THC Science

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]

What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
My most recent consulting client manager literally told me to "Be Godzilla."
What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
I have participated in mediations, arbcom cases, AN and ANI discussions, ongoing dispute resolutions, as an editor and administrator. Can't conveniently count how many since 2005.
Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
Are people trying to build a better encyclopedia, or not? Are people trying to build a better encyclopedia working with the rest of the community, or not? Those who aren't, should be treated more harshly. But every case is different.
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
I work for a computer consulting company, and at various clients around California. I have studiously avoided admin actions related to any organization I am affiliated with. I don't think any general type of case would require recusal, but listing everything I interact with and whether I consider that requiring recusal or not would be futile... I get around a lot. I will disclose potential conflicts and my reasoning for being inclined to recuse or not recuse, for open community review.
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
I could have a health scare. I lost a lot of time this year to one, but it has been treated, I have pretty scars, and gallstones don't come back...
Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
in one recent case, Arbcom unfortunately established an equivalence between a bunch of editors who were abusive and using hate speech, and admins who were attempting to contain that activity. It was not that simple - there was a legitimate content dispute and policy dispute under that - but that equivalency end result was horrible precedent on multiple levels. I would have gone as far as separating the two aspects of the case into entirely separate cases, rather than leave them joined and have that moral and ethical and 'legal' precedent of equivalence established.
The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
Many of the proposed cases always have been just unnecessary. But we also have had a problem that we are discouraging admins to step in and be forceful if necessary in disputes, in many cases. If that were more effectively encouraged - good decisions supported better, mistakes corrected by other admins or arbcom, but not punished - then the lower acceptance rate would be a good thing.
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
I'd like to focus more on alignment with the encyclopedic goals and core values, and less with minutely inspecting prior precedent. If you're breaking the encyclopedia, it doesn't matter if you're doing so in compliance with an Arbcom precedent from two years ago. And if you're helping build it, it shouldn't matter as much if you're breaking one from a year ago, either, unless that's causing problems somewhere else. Focus on enforcing things that are bad rather than things that are prohibited...
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
With rare exception (and properly) the WMF office hasn't tried to impose much policy. ArbCom is not elected to, and cases are a remarkably poor venue, to attempt to make policy. The community should do this, but is inconsistent about how engaged they are with doing so. Arbcom filling in in the absence of community progress is really a terribly last last resort...
It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
It has not been true in practice regarding policy. It is clear that it's not exactly going to be true, in practice, no matter what is done, but more should be done to attempt to push the community to create policy in cases where existing policy is inadequate, rather than have Arbcom make a fiat policy. Regarding content, it's often hard on a practical level to separate out user behavior from content they added; that does not mean that avoiding content decisions is a bad policy.
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
This question is somewhat obsolete. The policy exists. It should be enforced the same as other policy and core values.
Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
Mercilessly? No, seriously, yes I will request them, and I intend to be careful with them. Arbs acting as super-admins might be tempting, but it's not exactly the job description. I haven't had CU or Oversight before, but have had considerable sockpuppet case exposure (mostly older) and understand the roles. I think arbcom members having the power is useful, but knowing when not to use it is equally important.
Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
I have been using my real name here since I started. When working with OTRS I have received abusive phone calls from upset users. My employer knows I do this. My family knows I do this. I don't think outing is a big risk to me, personally.
Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
I know why this is sensitive; we have conflicting user privacy issues (and info has leaked before) and a real problem with... repeat customers. Losing archive data is losing effective institutional memory. But leaking old records is bad too. The community are conflicted on these points, as am I.
Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
I would be hesitant to act without describing evidence generally to a user. They deserve a chance to explain and/or rebut; even "good" evidence may turn out to be inaccurate. And I think part of Arbcom's basic goal is to be trusted enough to not share everything. Some accusations, such as child abuse or other possibly libelous or slanderous claims, will do immense harm if made in public. But it should strive to minimize private evidence. I lean towards more openness.

