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

   I've read most Wikipedia/Wikimedia related discussion channels constantly since at least the time that I interned with WMF. I believe I have a good grasp on community dynamics, and a good sense of where our most significant problems lie. I have significant real-world experience related to making environments more friendly for non-dominant groups, and believe I could put it to good use as an arb.

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.

   When writing content, I try to stick to NPOV as closely as I can; representing all viewpoints presented in reliable sources approximately in proportion to how often they are held in said sources. I've been involved in a variety of controversial subjects during my time on Wikipedia, including the Men's rights movement, AONN Records, Superbradyons, Steve Pieczenik, and various other topics. In all cases I have tried to maintain NPOV, even where I've been outed, harrassed irl, etc. Several of these cases have resulted in mediation or arbitration requests, although none have been accepted. My goal is to build a neutral encyclopedia, not to promote my own views on any subject. I have also been involved in various sockbopping fests, including significant involvement with the Morning277/Wiki-PR case (although much of my early involvement was through email collaboration with Dennis Brown. I proposed and wrote the text for the community ban that passed overwhelmingly and was cited in the cease and desist that the Wikimedia Foundation sent Wiki-PR today.

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?

   Generally speaking, I am likely to favor leniency over harsh sanctions. I will only support blocks/bans/etc if I genuinely believe that doing so will advance the quality of Wikipedia's content. In most situations, I do not believe that blocks are the best answer.

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 will likely be accepting a Wikipedian-in-residence position at the University of California, Berkeley in the near future. I will recuse on any related case. I will also recuse on any case related to the Men's rights movement or to the US Education Program, unless I honestly believe I am distanced enough to be impartial.

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

    I'm a recent college graduate, so I cannot completely predict what the next two years might bring, but I do not anticipate anything coming up that would prevent me from serving a full 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.

    I don't support arbcom's handling of the Phil Sandifer case. I do not believe that contributors should be punished if they connect on an offsite forum information about a particular user that can be easily found via search engines. I don't support such posts, but I don't believe that punishing users for solely off-wiki behavior involving entirely public information is within arbcom's remit. If I had controlled the course of the case, it would've ended with Phil being admonished - not banned.

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?

    I believe that arbcom should be the last stop in dispute resolution; typically speaking, I would not accept any case that had not fully progressed through all other dispute resolution procedures. The only exceptions I see to this are cases involving the abuse of advanced rights, and cases that are of an extremely public nature (e.g., Chelsea Manning

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

    I believe that arbcom procedures should be public to the greatest extent reasonably possible; except in a case that involved overwhelming privacy concerns, I would discuss my opinions and judgments on-wiki. Sunlight is a pretty awesome disinfectant.

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?

    I think that arbcom doesn't - and shouldn't - create black letter policy. However, in practice, arbcom cases do effectively create precedent-setting interpretations of policy that are often followed in subsequent cases. I don't think such precedents should be viewed as binding (and I would not consider them as such,) but they are certainly worth considering in subsequent decisions.

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

    I believe that all Wikipedians have a strong ethical mandate to enforce BLP policies. Failing to adequately enforce BLP policy can result in significant real-world harm to living people. I view BLP issues as one of the few areas where I believe harshness rather than leniency is preferable. I believe arbcom should, whenever possible, err on the side of strictness/conservativeness with regards to BLP issues.

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 would request both permissions. I anticipate that I would use OS far more often than I would use CU. I believe that having access to OS would ethically require me to use it in all situations where I came across information that should be OS'ed under existing policy, as well as situations not anticipated by policy that involved serious privacy concerns. CU would be useful for investigation and verification of facts in cases involving sockpuppetry, etc.

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've already been outed about as hard as it is possible to be outed; a situation involving the Men's rights movement involved numerous calls to people connected to me in real life, as well as a couple real-life confrontations. I cannot imagine being outed in a manner severe enough to require me to step down.

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?

    In cases involving serial sockmasters or other cases that are likely to recur, I believe arbcom should retain non-public information to the extent necessary to protect the project. Any non-public information that I retained I would store on a fully truecrypted flash drive, so as to minimize the chance of it being stolen/leaked.

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?

    The only situations where I can imagine taking action against a user based on evidence not shared with them would be situations involving serious real-life harassment, legal issues, etc. I think that any situation with serious privacy implications where all parties involved are okay with non-public or semi-public proceedings would be acceptable, but I would want to minimize non-public proceedings to the greatest extent possible.

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?

   I wasn't closely following arbcom decisions at the time the case took place, but it's hard to see why such a case would take as long as it did. Arbcom should, whenever possible, act as quickly as possible. A relatively simple case shouldn't start in April and end in July. It seems like something that, if even accepted by arbcom in the first place, should've been settled within a month, max. Looking at the case, I don't think I would've even accepted it - it seems like something that could be adequately dealt with by community sanctions (which I view as preferable to an arbcom case in almost any situation where they are feasible.)

