles (other than Administrator) which you currently serve in, if any, will you resign if you are elected? If you feel as though you would have to resign multiple roles, please discuss what you perceive the net impact of the resignations to be. If you don't plan on resigning multiple roles, please discuss the ethical ramifications of holding outside roles and an ArbCom position.
A: Perhaps we might cross that bridge when we come to it, but I imagine that I would move from the role of community Audit Subcommittee member to arbitrator member. I would end my term as Chairman of MedCom. I doubt I would have enough time to continue using the checkuser tool regularly, but the impact of this on SPI would be negligible because we have had a new intake of community checkusers (who were appointed at the same time as was I, though I had been using the tool before then because of my AUSC appointment). I am no longer a clerk (I stepped down when I joined AUSC), and I do not fulfil any other functions on the project that would interfere with my work as an arbitrator.
•] 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional questions from Sven Manguard

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

Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.
- A: I agree that the Workshop has been abused in the past. As a clerk, I occasionally [2] spoke out when I thought a workshop proposal was a thinly-veiled dig at another contributor, and I would do so as an arbitrator too.
  •] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?
A: I would propose that the arbitrators stop spending so much time on the mailing list and doing other stuff, and focus on being involved in the actual cases. If the arbitrators took the time to read and comment on workshop proposals, problematic activity could be stamped out (or even discouraged, with increased arbitrator involvement implying that misbehaviour could more easily be reflected in the final decision than if the arbitrators were largely absent). If the committee was more involved, nonsense or malicious proposals could be shot down quickly, which is better than having them languish on the workshop and in the public record.
•] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Questions from NuclearWarfare Hi AGK, glad to see that you've running. I have prepared a set of questions Lar's old ones, adding a few that I think are important. If you could answer the core questions, I would be much appreciative, although if you have the inclination to answer the additional questions, please go ahead. NW (Talk) 19:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Core questions

Please describe your opinion on the following proposals in relation to Wikipedia's
BLP policy: an expanded version of opt-out , "targeted flagging", and a more permanent version of the old pending changes
trial. In your answer, please discuss your personal views on the pending changes trial: what you thought of it, whether we should ultimately implement some form of it (and if so, what form?), whether the community failed to come to a decision about it, and what you believe the role of the Arbitration Committee should have been.
A: Given the amplified legal and moral issues with articles about living people, I simply do not think that the standard Wiki model of content-writing is adequate.
(1) Opt-out: I define the opt-out system as "Permitting the administrator who closes an AFD for a BLP where the subject has marginal notability and has asked that they not be included on Wikipedia to take the subject's wishes into account". Where the subject is of marginal notability, it follows that their inclusion on Wikipedia is not a significant issue. For instance, whereas we would commit a gross oversight in the depth of our encyclopedia by granting
•] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Please describe an experience you have had with a significant content dispute. If you have had any disputes where you felt that either yourself or another party was either not acting in good faith with respect to the
neutrality
policy or with regards to source gathering, I would be especially interested to hear about your experience. What do you feel you did incorrectly and how would you have realistically fixed that for future situations?
A: I don't edit contentious articles, mainly by coincidence: my interests are in subjects that are not widely edited. For instance, I collaborated at
•] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

