Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Ks0stm/Questions

My apologies if I do not get to your question before the end of voting. I have been preparing for final exams and have had extremely limited time to devote to Wikipedia over the past few days. If you still have questions for me feel free to ask on my talk page and I will answer as soon as I can. Thank you, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 13:13, 9 December 2013 (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.

2. What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?

   I'd bring my experience with the arbitration process from my year as an arbitration clerk, my experience with the oversight tool (albeit brief) and my skills with communication, as well as a desire for the arbitration process to function as efficiently as possible.

4. 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 been an arbitration committee clerk for the past year, during which time I clerked the Sexology and Race and politics cases and carried out various other tasks, and have participated in one arbitration case as a non-party, presenting evidence in the Kiefer Wolfowitz case. I have also occasionally participated at AN and ANI in the past, though not so much recently. Examples of my participation there are easiest to find here.

6. 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?

   I think I would be quite middle of the road. When the circumstances are right I would be more than willing to support harsher sanctions, but if I feel that less harsh measures will still effectively resolve a problem I would prefer support them instead. The primary factor that would be likely to influence which way I would vote would be the extent of the misbehavior, both time wise and severity wise, with longer term and/or more severe misconduct more likely to result in my supporting harsher sanctions.

8. 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 have no conflicting interests that would require my recusal in arbitration matters about particular topics. Any recusals I would make would be on a case by case basis.

10. Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?

    None that I anticipate.

12. 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.

    We'll start with the bad. One case that I believe was very poorly handled was the Tea Party Movement case. It opened on March 6, was suspended on June 1, unsuspended July 2, and finally closed on 5 September. Even not counting the suspension that's a five month case, which is way too long. I would have striven to get the case completed on a much more rapid time scale and without all of the hassles that came with the proposed decisions in that case. On the good side, I liked the way the Arbitration Committee handled the Infoboxes case. The case was completed in a reasonable, efficient time frame and while the final decision was not perfect (none will ever be 100% perfect), it was at least reasonable.

14. 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?

    It can be a bit of both. On the one hand, it means the community is being given more opportunities to solve issues on their own, while on the other hand it risks some declined requests festering and coming back before ArbCom even uglier at a later date. My main criteria when deciding whether or not to accept a case would be whether or not I think the community will be capable of solving the issue on their own.

16. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?

    I can't think of any changes to ArbCom's procedures I would propose myself, but were I to do so I would follow the standard channels for proposing changes to ArbCom procedures.

18. 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?

    I believe that responsibilities are at least reasonably well divided and see no major changes that need to be made. I can't think of any other committees which would need to be established.

20. 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?

    I believe that it has been as true as it can be in practice and that it should continue to be true. I do not forsee any situations in which the Arbitration Committee should create or alter policy or decide content disputes, and would prefer that ArbCom set up binding community discussions like it has done a few times previously if it feels that such changes or decisions are necessary to resolve an issue.

22. What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?

    ArbCom should have the same role with regards to the BLP policy as it does with regards to any other policy, i.e. the ability to interpret and enforce the policy but not to change the policy or make content decisions (which I believe are better done by setting up binding community discussions as ArbCom has done a few times in the past).

24. 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?

    I already have oversight and would request checkuser. I forsee using them both as a member of the community at large and as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

26. 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?

    Probably. I am well situated to deal with outing and harrassment and I don't forsee it being an insurmountable hurdle either in real life or on wiki.

28. 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 personally would have no problem with checkuser data being kept because issues thought dead can often come back at a later date, in which case having an archive of such information would be of benefit. I'd be less supportive of an archive of users' real-life identities because users choose to be anonymous for a reason, and the past has proved that leaks can happen, making such an archive an outing risk.

30. 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 think that ArbCom should not ever (or very close to never) take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user, as I believe that users should be given a chance to respond to any evidence presented against them. As for taking action against users when the evidence hasn't been shared with the community as a whole, I don't like it any more than the community as a whole does but when non-public information is involved it would be necessary. In such situations I would prefer the Arbitration Committee detail the evidence as much as they can without revealing non-public information in order to promote trust between the community and ArbCom.

