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

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

   I been around since 2005 so I've seen every major change that happened in the project and adapted to it relatively quickly. During my nine years in the project on and off, I have dabbled in most of the administrative tasks, especially in articles for deletion, many times closing difficult debates by policy based consensus, which I was an early proponent of. I also have active experience in article writing, having 13 FAs or GAs to my credit, plus one former FA which was promoted early on my Wikicareer but didn't had the time to keep it up to standards and was active in the three revert rule noticeboard and WP:AN/I. So I know how to make decisions, and evaluating situations and the circumstances behind it with valid policy based reasoning and being very decisive. In the real world, I have experience in the nightclub business, running the promotions staff for a top hip hop nightclub for nearly five years before promoted to inside manager prior to the nightclub shutting down. At that job, I hosted dozens of VIP guests every weekend, making sure they are completely satisfied with their needs and making sure my fellow promoters are doing the work they are supposed to. I then declined a door management position with one of the biggest nightclubs in Miami earlier in the year because of my health. I also managed to run the marketing team for my family car dealership, doing all the promotions and advertising, and managing several people under my command until late September when I had my surgery. I am also a history major, which those who are familiar with the major, involves major reading and evaluating of past and current events, and being involved in the thought process more than any other college major. I would bring my real world experience of research, leadership and people experience in those difficult businesses to the committee. With my Wikipedia experience, I would make sure that I focus on protecting the encyclopedia and rebuilding its declining editor base by making the ArbCom process run smoother and listen to the community instead of ignoring their demands by pretending they are not there like many of the committee members have done lately.

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.

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?

   The key words here is "what factors". It's true that each case are evaluated on its own merits, but I'm not running to give people who clearly not here to build an encyclopedia a sanction, limited topic ban or a reminder, which we know amounts to a slap on the wrist. I would be strongly in favor for bans and topic-bans in most cases, for those who clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Examples include conflict of interest NPOV pushers like those in the impossibly long tree shaping and tea party cases, edit warriors, and my biggest err, BLP violators and people who love to gaming the system for their own advantage. Uncooperative people who clearly been warned countless times on what they are doing and ignores the community are against the spirit and integrity of the project and should not be editing in any capacity. I'll be more lenient when it comes to content contributors and subject experts who at least tries to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies but have some problems communicating with other editors, or pushing personal believes. I believe probation, a reminder, or some kind of mentoring would work unlike my first example, they are here willing to build the encyclopedia and are a net benefit despite their faults. But if that doesn't work, unfortunately a stricter sanction is in place. Desysopping is a different story and it depends on several factors, including those I mentioned above, or there was a clear pattern of abuse that affects the encyclopedia and requests for adminship in the long term as there is many people who think the tools are a big deal, and administrators abusing the tools doesn't help the RFA process at all, which we are losing administrators in a rapid rate and unable to replace them. I'm very liberal when it comes to the tools and I believe they are not a big deal once you get them, but we also don't want to open a pandora box in proposing desysoppings for extremely minor factors or on-wiki behavior. To give an example, John Carter recent desysopping was one of the worst ArbCom has proposed in recent memory. Carter was a guy who for years who didn't mind tackling difficult areas where other administrators refuse to work on, and he done one small mistake getting involved too deeply in one of his topics of interest and now he's retired from the project, unable to get his tools back without a RFA. That is not how we want to treat our content contributors.

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 always been an open-minded person so my conflicting interests on or off Wikipedia is extremely minimal at best. I would recuse on cases involving American sports and editors who I have significant interactions, either extremely positive or extremely negative with. I would also recuse on cases involving articles for deletion as there is where I'm most actively involved in the project and would likely participate in the case as a witness instead and certain cases involving IRC where I was once actively involved in.

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

    Currently I'm disabled because of recent thyroid surgery because of my Graves' Disease, which doesn't give me much stamina to work a real life, full time job nor go to school until next summer, so I have lots of time to focus on the committee and my fellow editors if elected. If I do get elected, I will fulfill the whole year my duties in the committee and then decide if I have the time to dedicate myself for 2015, which I doubt as I likely be back in school completing my degree and deciding what I want to do with my future. The only other circumstance that might prevent me from serving the full year is if my health takes a turn for the worse. It will likely involve complications from the surgery of my thyroid I had recently and not because of stress or some strange mental illness (like many of you think I have). I feel like I am capable of handling stress really well unlike before, if I didn't I wouldn't be in this position. I do get prone to anxiety at times, but I highly doubt it will affect my capabilities in ArbCom, as the anxiety tends to be related to real world stress (work and school), something I don't consider Wikipedia, a dedicated hobby, to be a part. If something indeed do happens, I plan to resign immediately, but the odds are slim. To keep it simple, I likely going to aim for a one year term.