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:

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

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. 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, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
Taking time in a calm situation is not a bad thing. Taking time - sitting back and not being firm - when people are sniping at each other is a bad thing.
What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
Nobody owns articles. But we should hope that contributors either are working to further our general principles, or as experts who are accurately curating per our policies. Experts don't get to override more general principles, and non-experts need to be aware of their lack of specific expertise.
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?
Yes. In most cliques are hiding corrosive people hiding among those who they generally agree with. That is not conducive to building a better encyclopedia. What to do? Not a witch hunt. But more active constructive engagement.
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?
Not always, some users go off and cause a serious incident by themselves. Usually that doesn't take an Arbcom case to identify and deal with... I do have sympathy for baited users, who were taunted or "drawn offsides" by someone else's unstopped abuse. But they need to be held accountable for what they affirmatively did, even if provoked.
zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
Continuing or escalating a wheel war, clearly using tools to advance your own interests, or acting vindictively against other users justify intervention. We have set Arbcom up as the first place people can do to actively sanction another admin, unless another admin is willing to block them, which we have made very difficult via precendent. That may not be good precedent, but it is in place now.
What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
Other than on-wiki interaction with policy issues offsite, they're out of arbcom's purview.
What is your definition of "outing"?
I have always philosophically preferred people be open about their identities, but respect that the community prefers pseudonymity. I don't find the current Outing policy and precedents entirely workable or consistent with what I think was intended, and would like to see the Community attempt to clarify the policy.
What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
Most of the time they are used appropriately, but I am concerned that oversight has been abused at times, and is used a bit too secretly. For most oversighted items, it's not necessary to have the oversight action be treated as a state secret. CU is necessary but also an opportunity to leak private information, and needs to be handled carefully.
Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
Yes, both involved and mediated. I find that getting more opinions and more people involved is some of the best medicine for such disputes. When such disputes end up unresolvable, it tends to be because of individual personalities involved, abusive users, or other behavioral problems. In many other cases we've had perfectly functional collaboration between ideologically opposed editors...
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
A clearer focus on the goal of building an open access encyclopedia , our core values, and building a community that's healthy and thriving rather than ebbing.
Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
I will bring my drivers' license to WMF HQ in this case. I have unresolved questions (asked onwiki and in mailing lists) about the data security of remote identification. I agree with the idea of having people identified, but the implementation is a significant problem.

Thank you. Rs chen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect[edit]

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.

An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
I recall seeing that statement go by, but can't recall which case it was. The first part seemed to be accurate given the behavior on the case filing, in that particular case. I would not generalize; I can see cases happening where it's sorted out by people being reasonable, and no sanctions being necessary. As a rule, that tends to happen before cases, if it's likely, but exceptions will happen. I do not agree with the second sentence. There are articles whose topic matter is so controversial that they will be problematic even if all the editors are being at least moderately well behaved. Hopefully the good behavior will keep it out of Arbcom cases, but one should not assume that.
Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?
I am not willing to sanction an editor without specific evidence. In some cases we might admonish a group of editors for communal behavior, but I would not issue stricter sanctions other than for individual, specific actions.
Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?
I don't know what actually happened there. I would not *ignore* evidence and workshop pages; they're there for the parties and community to provide evidence, input, and suggested resolutions. That does not mean that all the evidence, input, or suggested resolutions (or in some cases, any of them) will ultimately be used to resolve the case. But reading and considering them, and discounting them only if there is good reason to do so, is a reasonable expectation.
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?
I actually thing we've been relying to heavily on prior decisions / precedent. People are using them to lawyer out narrow gaps into which they can then abuse the encyclopedia or other editors. That's just not right. It's a body of history and reasoning to be factored in, as the community uses and used it, but not elevated.
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 are the founding community values of the encyclopedia project. Legalistic more modern behavior has diminished their importance. This was a mistake. They should be heavily considered in Arbcom cases, and where appropriate be used.
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?
I think that editors, and the arbitration committee, should encourage neutral editors to try and mediate and if necessary "drive" - in the making edits sense - controversial BLP articles. Individual editors with strong opinions may not always be constructive on BLP topics. But this depends much on the specifics of a case, and should be considered on its individual merits.
"Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
The extent of factionalist behavior varies widely, from two identifiable sides to a content dispute, to long-standing editor cliques which actively try and defend their members and disrupt other cliques. The latter behaviors are unhelpful. I don't think it's reasonable to try and ban "a side" from an article, in the sense that usually these align with real-world opinion sets we need to be inclusive to. There are exceptions, but they need exceptional evidence of abuse of the encyclopedia over long periods of time...

Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Sven Manguard[edit]

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?
Where rapid response is necessary to an evolving disruptive situation, and where a relatively minor incident (compared to a full case) has happened and where there is clear evidence and little dispute of the underlying facts.
When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
I don't think it's appropriate for Arbcom to 'reach out and make policy', so no. If the community doesn't have consensus, there's not a consensus. Arbcom is not the supreme decisionmaking body of Wikipedia. It's a conflict resolution body.
Please identify a few motions from 2013 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
(I will review the 2013 motions in the next day or so and provide an answer here)
The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.
I do not believe existing policy or precedent supported taking action here, though Phil clearly did go "outside channels" to point out a users' undisclosed apparent conflict of interest in an attempt to influence on-Wiki activities. The specific logic of why this might be a good policy was laid out by the arbitrators, but they failed to acknowledge that they were making policy here, and it was not a good time to do so. It should have been left for the community to decide if offsite actions should be included under the Outing policy.
In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?
Arbcom should not be placing itself in this situation in the first place. Making policy via this type of precedent was not good. Doing so in a manner not clear and transparent and initially explained and justified well enough, that followup explanations were necessary, was a second failure. If extraordinary measures are necessary they should be explained in detail before and during, rather than after.
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?
I am in favor of a significantly more open system. I also know that some decisionmaking is best or necessarily done in private, from a practical standpoint. My objective is to shift the balance so that the community sees enough of the sausage making to establish a firmer level of trust in the process.
The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.
- If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?

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

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

Regarding the first sub-question, not currently on arbcom so not applicable. Regarding the second, I believe this is important enough to keep working to change minds, policy, process etc. My intention would be to work within the system for reform, with an open mind to what normal users are interested in seeing open up and what specific secrecy issues are engendering mistrust and doubt among the community. I would suggest we need to actively solicit and act upon feedback on those matters. Regarding the third sub-question, I think it's useful to consider completely new models in addition to incremental reform. In the US court system, for example, court proceedings are inherently open. Filings and documents can be sealed for limited reasons (and, in the Wikipedia analogy, could be for reports of abuse which might be libellous, for reports or requests with personal information, etc) but are otherwise public. The model is not directly applicable; Arbcom acts in a more inquisitorial system than US courts do (both as prosecutor and judge, to some degree). It's worth floating alternate proposals and ideas.

Questions by Gerda Arendt[edit]

Thank you for volunteering.

Basic first question of three: please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fairly vague question. The edit is Andy Mabbett putting an infobox in a musician's biographical article. I am fairly aware of Andy's prior cases and so forth. I was personally involved on the FA edit restrictions - [1] where I closed a community edit restriction. I also followed the infoboxes issues, but was not involved. What is the point or relevance of this question?... Thanks.
I didn't look at your history (yet) but ask all candidates the same questions. Your answer to my very specific question is interesting. Would you please look closer and find out who put the infobox in a musician's biography? Not Andy. We will get to the relevance with the next question.
Ok. You originally added it. Again, please explain the point or relevance. Thank you.
Second question (hopefully answering yours): imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. One, hypothetically, were this infobox problematic, Andy *did* put it back in after others removed it. (I assert no actual abusive editing here, only hypothetically). Even if it was not originally his content, supporting it and re-adding it could be abusive behavior, edit warring, etc. So the context matters. If the problematic behavior includes edit warring to restore otherwise deleted content it could be admissible and have been intended that way. In other situations, the mistaken attribution of the original editorship would be problematic and should be called out and discussed. Again, context for the diff matters, as does the original attribution. Such diffs should be made in public (and are) so that others can review and challenge such assertions.
Let me understand. You can find out if this infobox was problematic. Andy didn't "put it back in", he only uncollapsed it, did you see that? I fail to understand "mistaken attribution of the original editorship editorship", sorry.

Question from Tryptofish[edit]

What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?
Risker's draft seems an improvement over the initial proposal, which seemed to disregard the email senders' privacy requests. I encourage an increase in openness of communications, including that point. The private information issue is going to be highly sensitive however.

Question from Sceptre[edit]

Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in Sexology, the massive embarrassment of the Manning dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?
I am extremely concerned regarding this aspect of recent decisions. Behavior that would have unquestionably led to indefinite blocks were it directed at blacks or jews or women was allowed to stand effectively uncorrected in the Manning case. That case was exceptionally complex to try and deal with wider policy on - it conflated legal, political, and gender issues along with user behavior and admin behavior. However, the knot required better slicing than was given. The gender issues and related abuse were essentially set aside in the final analysis and arbcom ruling. In "Sexology" we have a problem which came down in a sense to properly qualifying individuals' claims of being real world experts, which is also exceptionally problematic on-wiki for anyone (Arbcom, or anyone else). I don't agree with the decision but understand that one. The recent Jimbo talk page incident seems to have been a single miscommunication rather than coordinated intentional action, and seems to still be evolving. I will withhold more detailed comment for the moment as it's not entirely clear how it developed. More generally, though I am personally none of L G B or T, I have personal connections in the SF Bay Area into those communities, understand and value them as human beings, and am willing to reach out into them to attempt to help them understand WP and WP conversely understand them. On-wiki editors who want to discuss these issues are welcome on my talk page or to email me.