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=}}

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.

2. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

   2.5 months is a bit long for an arbitration case, in my opinion, and I would prefer to see all arbitration cases completed within two months (two weeks for evidence, two for workshop, one for the proposed decision to be posted, and two for voting, plus a week for unforseen delays) or quicker.

4. 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?

   a) A WikiProject's purpose is to facilitate cooperation and organization among editors of a certain topic area, and to promote collaboration and organization on improving the topic area as a whole. WikiProjects may also set standards for the articles within their topic area as a part of their role. b) WikiProjects should ideally be a group of editors coming to consensus about articles in their topic area, with outside involvement as necessary, rather than any number of editors imposing their will on articles as would be implied by WP:OWN. WikiProjects should also not try to impose their will on articles against a sitewide consensus. c) Discussion between the community and the WikiProject should be tried in an attempt to resolve the dispute, followed up by a formal RfC if necessary.

6. 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?

   I think that there is a problem with some contributors being given more leniency than others in similar situations would be afforded. I believe this is mostly due to a desire to not lose valuable contributors, though there are several smaller factors involved as well. I'm of the opinion that no editors should get special treatment due to their contributions or standing within the community, and that all editors should be held to the same standards as any other editor.

8. a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

   a) Sometimes, but not all the time. Editors can oftentimes be goaded into disruptive behavior, other times there are two parties (or more) being disruptive, while other times an editor just flames on their own while others remain calm and civil. b) I would not be in favor generally of mitigating the sanctions of one user based on the actions of others. It is up to each individual editor to moderate their behavior, regardless of the behavior of others. Just because someone pokes you with a stick doesn't mean you have to poke back.

10. 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?

    a, b) Barring egregious misconduct, I believe that the standards for accepting a case about administrator conduct should be the same as for any other case: an RFC/U and discussion with the administrator should have been tried before a case is accepted. Examples of "egregious misconduct" in which case ArbCom can accept a case forthwith would be wheel warring, outing/harrassment, rouge administrator actions, etc.

12. 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?

    ArbCom has no jurisdiction over activities on any site other than the English Wikipedia. The only instance in which I would support ArbCom considering off-wiki actions of an editor are if they have a direct impact on an on-wiki editor (such as off-wiki harrassment or outing of an editor off-wiki).

14. What is your definition of "outing"?

    Discovering and revealing non-public information about an individual, including but not limited to contact information and real name (if undisclosed).

16. 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)?

    I currently have no issue with how I've seen the CU and OS tools used on the English Wikipedia, but that could as easily be because I haven't seen anything that gives me pause as there not being anything that would give me pause.

18. 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?

    I've been in a few minor content disputes in the past but have always been able to come to an amicable solution. I believe that content disputes are not amicably resolved in some instances primarily because both sides get too entrenched and parties either do not receive enough input from neutral editors or refuse to accept a solution presented to them.

20. Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?

    I don't really have a grand master vision for the Arbitration Committee. I don't forsee any major changes to the role of ArbCom, but I can see ArbCom adapting over time to better fulfill its current role...as for what those adaptations are, I'm sure they will become more clear when they become necessary.

22. 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've heard about it and just read the summary, but I haven't really looked at it in depth. I fully anticipate being able to meet any identification requirements that are set.

Thank you. Rschen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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?

   Ideally, the purpose of an ArbCom motion is to amend previous decisions, propose changes to ArbCom procedures, and to deal with time-sensitive issues (such as emergency desysops). They can also be used to deal with issues where a full case would be unnecessary, usually when the outcome of a case is clear before the case even starts. These are the situations in which a motion would be my first choice, though I do not think it would be frequent that I would find an arbitration request simple enough that I would want to deal with it by motion.

4. 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?