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.

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 is clear that ArbCom accepted far fewer requests than in recent years for various, mostly positive reasons. The community for the most part figured out how to settle moderate disputes though more proper handling of RFCs and AN/I and the increased usage of motions to settle case requests before going to arbitration is a the main reason for the drop. I would use the same criteria in deciding to accept a case as many of my fellow committee members if elected. If a conflict becomes too complicated for the community to handle, with multiple attempts at mediation and evaluating the behavior of the multiple editors then I would likely accept a case. In case of administrators, if there is a repeated pattern of incidents that could be considered as "admin abuse" instead of an isolated incident I would accept a case. It's a rather broad question as each requested case is different, thus pretty much use common sense when evaluating the merits of a case.

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

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?

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?

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

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 likely won't request checkuser as it is too technical for my knowledge and too time consuming for this important job. We have plenty of capable checkusers in this project who does a fine job in tracking down abusive sockpuppetry. Oversight is a different story and I will likely request that permission. I would use the oversight tool in accordance to the rules listed in WP:OVERSIGHT and nothing else, such as child privacy, personal identifying information that might cause a risk to the subject or user in question and some copyright violations. I won't use the oversight tool however to hide the dubious history of an account name, childish vandalism, WP:CLEANSTART and other criteria not listed in the policy. We have revertion deletion for those situations, or in the case of using oversight to remove dubious history of an somebody's account as others have done in the past, blatantly unacceptable.

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?

    I been the subject of real life outing and off-wiki harassment in the past, probably some of the worst ever on this project, mostly the work of one user. The harassment was quite severe, not limited to: the hacking of my Facebook page, hacking my old computer, attempted multiple hackings of my Wikipedia account, the posting of old addresses and phone numbers, the public postings of nearly all my accounts on other websites, my general location, death threats, calling my old workplace to tell them Encyclopedia Dramatica page (where most of my personal information was) and so forth. I'm not worried about the "ousting" and I know I could endure it without much damage psychologically as my public identity is well-known and I've been very open since with my issues (some of which I do regret) ever since I became the subject of that smear campaign. If they find out where I exactly live and come to my house then its a different story, but until then I don't see it impact my ability to serve as an administrator or arbitrator.

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?

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?

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=}}

2. Could you give an example of a recent BLP situation that you feel was handled poorly by the community?

4. Should information about corporations be covered by a policy similar to BLP? If so, why?

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?

   First of all, I would have rejected the case and urged my fellow Arbs to do the same as conflict of interest, especially self-admitted ones is something that can be dealt with the community sanctions and topic bans and the statements sounded like a complex content dispute, which is out of ArbCom realm. I believe it was accepted to deal with the issue of expert COI editing, something rarely seen in the project. Tree shaping took forever but that probably was because it is a hardly known topic area (I didn't even know what tree shaping was until I read the case) with little effect in the project in general. But because of the admitted conflict of interest, it could have been dealt within a few weeks, even if you are not a subject expert. I felt that they came to the right decision but the delay was unacceptable for such a obvious case like this.

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?

   Like I said in 2009, Wikiprojects can’t trump our core policies in Wikipedia, but they can be quite a help to make our encyclopedia better. I believe that Wikiprojects can enforce standards to articles, if the relevant Wikipedia policy is unclear on the situation, such as article layout. They can also understand policies better with articles related to their subject, as editors of these projects can be considered experts of the subject but individual members do not WP:OWN any of those articles and if conflict arises between the Wikiproject and the greater community, like I have seen in WP:BASEBALL countless times, the best solution is to try to solve the issue with as little damage as possible. That usually results from WP:OWN, like one or two radical users from the WikiProject in question trying to force changes on articles without community or project consensus.

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?

   Unfortunately, yes. There is a huge problem with vested contributors, especially when it regards to content contributors or people who edit the more continuous areas of the project. Friends and allies are created and certain editors takes advantage of the situation. Enemies are also created as a result and the matter usually ends up as a bloodbath in WP:AN/I or requests for comment. Both sides start bickering and the community is unable to solve the matter as consensus is never found or they simply don't want to deal with the drama. Thus it is up to committee to deal with the situation. But ArbCom unfortunately have difficulties dealing with the issue because each member usually have a strong point of view in this matter, and typically can't find a solution to ban the editor in question. The best thing is to sanction the editor in question and hope for the best. If elected, I would deal a situation involving a "vested contributor" like I would treat any other editor. I would look at the behavior of all parties involved and see what is the proper sanction given the situation. If the behavior merits a topic or general ban, I would propose one, but I am not going to treat them different like I would with any other editor and punish them either more or less severely simply because they been in the project longer and are more well-known in the community.

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?