In my 2010 voting guide, I highlighted several quotes by other editors. Please select two from "On Administration" and state why you agree or disagree with them. Bonus points if you give reasons for your answers
A: I firmly agree with Heimstern's Essay on the Arbitration Committee. I find it repugnant that some of our contributors are permitted to do whatever they like with certain articles so long as they ostensibly embrace dispute resolution and discussion, and remain civil. I suspect that we have resorted to focussing, in many cases, on who is uncivil, rather than who is using Wikipedia for their own ends, because it is easier to do so. It takes far less time to slam the banhammer on a few diffs containing expletives than on an array of edits that prove a pattern of long-term POV-pushing or protracted edit-warring. I have spoken about this at length elsewhere, although not much recently because the issue is difficult to get much traction on, and I firmly agree that the spilling over of nationalist or real-life cultural disputes onto Wikipedia is one of the most serious issues this community faces. Civil but non-neutral or partisan speeches are not accepted in academia; why should they be on an online encyclopedia?
I suspect that I have also responded to MastCell's comment in November 2010, but needless to say I agree with that too, for the same reasons as elucidated in the previous paragraph. I picked the first two because they are related (and because it's easier to just tackle the first two on the list), but if you want me to take a stab at Moreschi's essay, please feel free to ask a follow-up question.
•] 00:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you believe that the policy on
discretionary sanctions
are in place?
A: Like it or not, administratorship is not only a bunch of technical tools; it involves reasoned judgment. Nobody can reach a balanced conclusion if they are not impartial. Moreover, the legitimacy of their action is undermined if they are involved, because an involved administrator taking action gives the impression they are using their tools for their own ends. I do not think administrators should be using their tools in a situation in which they are not uninvolved, especially where the matter requires more balance and analysis (like the application of general or discretionary sanctions). We have enough problems with the body of administrators being perceived by non-sysops as an elite, without allowing administrators to use their tools in matters in which they are not impartial. The same applies to functionaries (like CU or OS access-holders), arbitrators, and so on.
•] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Wikipedia, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?
A: The ostensible justification for blocking editors who make legal threats is that the dispute-resolution process would otherwise be undermined. From that perspective, legal action is identical to the threat of legal action. (Personally, I think we block editors who make legal threats because it's just not sporting, and must be especially discouraged in the context of the litigation-happy culture in some states in the USA.)
I do not think any candidate could speak confidently about this issue, but I'll give it a shot. There are several scenarios under which two editors could become involved in legal proceedings after an action or action on this website:
(1) If legal proceedings were initiated by editor A over editor B with regards to a disagreement over content, the matter would be laughed out of court; a public disagreement is not libellous, and neither volunteer could conceivably be liable in any other tort.
(2) If editor A sued editor B with regards to a public insult or remark which caused offence, perhaps made in the course of a meta- or article-discussion, then the matter would again probably be dismissed by any reasonable court.
(3) If editor B is sued by article-subject A for writing a verified, referenced, and accurate article that the subject nonetheless finds objectionable, the matter would not lead to legal action because: i) the article is valid because it is supported by sources and therefore truthful; and ii) it would anyway be publisher of the sources, not the Wikipedian, who is liable.
(4) If editor B is sued by article-subject A for using Wikipedia to publish defamatory content, then editor B might conceivably be liable, but frankly we do not need to concern ourselves with such an individual.
In all cases, the legal proceedings would be for insult or injury, rather than to obtain a legal ruling to change Wikipedia content. Accordingly, the respondent should not be blocked; and likewise, there is no need to prohibit mention of the proceedings (although the involved editors should be mindful of the doctrine of
•] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional questions

What is your opinion of specialized content guidelines like
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)
?
A: Yes, I think some topics require a more specialist approach than others. Medicine, for instance, demands a more refined approach to the verification of content and the use of reliable sources; to take that example, although the broad thrust of policy (that only mainstream sources may be used), the community has refined this further by, for example, requiring that we not use material that is not supported by mainstream scientific consensus or that contradicts mainstream consensus without
•] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you think we should have a policy for medicine and health in the same manner that we have
WP:BLP
for living people? What about for corporations?
A: The BLP policy is peculiar because it simply re-states what Wikipedia policy prescribes elsewhere. In theory, all articles are required in equal measure to conform to our core content policies and especially to be
•] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree?

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification

Restraining aggrieved parties in emotionally charged scenarios is central to the Committee’s role, and arbitrators are in principle exposed to legal action by those parties in a real-world jurisdiction. It matters little whether an action is launched or merely threatened, and whether it is quite unreasonable: the costs for an individual arb to forestall a default judgment in a foreign court would be considerable (and I believe it’s not hard to transfer an order to the courts in one’s local jurisdiction). The risk is greater because as volunteers we can’t be expected to provide professional mediation as an intermediary between wiki and real-world judicial processes—mediation that might head off litigation in the first place.
Given the WMF's annual income of some $20M, what is your view on whether the Foundation should:

set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
A: I do not imagine that mediation would be especially useful in such a situation, but if the arbitrators became involved in legal proceedings, then yes, I would hope the Foundation would provide assistance. As the Foundation retains an in-house counsel, I do not imagine that mediation would be especially expensive (at least in raw terms). Perhaps I am grossly naive, but I do not think we need to prepare for every eventuality—especially because most foreseeable legal proceedings are unreasonable or vexatious, and therefore unlikely to make it far before dismissal.
•] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A: Nothing in the Foundation's Terms of Use or other policies makes them liable to protect an arbitrator (or any editor) who becomes subject to legal action because of their constructive contributions to Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee is a community process, not a WMF one, and I do not see why the Foundation would be obliged to offer legal indemnity. However, that does not mean that I think they should not offer assistance; I do. However, as I have opined elsewhere, I find it unlikely that an arbitrator would be the subject of legal action in the course of their routine work as a member of the committee. I may be naive in holding such a view, but in any case I am volunteering to arbitrate disputes—not to shape any debate on what the Foundation might do in the unlikely event that legal action might somewhere be taken against me or another arbitrator…
•] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Questions from Russavia