   For the first part of this question, basically in most (but not all) situations not described in my answer to the previous question. I do not believe that the Arbitration Committee should overrule community consensus on an issue (especially since many times this will mean ArbCom is altering policy or making content decisions), with the exception of BASC, which I believe could overturn a block that has community consensus. If the community cannot resolve an issue for quite some time and no arbitration request has been forthcoming I believe (even though this is not explicitly stated in the arbitration procedures) that ArbCom could pass a full motion accepting a case on the issue, but I do not believe that the Arbitration Committee should step in and try to solve the issue directly by motion. Alternatively, an Arbitration Committee member could file a request for arbitration and recuse themselves or ask another member of the community to file a case request.

6. 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 haven't found any of the 2013 motions to be inappropriate. None of them appear like they would have been better suited to a full case, and none of them seem to have overstepped the boundaries of ArbCom's remit.

8. 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.

   Now this motion I'm not quite sure what to make of. I would much prefer if the motion had been posted on wiki and editors been given a chance to comment before it was enacted. If ArbCom had done that then it's quite possible that a different motion would have been passed. At the same time there's been talk that the committee's actions in this instance are inconsistent with how they have acted in the past, which I'm not sure what I think of.

10. 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?

    Constructive, yes, because I believe that it adds transparency to the situation, especially considering the discussions took place off-wiki. On the other hand, I also feel that it added fuel to an already large fire. All in all, I would like to see arbitrators explaining their reasoning more often because I think the transparency will, in time, help with the community's trust of ArbCom. Any extra fuel it adds to fires should hopefully be outweighed by the benefits of such open transparency.

12. 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 do not believe that all ArbCom discussions not concerning private information should take place publicly, however I would strongly support more transparency regarding the discussions that do take place off wiki. What form this transparency would be in I'm not quite sure, but it could be anything from more explanations from arbitrators as in the previous question to the release of off-wiki discussions to the community after the discussions are completed. Personally, I would be in support something in between, like more explanations and short summary of the discussions being released at the conclusion of discussions.

14. 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?

    I will say, I don't commit to bring increased transparency to ArbCom...that depends on more committee members being supportive than just me, and it would be foolish of me to make that commitment when I may not be able to accomplish it. I do commit, however, that I will be an open and transparent member of the committee. If I find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to be more transparent there's not much I can do about that personally than continue to be open and transparent myself. As far as specific proposals go, I have none at present, and I feel that that's something the committee as a whole should discuss and come up with some ideas.

2. Under what circumstances should Arbcom authorize discretionary sanctions on a topic area? Do you feel that the committee has done this too often or too rarely? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I feel that the Arbitration Committee should authorize discretionary sanctions when it's likely that editors not involved in the dispute at the time of the case will get involved after the conclusion of the case. Discretionary sanctions allows those editors to be sanctioned (if necessary) without further arbitration proceedings. I feel that the committee has authorized discretionary sanctions about the right amount overall.

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

2. 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?

   No. Not inevitably, at least. There are some cases, albeit rare, that could be handled solely with reminders, warnings, and admonishments. In general, though, if an issue has reached arbitration it's likely that there will be some kind of sanction on at least some editor or discretionary sanctions on a topic area.

4. 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 believe that if a sanction is to be passed against an editor there should be a finding of fact proposed, and preferably passed, showing misconduct by the editor. Proposing sanctions against editors without proposing findings of fact showing misconduct leads to the impression that the editor is being sanctioned without having engaged in behavior that is sanctionable.

6. 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 feel that arbitrators can ignore the evidence and workshop pages and still come to an informed conclusion on a case. As an arb I would always make it a point to read the evidence and workshop phases before moving on to the proposed decision, and if I do not have time to do so I will ask to be marked inactive on the case.

8. 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?

   Same as my answer last year, I feel that prior decisions and findings should not be binding on future decisions or findings. They may be used as guideline and precedent, but they should not be binding.

10. 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?

    In my answer last year I stated that I believe that many of Wikipedia's policies are based upon the five pillars (regardless that many of the policies existed before the five pillars). As with last year, I believe that the five pillars could be used in committee findings, but that it would be much preferable to use the applicable specific policies.

12. 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?

    The committee should be able to use the BLP policy in their decisions the same as they would any other policy, but they must take great care to not stray into making true content decisions when deciding on BLP issues.