   It all depends on the circumstances and its really hard to answer that question. Usually there the behavior in question is primarily by one editor with other editors being frustrated and reacting poorly at the situation, which in that case the behavior of the main editor in question needs to be questioned.

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?

    I believe I answered most of your question above. There are multiple factors that plays a factor to accept a case on administrative conduct and abuse. Many times ArbCom tends to avoid the situation because forceful desysopping is one of the most controversial areas in the project. Look at the outrage of MONGO desysopping during Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan back in 2006, or the recent removal of tools and ban of Phil Sandifer recently. In both cases the reason for the removal of the tools has proven controversial (In my opinion, I disagree with MONGO and agree with Phil). With issues concerning the abuse of tools, ArbCom should accept cases or open a motion for either the obvious (abusive sockpuppetry, an administrator well-being like it was in my case, or evidence of a compromised account) or if there was a clear pattern of administrative abuse that affects the integrity of the encyclopedia and all previous attempts at mediation or community compromise failed. For conduct "unbecoming" of an administrator, it should be the same as any regular user with a few special circumstances like Ironholds as an administrator needs to follow the same policies as a regular user. There is no elitism in the project. But at the same time, we can't open a Pandora's box in proposing desysoppings for extremely minor issues in the context of things.

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?

    None at all. The position of ArbCom doesn't state that they have the rights to expand their policies to other Wikimedia websites, sites dedicated to valid criticism and IRC, despite how badly certain users behave in there. The only "remit" ArbCom should have in this area is if there is intentional ousting/personal information that can credibly hurt the editor in question and the community in a third party website like what happened with Phil Sandifer recently. ArbCom should not ignore that and ban the ouster on site. But other than that any attempt of ArbCom, or the foundation trying to control what to say in IRC or some of these valid criticism websites is the same as a communist country trying to control freedom of speech and its grossly unacceptable.

14. What is your definition of "outing"?

    Per WP:OUTING "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". I would expand it to off-wiki websites as well where the intent is obviously malicious and the information wasn't previously known on Wikipedia, such as an editor's address, phone number, email and so forth. As a victim of outing before, I have no tolerance for outing, if I catch someone outing another editor for ill intent I would block the editor on site, oversight the information, and depending on the severity of the outing and harassment, propose a site ban.

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)?

    Well I don't have any experience in using these tools (see above). In the past, I have asked checkusers to look at suspicious editing by new accounts and oversighters to remove personal information that might be harmful to the subject, but that's it. There has been abuse of the tools in the past, particularly the oversight function, but right now there isn't anything that requires a change in those policies.

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?

    Where I primarily edit, American sport topics isn't an area of much controversy. I've had content disputes in the past, but that was years ago. I probably have had more disputes concerning content when I participate in articles for deletion. With content disputes not being "amircably resolved", that's mainly because both sides of the dispute have such strong point of views that they get too personally involved in the conflict and when neutral editors try to get involved, they are usually not familiar with the subject area. As a result, all attempts of mediation fails and the behavior of the parties involved reaches an unacceptable limit. While its stated that ArbCom do not settle "content disputes", they are always forced upon as a measure of last resort. Particularly hectic, unsolved content disputes tend to poison the editing atmosphere of the encyclopedia, and the main job of ArbCom in to protect the interests of the encyclopedia.

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

    I see the Arbitration Committee being more involved in BLP behavior issues, an issue that has been controversial by the eyes of the community, but rarely acted upon. The main reason why people go to ArbCom is when the community can't handle a dispute, or it gets out of control and it is used as a last resort for all parties involved. Usually BLP has been a massive headache in which the community haven't been able to properly solve and I feel that they should be more involved in guiding the community to a solution that satisfies both sides of the dispute.

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 read the entire discussion read and I see no reason why I wouldn't be able to meet these requirements. I have some minor concerns about it, but that is a meta situation and not a situation regarding this project or myself.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

Thank you, precious candidate, for volunteering.

2. Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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?

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?

   While I have nothing against LGBT people, I will not answer a question in which you are clearly too involved in the topic and extremely biased in your point of view as it is unfair for me or the other candidates to predict your thoughts in what it essentially a non-factor question. Wikipedia doesn't not handle content disputes and any case involving LGBT is not exempt from the same criteria that the committee uses to accept a case. This is a borderline disruptive question and Spectre you should be ashamed of your self.

2. First off,Thanks for running. I note that you took a sabbatical back in September, due to frustration with several issues. Now, I'm not saying that it wasn't a good idea (I did the same thing myself at one point), but do you think it's concern that you will suffer from burnout that if you cannot make what you think are needed changes as an Arb?

(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.)?

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)

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...?)

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?

   Is it something related to ArbCom? It's very inappropriate to answer questions not relevant to the committee and you should know better. If there is something I'm missing please let me know.

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?

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.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 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.

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?