Question from User:SirFozzie[edit]

First off, thank you for volunteering. You note in your statement that you've been semi-active/inactive for a while now.. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what changes since you've last been active that you'd like to change back, and how?
Policy and content, nothing jumps out at me. I wish some decisions could be reconsidered, which my other comments may hint at. The general long term trends which caused me to run date back further than when I went semi-active.

Question from Piotrus[edit]

(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?
If an editor has demonstrated that they are unlikely to be able to interact productively with editors on any, or on a large number of topic areas, then I would consider it.
wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)
I consider blocks and bans to be defensive measures for the community, encyclopedia, and projects. If someone is damaging or disruptive, and remains so after prior lesser sanctions, and their best intentions do not seem likely to result in real reform (multiple demonstrated failures to reform after prior sanctions, efforts to adjust, etc) then we at some point need to make a decision. Some editors are going to be disruptive no matter how much they want to help. If that disruption seriously outweighs the benefits to the encyclopedia we consider defending the community, encyclopedia, and project.
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 to...?)
I don't know that the analogies are close enough to be able to make them. I take bans seriously, and consider them to be the culmination of a sequence of serious responses and opportunities for reform, in all but the most extreme cases. I am happy to discuss more specific questions, or the philosophical / ethical analogy, on my talk page in more detail, but I don't know that it's a productive discussion here.
The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?
I don't see how this is relevant to the encyclopedia project, or to arbitrators or arbitrator candidates. Arbcom is not part of a criminal justice system, and Wikipedia is not an American phenomenon (though most editors are US citizens). I am not afraid of discussing my opinions on this topic, but I would prefer to do so in a more appropriate venue; cluttering up the election with unrelated questions and discussions does not seem useful here. Ask me on my talk page if you like.
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?
I think I generally agree, but with some caveats. One, I think that everyone deserves chances to be warned and reform rather than just be banned, unless conduct was truly outrageous. Your balancing of good for the encyclopedia versus damage to the encyclopedia makes sense, but we need to consider damage to the community by being too abrupt with editors who cross lines. You hint at that as a factor, but I wanted to make it explicit.
I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.
I don't know that any of my information here is secret, it's mostly on my talk page and what isn't I think I've disclosed publicly before. I'm 44, I have a Bachelors of Science degree from UC Berkeley in Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering and some graduate level study at the International Space University, but no advanced degree. I am an American citizen and was born here. Going a bit further, I work as a computer architect and consultant for large enterprise systems, much of which has been at companies you will recognize. I also own a small aerospace engineering business which is spectacularly unprofitable most of the time. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area (in the East Bay, in the city of Hayward) and was born and grew up in this metropolitan region. I am happy to discuss my background in more detail if there are specific relevant questions.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:MONGO[edit]

Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.
I have not been attracted to the FAC and similar processes; there is a significant process education ramp-up to be good at it, and I have not had the time or inclination. I value that we have other people working to polish up core, high readership articles (or those with significant editor interest) to such high standards, and strive to curate collaboratively and towards high quality standards on articles on my watchlist and attention focus.

Question from User:Worm That Turned[edit]

Firstly, please accept my apologies for adding to the list of questions! I'm one of the less controversial arbitrators but even I have had my writing twisted, my honesty questioned, my personality derided. I've been the target of unpleasant emails and real life actions. Other arbitrators have been subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?
All of these have already happened over the years with my OTRS and administrator work, and I regrettably am plenty used to it, though I don't relish that aspect of it. I am used to hanging up on cranks, and referring legal threats to the Foundation, and just stepping back and not engaging anymore with a particular issue. Those are in a sense the easy ones; the ones onwiki where I have to keep engaged are hard ones. My strategy previously has been slow and deliberate - step back, think about it, and respond after taking a break. Will I be entirely happy? I'm sure that lots of the time, I won't be. But I try not to take it personally, keep a work/life balance that works out well, not take stress home with me, etc. Nobody's life depends on this stuff; we can afford to be deliberate, and not grind ourselves down. I have plenty of unavoidably late nights and urgent emergencies in my normal consulting work, often with millions of dollars of value at stake (once, a billion plus), and I consider that real stress. The one crazy non-wiki stalker who kept threatening my family was real stress. This so far has been tolerable, and I expect I can manage it. But this is a really good question. You have to want to be on Arbcom this much. You have to be this committed to the community and the encyclopedia project. It's not a perk. It's not a mop you can carry around sometimes. It's important.