There is a still open RfC at
WP:DUCK
evidence, to be a banned disruptive sockpuppet. Do you think it is appropriate that after nearly a month and a half:

the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.
A: No, the delay is excessive. I have not followed the RfCl, but from what you tell me, the communication of the committee leaves a lot to be desired.
•] 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
A: Presumably those responsible for the unblocking are publicly listed at
•] 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
A: Of course I don't think it's appropriate, but I don't know why there may be such a conflict in communication. Presumably, the arbitrators just crossed wires on that particular aspect of the matter; on a Committee of nearly twenty, such things must be anticipated at least occasionally. I agree, however, that that issue should have been cleared up when the RfCl was filed.
•] 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?
A: I don't know if they have, not being privy to their internal discussions, nor having even followed the RfCl. I would be loathe to judge the case based on your representation of the facts, especially because everybody views such incidents differently. However, I certainly think when the committee errs, it should hold its hands up and say so; brushing things under the carpet has been shown, especially when it comes from ArbCom, to not work, nor to be acceptable to the community.
•] 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The last question is especially important as there are numerous uninvolved admins and admins who have previously dealt with the user in question, who are too "afraid" of going over the Committee's head, even in the face of evidence; if one assumes ownership of a problem as the current Committee has, then surely the current Committee must also assume ownership of their actual ownership of the problem possibly being part of said problem. If one looks at the answers thus far given at the request from arbiters closely, one can see that there seems to be a theme amongst arbs to suggest that the Community block the editor for other current issues; all the while the Committee avoids answering Community concerns at the actual clarification request. However, the other issues have only strengthened the opinion of sockpuppetry amongst other members of the Community.
Although you are not a currently sitting arb, I would also request a response to the following:

if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)

absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?

how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
A: There are none, although if I had had a previous involvement in some specific incident that later came to arbitration, I would of course recuse. I would also reserve the right to recuse from a topic area in future.
•] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?
A: I would always respond in full to a request that I recuse, by rebutting the arguments made for my recusal or by saying I will recuse. I would respond in full irrespective of how advanced in the requests process the matter was.
•] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?
A: See above.
•] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?
A: While I would tentatively be satisfied that most arbitrators would not seek to interfere with the committee's internal discussion about a case, I nevertheless think it is wrong for that arbitrator to even be privy to those deliberations. The committee's mailman software prevents 'selective unsubscription', and I think that is damaging. If the parties to a case know one of the parties has been able to read internal discussion (and maybe even participate in it), then the perceived legitimacy of the decision is lessened. The legitimacy of ArbCom's decisions is important. As for the arbitrator's involvement with the case before it comes to the committee: an arbitrator must either come to case proceedings with as much impartiality as we can expect from people, or must recuse. I do not think there can be much leeway here; a partisan arbitrator is a bad arbitrator.
•] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
A: In the situation of having been involved in the matter before it comes to arbitration? I plan to avoid involving myself in disputes except in an official capacity, and I do not often come across a situation in which I cannot be neutral. However, if I am not impartial because of prior involvement or my own prejudices, I would recuse.
•] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
A: Yes, because an arbitrator is most useful in their official capacity - and such prior involvement breeds a propensity to the need to recusal. Also, as a solely practical point, I do not imagine that most arbitrators would have the time to dolly about on the drama boards or mediating a dispute; the committee's workload is already large enough.
•] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
A: I don't think that would be a useful practice. Arbitrators are experienced members of the community and could have a lot to offer such discussions. Moreover, I view being an arbitrator as being a regular editor but with an extra (albeit time-intensive) duty. If an arbitrator withdrew from important community discussions, the impression would be that they had "graduated" to a seat on the committee and was no longer involved (or in touch) with the community at large. However, to recycle that catchy phrase we use a lot now, ArbCom is not GovCom, and an arbitrator's involvement in policy discussions must be only as an editor.
•] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
A:

Questions from Joe Gazz84

I would like to apologize for the late questions, I've only just gotten the time to write them. If you see a question that you've already answered or one that is similar, please proceed to answer it, you may think of a new way to explain your idea/answer. Please answer all of these questions, they will weigh in heavily when I vote.

Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?
A: I think it is helpful that a candidate declare what his or her "agenda for reform" is, and I will happily do so, but I initially emphasise two issues. First, I am being elected as an arbitrator, and my primary responsibilities would be to ensure that the committee's workload is despatched efficiently and to resolve disputes. While I have helped to drive reform at other Wikipedia bodies and would do so if elected, I do not intend to flog the metaphorical dead horse of my reform agenda. Second, I am being elected as one arbitrator of fifteen; even with the recent reduction of eighteen, I am still a significant minority. If I cannot effect reform on the following issues because of opposition from my colleagues (who are all also elected by the community) on the committee, I would have to acquiesce.
The following issues are what I think need changed:
(1) WMF consignation: The Wikimedia Foundation should continue to take on those aspects of ArbCom's remit that it is better qualified to handle. ArbCom has become to go-to body for every issue that is sensitive due to legal, privacy, or other real-life issues, which is not ideal because common editors are unqualified for a task with such high stakes.
(2) Public discussions:' ArbCom needs to shake off the (rather sucky) notion that it is entitled to hold most of its discussion in private; a public mailing list or public discussion space should be created, because the us versus them mentality of some of the arbitrators that was evident in the recent leaks has undermined the community's confidence in the value of Arbcom-l.
(3) Arbitrator involvement in cases: Arbitrators need to be more involved in the case process, including on workshops, evidence talk pages, and similar. Arbitration case talk pages likewise need more committee involvement. Arbitrator detachment from the users involved in the case gives the impression that arbitration proceedings are an unstoppable juggernaut that the parties can do nothing to change the course of, which really isn't a good thing: the committee must be receptive, and be seen to be receptive, to outside (and inside) views. Drafting the proposed decision and posting it on the workshop in good time seems to have fell out of practice, but is good because it allows the parties to read it (and post rebuttals if necessary, as well as to offer alternatives that could be considered). We must not forget that the aim of ArbCom is to resolve a dispute, not mete out street justice and silence the involved parties. I do not, of course, forget that many parties to arbitration have often behaved in such a way that they probably need to be site-banned, and I do not propose that we "go soft" and play nice with every party; I just think that bringing a modicum of discussion to the process is a good idea.
(4) Overuse of motions: Motions are overused, and using them for anything but internal matters or the simplest of disputes means that the resulting decision is more likely to be rushed and flawed. I would lobby for a full case to be opened more often than would most arbitrators.
(5) Periodic reviews of the committee's performance should be held (other than our annual elections, which any case are not well-suited to this purpose, or WT:AC/N, which is too informal). Most other comparable public bodies have a complaints process; I do not think it would use many resources to have a similar system for ArbCom. We need to be more receptive to the community's thoughts on the committee's business, as well as to genuine complaints about the actions of specific arbitrators or the conduct of specific cases or proceedings. I hope we can create a subpage of the main ArbCom case page that is an RFC Lite forum to which people can post their grievances about the committee. At present, the community can rant at WT:AC/N, or join (and rant at) Wikipedia Review. ArbCom should allow these editors to periodically rant directly at the subjects of their anger; without good feedback, I do not see how the committee can ever improve.
If you would like me to talk at greater length about any of these issues, please feel free to ask.
•] 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?
A: No, I do not think the committee should create policy. Please see my answer to Gen. Qu. 3. I think the committee should refer all issues of policy to the community for consideration.
•] 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and its surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?
A: What rule? Did the user, for example, break
•] 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)
A:

Q: If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
A:

Thank you, JoeGazz ♂ 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Demiurge1000

When I was a wiki-newcomer with less than a year on Wikipedia, already a victim of some of the sockpuppetry that goes on in the Israel-Palestine topic area, I expressed my upset at a decision you made. You responded on my talk page by saying, inter alia, "I'm not sure where you learned to socialise, but, on a collaborative project, we don't do that kind of thing".

This week, you chose to comment on Pesky's page, berating her for, in her apology, writing, "We're not all angry young men in WP, and, being a British granny, I tend to use the kinds of phrases that British grannies use." here. It is apparent that there was "anger", demonstrated by an edit summary - directed at Pesky - of "fuck the hell off, you horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual" [3], and the fact that most editors are young men is a matter of record. Pesky did nothing wrong whatsoever, but has been systematically attacked and bullied by other editors, and has now stopped editing as a result.

Two questions.

First; do you feel that you made a mistake in either of these situations, and could've handled them differently?