14. 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?

    As with last year, the areas in which I edit have not been affected by any "factionalism", and I haven't seen much indicating that factions are a prevalent problem on Wikipedia (though it is distinctly possible that I just didn't notice if they exist). Unless factionalism itself is causing problems in an area I would prefer that committee decisions address any misbehavior in the area, whether resulting from factionalism or not.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for volunteering.

2. Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is there a convenient way of pronouncing your username?

   It's intended to be pronounced letter by letter (K-S-zero-S-T-M), like a callsign (as it actually is...if I ever get around to getting my amateur radio license I intend to request the callsign KS0STM). I haven't quite figured out a way to pronounce it other than that.

I am shocked that this question hasn’t been asked above, as I feel it is simple yet says a great deal about any candidate. No wrong answer to this question aside from “I don’t know”.

2. As an arbitrator, what would you do? In other words, would you primarily work on cases, subcommittees, another arbitrator responsibility?

   Honestly, I'd be happy to do whatever is needed of me, whether that be dealing with some of the large amounts of email the committee gets, serving on a subcommittee, casework, or whatever. My preference would probably to be on a subcommittee and do casework, but as I say I'm happy to do whatever needs done.

2. 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?

   Hmm. They seem reasonable, and I can't think of any reasons I would be against them.

2. 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?

4. In the third example given above regarding the undeletion of a libellous BLP, what role did you have in the arbcom-l/oversight-l discussion?

2. First off, thank you for volunteering. You noted in your statement that this is not your first go-round here at ACE. What did you learn in last year's attempt, and what changes were made as a result, does it make you a better candidate this time around?

   Last year the general consensus seems to have been that I was not experienced enough with dispute resolution. Since the last election I have become an arbitration clerk, clerking two cases, and participated as a non-party in another case. Through these experiences I feel I am more familiar with the arbitration processes and dispute resolution and better suited to be an arbitrator this time around.

(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.

2. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?

   I would see a full site ban as a better choice when the editor's conduct problems are on a larger scale than would be a reasonable scope for an interaction or topic ban, or when interaction or topic bans would be likely to have no effect in preventing the user's misconduct.

4. 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 think it boils down to whether or not it seems likely that behavior issues are likely to continue regardless of the promise and determining whether or not that is the case. At a certain point it becomes to where the past history of behavior problems is so extensive that a promise to behave is overwhelmed, for lack of a better term, by the track record of behavior problems. In these cases (specifically the ones where the editor has promised to behave), I believe we are not so much telling an editor that we do not want their help...we as an encyclopedia will accept help from anyone who follows our policies and guidelines...I believe we are telling them that we do not think that they will follow our policies and guidelines, and if I voted for a site ban when an editor had promised to behave it would mean that I want to see evidence that they can behave and contribute constructively and that such evidence is not at present available. I would therefore consider a site ban after a promise to behave to be a message to provide more evidence of an ability to help the encyclopedia without misbehaving. Personally, I feel the best way to do this is to work with a good track record on another Wikimedia project for the duration of the ban (or the duration until appeal is possible), and if such a good track record is apparent over that time I would be more than willing to support lifting the ban. In this sense, using your link I would say it is, in my eyes, incapacitation/societal protection, but only until evidence of rehabilitation is provided.
   
   Sorry if this isn't quite what you were looking for...if you would like further clarification, feel free to ask.

6. 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 would say a site ban is to incarceration as a topic ban is to probation as an interaction ban is to a restraining order.

8. 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'm not sure what exactly this has to do with the Arbitration Committee, but I would say that on a general scale it's neither something to applaud nor something to criticize, it just is what it is.

10. 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?

    It makes sense to me in general, but at the same time I don't think admins are making blocks or instituting bans that they think will harm the encyclopedia on the whole (or I should at least hope they aren't). Granted, I don't believe the only factor that should be considered is the benefit or harm to the encyclopedia (sometimes the egregiousness of the behavior would make blocks or bans necessary regardless), but it should certainly at least be a factor, and one not to be weighted lightly.