Question from User:HectorMoffet[edit]

The number of Active Editors on EnWP has been in decline since 2007.

This decline has been documented extensively:

In our own "Editor Trends Study"
In popular media ("Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore")
In scholarly literature ("How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline")

This raises several questions:

Is this really problem? Or is it just a sign of a maturing project reaching an optimum community size now that the bulk of our work is done?
I think it's both a problem and a sign of a maturing project. The evidence is fairly unambiguous that we are hostile to new editors, in disturbing ways. Hence it's a problem. I think that the project having reached a healthy content set size meant it was more mature and changing in nature, though there are still huge gaps in potential additional content to be written and expanded and improved. But yes, I think scaring off new potential editors is a problem.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?
A lot. I will expand on this later when I have some more time.
In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?
This is not the right venue, but the Foundation has been looking at editor retention and attraction, with both social and tools aspects of that problem, and seems generally moving in positive directions and open to new ideas and feedback on those efforts.
Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?
Tough one. Most of the issues are community, and a few technical. In terms of what Arbcom can do, it should emphasize that activity that drives users away is detrimental to the encyclopedia project and community. But it should not attempt to remold the community with case decisions; I support social and community leadership rather than use of the arbcom platform as the mechanism of change, I think.

Question from Carrite[edit]

Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?
I believe that it's valuable for us to have external criticism sites. That does not mean that each individual one is necessarily a positive or factually accurate site. I have read that site on and off, but not recently, and not participated, because I generally feel it's not positive or factually accurate nor worth engaging with to try and change. I do not believe we can or should do anything about the site per se. With regards to "abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site" - I am troubled by our current standards and precedents regarding offsite activity. I would be happier with social discouragement of particular problematic actions there than Arbcom intervention. Under existing precedent some outing or abuse might be actionable on-wiki, by Arbcom or administrators, but I am not happy with that precedent. Some situation might arise in which it is necessary to include some of that off-wiki content in a case, but that would not make me happy or eager to do so.

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from iantresman[edit]

How important do you think is transparency and accountability for Admins and Arbitrators, bearing in mind that: (a) Checkuser and Oversight have no public logs, even though we could say who accesses these features (without necessarily giving compromising information)? (b) ArbCom has its own off-site discussion area.
I am generally in favor of much more transparency, except for the most sensitive of cases or incidents. My impression is that CU and Oversight tend to generally be "most sensitive" but I don't see the logs now. In terms of the Arbcom off-site discussion and mailing list, there are clearly some incidents that require such, but I would hope to minimize that.
I see lots of ArbCom cases where editors contribute unsubstantiated acusations without provided diffs, and often provide diffs that don't backup the allegations. Do you think ArbCom should do anything about it? (ie. strike though allegations without diffs).
Case statements perform several functions; they are at least all of a venue for editors to point out specific evidence (good), they are a venue for editors to frame policy questions or higher level goal / intentions / motivation questions or issues (good), they are a venue to make possibly factual but unsupported accusations (not so great) and a venue for various venting about editors (again not so great). I think to some degree the proposed decision is an inverse of your proposal (rather than striking people's comments, selecting those felt to be valid from the workshop into the proposed decision). I think it would be worthwhile to talk about this question, but don't have a snappy answer.
Incivility on Wikipedia is rife. Sometimes it is ambiguous and subjective. But where it is clear, why do you think enough is done to uphold this core policy?
(tbd, not ignoring...)
Editors whose username lets them be identified easily in real life, are frequently subjected to "oppositional research" by anonymous editors who can readily achieve WP:PRIVACY. Do you think this double standard is fair, and should anything be done?
The Internet has had all of anonymity, pseudonymity, and real-name users for the entire time I've been using it, back into the late 1980s. I have used my real name and accepted that it's going to mean some people can "get information on me". It is and remains generally - internet wide - a problem, not specific to Wikipedia. Specific to Wikipedia, this is as much a mess here as anywhere else. My preferred and personally followed policy (use real name openly, aware of and accepting consequences) is not universally shared here. I have personal advice for people in these situations, but in an "official capacity" I have tried to enforce the community standard / policy here. This is another not-snappy answer type of question, this venue isn't good for extended discussions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see lots of ArbCom cases where Arbitrators appear to ignore the comments of the editors involved. Do you think that basic courtesies should require Arbitrators to make more than just an indirect statement, and actually address the points being made?
I'm not clear on what you're referring to, do you mean workshop proposals? I would not feel it necessary to comment on a point I felt was well enough supported to make it to the Proposed Decision; I wouldn't feel it necessary to comment on a point which was ridiculous; I would probably comment on proposals in the middle, to probe and test and see if they got stronger or weaker under examination, and probe points I disagree with (and would not put into a Proposed Decision myself) but feel are potentially valuable. If you believe it's useful to ask all the sitting arbs to comment on each workshop proposal, I am not convinced. That seems like a lot of work, and not necessarily helping. But, the idea that Arbcom should be more open is beyond my own personal interpretation of open; if this idea were to receive a lot of wider support I would not object to it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2013 (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?
As time allows I have participated in the real-world community, mostly in events around the SF Bay Area. I have attended... three? of the local meetups, if I recall right, plus some social functions around HQ (mostly older), and volunteered for several years at the WMF booth at Maker Faire. Most of that came to an end the year I was working remotely in Southern California, and I haven't stepped back up to that level of activity, though I keep meaning to (not intending not to, at least). I would assume Arbcom would eat some of that time. I don't know how I can predict exactly how much. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from user:Ykantor[edit]