Second; given your obvious strong feelings about the topic area, do you agree, if you should be elected to arbcom, to recuse from all decisions that relate to the Middle East and the Israel-Palestine-Arab conflict, broadly construed? --

talk) 06:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

A: Thank you for your questions. However, you have taken to narrating my entire contribution history as somehow obnoxious, based on two disconnected diffs: "this week" suggests that in the six months between these two comments of mine, I have consistently acted in the way you have characterise me. Anyway, I digress, and disagree that it even was wrong to post these remarks. I can't really remember the background to my remark in May 2011, but concerning Pesky yesterday: I think I made it clear in my comment that I was making a good-faith suggestion that she was not being consistent in her attitude towards other editors. It certainly is inappropriate to refer to any Wikipedia contributor as an "angry young man", much less to suggest that the majority are, and I don't really see a way around that truth; moreover, I'm not going to bite my tongue when I see something said that I think crossed the line. The "horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual" was a far more serious matter, by an order of magnitude, and irrespective of what Pesky said in passing, I don't for a moment suggest that Badger Drink should ever have said that—and I am pleased to see he is indefinitely blocked as a result of his remark. However, what happened elsewhere does not excuse Pesky's characterisation of "angry young men"; do you think it would be okay for somebody to post (for instance) that "As a British granny, why are you even here? Old people can't use computers." Of course it wouldn't, and the same intolerance for ageism against the old should extend to ageism against the young.

Sorry, what strong feelings? I have never expressed a view on either of these topic areas, nor do I have one. I certainly have sanctioned a few editors from both factions of that topic area, but that involvement in itself does not require that one recuse from the topic area. An arbitrator is not required to recuse because they were on the committee when a dispute came to arbitration at an earlier point, and the same applies to the enforcement of arbitration decisions. I am not partisan in relation to these disputes, and have dispatched all enforcement requests relating to the topic with professionalism and neutrality. Unless you are able to substantiate your flippant claim that I have abused my position and sanctioned editors within a topic area in which I am impartial, it would be appropriate to retract your question.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your position (although looking at the tone of this question, I suspect not), your comment at Pesky's talk page suggests there's something about me that you really don't like. Unless you want to tell me (with evidence that I've actually done something wrong, rather than that I have the stomach to speak up and not be a yes-man), there isn't much I can do about that. Respectfully,

[•] 12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Pesky was responding to the ANI thread about Badger Drink, and there was unanimous opposition to his "fuck off" comment, so I didn't realise the thread had made her stop editing. In light of your remark that she has stopped editing as a result and that she was bullied by other people (could you tell me who?), I'll need to look again at my comment about angry young men. Although it was appropriate to ask her to consider whether it was appropriate, in context that may not be so important if she's stopped editing.

[•] 12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Questions from Rich Farmbrough

In October you were involved in wiping the user pages of a blocked user, citing policy in support of this, and saying

To be clear, I'm not blindly enforcing the minutiae of policy, but rather trying to instil some semblance of a fresh-start to TT's talk page: if we're letting him keep his userspace as before, then we might as well unblock him too…

Do you still feel that was a wise thing to do?
And do you stand by the sentiments expressed in your comment of the time?
As a supplemental, do you prioritize the encyclopedia or the procedures? Can you show evidence to support this?

Rich Farmbrough, 10:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A: Thanks for your questions. I have said elsewhere in this Q&A that I consider policy to be a codification of the community's views on how Wikipedia should operate: common practice or best practice should prescribe our policies, not vice versa. I supported the blanking of TT's talk page, as well as his userpage, because that is a reasonable interpretation of policy. The community has decided that indefinitely blocked users (who are considered de facto banned) do not need a userpage or a talk page to explain who they are and what they do on Wikipedia. At the time,

WP:USER

which in turn defines user pages as "pages in the User and User talk namespaces". His user page had been replaced with a ban notice, and it was a simple extrapolation of our site practice (and policy) that his talk page should be too. I felt that the point was especially important because of the content of TT's talk page: he had a politicised image about pontificating, which any visitor to his page would interpret as a comment on the community and its practices. TT was blocked because he showed a disdain for the project, and the consensus of the blocking discussion was that this was caused by disillusion with its community. My view at the time was that the inclusion of statements on his talk page, like the image, reflected this disillusion. If the aim was for TT to readjust his perspective on the Wikipedia community, a fresh start was required in all respects—including his userspace.

I prioritise the project and its article-writers over procedure, and have for instance disagreed with other administrators who enforce civility for civility's sake while ignoring blatant POV-pushing elsewhere at the article in question. I used to be very active at the Arbitration Enforcement (AE) noticeboard, and previously spent most of my wiki-time dealing with the threads there. You only need to look at my record at arbitration enforcement to see that I view the stability and reliability of our articles and the professionalism and well-being of our contributors over the letter of policy. To take one common scenario, policy requires that all contributors pursue dispute-resolution where an edit they have made was challenged; I have pushed for this to be waived where the edit that was challenged was a removal of ostensibly-sourced material that actually constituted a manipulation of secondary sources or was not a

[•] 12:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]