12. 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'm more than willing to disclose those, mostly because I already have several times. I'm a 21 year old male from Kansas currently working on earning a Bachelor of Science in Meteorology with minors in Sociology and Mathematics from the University of Oklahoma.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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.

   The only piece of featured content I have is File:May 20, 2013 Moore, Oklahoma tornado.JPG, a photo I took while out storm chasing last May. However, I do have several good articles about Kansas highways, which can be seen here in the good articles dropdown. They're mostly rather short articles about short highways because I've never found writing long articles to be my strong suit. Waaaay back when I also participated in the featured article review of Tornado, though I was not the one responsible for bringing it to FA.

2. 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?

   I have thought about how it may affect me and I have taken steps to prepare (and are planning to take more), but I would rather not go into details about my preparations in public lest they be rendered moot. Feel free to contact me in private if you would like a more detailed answer.

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:

2. 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'm not hugely concerned, but it is at least somewhat concerning. Looking at that chart I would say that a bigger problem would be the one year retention...if we could boost that retention percentage by 10%, even, then I think it would do wonders for helping the number of active editors.

4. In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the EnWP Community?

   The community should take more care when dealing with new, inexperienced users and try not to scare them away from the project. The more welcoming and open the community, the more likely we are to retain new editors and get a resulting boost in the number of active editors.

6. In your personal opinion, what steps, if any, need to be taken by the Foundation?

   The Foundations should focus it's recruiting and outreach efforts to populations proven likely to become long term, active editors. There are certain demographics proven more likely to become long term Wikipedia editors, and these should be the subject of recruiting and outreach in addition to the foundations efforts to balance the demographics of Wikipedia editors.

8. Lastly, what steps, if any, could be taken by ArbCom?

   I can't think of much that ArbCom can do about retaining active editors on a large, project wide scale, though smart use of discretionary and other sanctions can improve retention in hostile topic areas, while careless use of sanctions can impede retention in hostile situations.

2. 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?

   Honestly, I haven't paid one whit of attention to the whole Wikipediocracy thing. About all I've gathered is that it's a very controversial subject among Wikipedians. Given that it's an off-wiki site I do not think ArbCom can action what goes on there outside of what gets dragged onto Wikipedia; i.e. if it gets brought onto Wikipedia, the actions on Wikipedia are actionable, but else it is outside of ArbCom's jurisdiction.

2. 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.

   Specifically regarding (b), I'm a proponent of transparency and accountability, and I certainly believe that there could be more transparency than there is now, but I can also see the reasoning for off-wiki discussions. With regards to (a), statistics are kept at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics, and I believe that they are as specific of information as is necessary to be released publicly, and I believe releasing who/where the checkusers/oversights were performed on would be too much information to release publicly.

4. 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).

   Yes, personally I do believe that accusations should require some sort of supporting evidence, though I'm not convinced that such evidence necessarily be in the form of diffs. I would hope that if editors are knowingly making unsubstantiated allegations the committee would direct the clerks to tell the editors to provide supporting evidence or remove their accusations.

6. 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?

8. 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?

10. 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 personally would hope that I would take into account and address the points made by editors, and for that matter I hope no arbitrators ignore the comments of parties. However, I believe that it is a personal preference of each individual arbitrator as to how much detail they are willing to go into when addressing points made by involved parties.

2. 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?

   I'm not currently involved in any real world Wikipedia activities, though that's not to say I'm not interested in doing them. Meetups aren't really common in my area of the country, and I'm not enough of a people person that I would want to do anything like be a campus ambassador, so I don't foresee my involvement (or lack thereof) changing much in the near future.

2. 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?

4. Does Our NPOV policy mean that an editor is violating the policy if he only contributes to one side?

   The issue is discussed her: [1].

   In my opinion, the view that every post should be neutral leads to a built in absurd. Suppose that the best Wikipedia editor is editing a group of biased articles. He is doing a great job and the articles become neutral. The editor should be sanctioned because every single edit (as well as the pattern of edits) is biased toward the other side. !

6. 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?

2. 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) 18:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]