Should "Petit crimes" be sanctioned? and how ?
The present situation is described as User:Wikid77#Wiki opinions continued says: "some acting as "inter-wikicity gangs" with limited civility (speaking euphemistically)...Mob rule: Large areas of wikis are run by mobocracy voting. Numerous edit wars and conflicts exist in some highly popular groups of articles, especially in recent events or news articles. In those conflicts, typically 99% of debates are decided by mob rule, not mediated reason...Future open: From what I've seen, the Wiki concept could be extended to greatly improve reliability, but allow anonymous editing of articles outside a screening phase, warning users to refer to the fact-checked revision as screened for accuracy (this eventually happened in German Wikipedia"
At the moment there is no treatment of those little crimes. i.e. deleting while cheating, lying, arguing for a view with no support at all against a well supported opposite view, war of attrition tactics, deleting a supported sentence, etc. The result is distorted articles and some fed up editors who discontinue to edit. I can provide examples, if asked for.
In my view, each of these small scale problems does not worth a sanction , but the there should be a counting mechanism, such as a user who has accumulated a certain amount of them, should be sanctioned. What is your view?
There are ignored rules. Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?
e.g.
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone
lying

I can show that those 2 rules were ignored in the wp:arbcom but those are just an example. There are more ignored rules. So, Should we change the rules or try to enforce them? how?

This section makes me uncomfortable, in the sense that I sense an attempt to engender support in some specific conflict that I am not understanding in detail. For this reason I am respectfully decline to answer these at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. Those are serious Wikipedia problems, and once solved, Wikipedia will be better off. I have experienced this problems as I am involved in a continuous conflict and hope for a solution for the general problem, which as a by product, will markedly improve those low quality articles as well. Trying to supposedly cite you in order to "win" a discussion is simply childish and will not work. I still hope for an improvement of these deficiencies. Ykantor (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i can see a sense of a more general, less specific or leading policy question in there, if you have time to work on it some. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your last sentence. Anyway, I do not want to nag you. Thanks for your cooperation. Ykantor (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from user:Martinevans123[edit]

Yo GWH. Should articles ever use The Daily Mail as a reference source? Should articles ever use YouTube videos as external links? Is there still any place for a "WP:civility" policy, or does it depend on how many "good edits" an editor makes? Would you expect to see more or less ArbCom activity in the next 12 months? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The election is nearly over, but in brief; I would prefer to review source reliability by topic area, individual writer and editor, rather than blanket per publication rejection if there are questions, and though I am aware the Daily Mail has been criticized I am not going to make a sweeping answer without further details; yes, when appropriate and demonstrative of the subject of the article etc; yes, and no; and I would hope less but that depends on what controversies cannot be solved within the community, which nobody can really predict ahead of time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't consider it over until I've actually voted! But thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]