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

14. What is your definition of "outing"?

    I would define outing as the malicious posting on-wiki of non-public information about a Wikipedia editor. I don't consider off-wiki postings to be identical to on-wiki ones, but would consider them to be a severe aggravating factor, and can imagine situations where off-wiki postings alone could be severe enough to be sanctionable. I wouldn't consider accidentally referring to an editor you know in real life by their real name (instead of their pseudonym) as outing. If a Wikipedia editor has given an interview to the media about their Wikipedia activities under their real name, and that editor's place of work can be found by simply googling their name, I would not consider connecting that information to be outing. I also believe that outing, as with almost all other policies, must be interpreted contextually; in some situations (such as Wiki-PR,) I believe that outing someone to defend the integrity of the project can be justified (and should not be sanctioned,) but believe that such situations are exceptionally rare.

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)?

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?

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

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)?

    Yes. Since I've worked for WMF in the past, I can't imagine any identification requirement that I would not easily be able to meet.

Thank you. Rs chen 7754 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?

   If a motion can shortcircuit the need for a whole case, then a motion is awesome. If a motion cannot resolve the underlying issues involved and lets the problem just fester instead, then a motion is not a good idea. Arbcom *can* overrule community consensus, but should only do so if there is an extremely pressing reason to do so. The only situations where I can see myself wanting to overrule community consensus is a situation where arbcom has access to private information that I believe would've altered community consensus if it were made public, cases involving legal concerns, etc.

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.

   I don't believe that the motion was appropriate. The information Phil was banned for was publicly available; I've seen an entirely googleable chain of evidence that provides the info Phil posted. Cla68 has given interviews to the media related to his Wikipedia activities under his real name; his real name is trivially easily linkable to the info Phil posted. I do not consider Phil's actions to be sufficiently malicious or disruptive as to warrant a ban. I am also severely perturbed by the fact that the proceedings were held in secret. I can see a desysop being warranted, but I don't believe there was enough reason to believe that Phil would abuse his tools in the interim as to need to hold the proceedings in secret.

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?

    I believe it certainly fueled the fire, but believe that it was appropriate for individual arbs to provide detailed explanations of their rationales anyway. Much of the fire could have been short-circuited by holding the proceedings more publicly to begin with. I can see holding the desysop proceedings privately (although I don't think they were necessary, since the alleged outing involved no abuse of admin tools,) but I certainly don't believe the banning proceeding should've been held privately. I don't believe that arbcom members should always provide detailed rationales for their votes, but I do believe it should happen more often than it currently does.

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?

    Generally speaking, yes. The only exception I can see to this would be if arbs discussing something publicly would likely cause significant disruption - I can see things like discussing whether or not a long term contributors behavior was bad enough as to warrant banning them as sometimes better held in private, or issues involving vested contributors. I would implement this by discussing things on-wiki and encouraging others to do the same.

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 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.

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. Sanctions should only be opposed where they are likely to benefit the project. Even if disruptive, sanctionable behavior has occurred, if there's reason to believe the problem can be resolved without sanctioning people, then people should not be sanctioned. Arbcom decisions should aim to facilitate the building of the encyclopedia, not necessarily at enforcing the letter of the law (although there may be situations where that results in the best encyclopedic outcome.)

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?

   In almost all situations, I believe topic bans and other sanctions should not be handed out without evidence of wrongdoing. I can imagine the existence extremely intractable disputes where 'cutting the Gordian knot' and handing out sanctions right and left might be the only way to end the dispute, although I cannot such situations occurring often. I believe that arbcom decisions should be driven by encyclopedic concerns - so if a situation does appear where handing out tons of sanctions on little evidence legitimately appears to be the best course of action for the encyclopedia, I would be okay with it (but certainly not happy, and I don't anticipate such a situation occurring.)

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) 13:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for volunteering.

2. Basic first question of three: please describe what happens in this diff. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   Pigsonthewing swapped out a rather unusual truncated infobox that had been placed at the bottom of an article with a more standard infobox. Without looking further in to the background of the situation, at first glance, it looks like a reasonable edit.

4. Thank you, I agree. Second question: 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) 19:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

   Obviously, even though I would disagree strongly with that suggestion, I couldn't somehow supervote their suggestion out of existence. I believe that the committee presenting a relatively unified public face where possible presents benefits, so I would first approach my colleague privately explaining why I thought their reasoning was faulty and hopefully reach agreement. If I could not convince them that their reasoning was faulty, I would likely make a public statement explaining that I disagreed with their reasoning and why. I believe that the community having faith that individual arbs are making their own reasoned decisions is more valuable than the committee presenting a unified public face. Not having dug in to the background of this case, there is always the unlikely possibility that there was a valid reason to present that diff as evidence - if it violated 3rr, if it demonstrated a larger pattern of problematic behavior somehow, etc.

6. Thank you, like it. - Final question: imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, and an equal number of arbs voted against it, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. Assuming you lean towards it (or will you never?): will you? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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?

2. First off, thank you for volunteering. I have a question for you, with regards to dispute resolution. The Committee is the final stop on the DR chain, so things are usually at a top boil when they reach the Committee. How can the Committee judge these issues in which is what usually is a very hostile and charged environment?

(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?

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} 06:37, 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.