Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/AGK/Questions

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions

 * 1) Skills and experience:
 * a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
 * A: The skills I would bring are: an aptitude for workload co-ordination and management; a seasoned view of many aspects of the project, both in the mainspace and behind-the-scenes; the ostensible wisdom that comes from six years of contributing to Wikipedia; and my experience of both the punitive (arbitration, arbitration enforcement, and administratorship) and conciliatory (mediation) elements of our dispute resolution process. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
 * A: I have been involved heavily with the arbitration enforcement process (although as of recently, I no longer am), and in the arbitration process itself. I have been a mediator as of five years ago, and have Chaired the Mediation Committee for a year and a half. I was an arbitration clerk for three years, so I have an intimate knowledge with the procedures and daily operations of the process. Rather than engage in rambling self-flattery, I would prefer to, for the most part, let my record of experience with dispute resolution to speak for itself. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
 * A: As a general matter, I suspect that by the time a dispute has reached ArbCom, the time for leniency is a distant memory. However, I could not possibly speak for how I would vote in individual cases: every dispute is unique and would require a different solution in pursuit of its resolution. I don't think I have the inclination to be a hanging judge, but I also view pusillanimous decisions as useless, if not actively damaging. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
 * A: ArbCom is not permitted to make or amend policy, because it is a dispute-resolution body, not a constitutional court. I support this principle and believe policy-making should be the domain of the whole community. Presently, the committee is empowered to clarify non-major components of site policy that are unclear or ambiguous if it needs to do so in pursuit of the resolution of a dispute; I believe that this status quo is adequate. I have seldom seen the committee being unable to resolve a dispute because site policy is ambiguous or undecided, and the current practice of deferring the matter back to the community with a "request to re-examine the policy" is how the committee should proceed in 2011–12. Broadly, the justification for this is that policy is a codification of site practice and is not authoritative. Common practice shapes site policy, not vice versa, and so it is impossible to change policy by dictum (except in those few policies that relate to copyright or legal matters); accordingly, the whole community and nothing less must be involved in any proposal to change policy. If policy is changed (or even heavily influenced) by a ruling by a small committee, then the way our project functions will be in the hands of a perceivable elite or 'council of elders'; this would be wrong. Arbitrators are simply editors who have volunteered for a side job of adjudicating disputes (although that side job today will fast up all their wiki-time).  AGK  [ &bull; ] 09:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
 * A: I believe that ArbCom must face up to one of the most serious problems that our content-writers encounter: that of ostensibly constructive edits that are civilly presented, but that constitute, upon closer examination, shameless POV-pushing. Behaviour of this kind is often found in nationalist topics or on articles that relate to a subject that is the focus of real-life controversy. I will summarise my views on what ArbCom can do in these kinds of situations: On Wikipedia, some individuals abuse our consensus model to impose content that does not conform to the neutral point of view (NPOV). Behaviour of this kind is called Advocacy or Wikipedia:POV pushing. Editors who employ such behaviour are skilled at manipulating discussion, and often derive their non-neutral viewpoint from a real-life nationalist bias. To counteract this behaviour, we must reform the approach of the Arbitration Committee to nationalist disputes. In future arbitration cases, ArbCom should evaluate whether a disputant has used a non-neutral point of view (NPOV). It can undertake this evaluation by determining whether his edits comply with the available reliable sources—or manipulate the sources to give undue weight to one viewpoint. The result of this new approach would be that ArbCom would decide if an edit was meritorious or utter claptrap, which is editor-conduct arbitration in its purest form. Example Forthright, blunt editor Frank puts a POV problems template on a BLP, and removes content (with a note on the article talk page) which misrepresents the BLP subject's views on the Money Doesn't Grow On Trees theory. Polite, less direct users Theo and John contest the removal on the talk page, and restore the content. Frank reverts them, starting a minor edit war before the article is locked down by administrator Niall. Niall issues a final warning to Frank for revert-warring; Frank only gets out of a block because he plays the "I was protecting a BLP" card.  Theo and John are tag-team POV-warriors that are misrepresenting a Wikipedia article in a contested topic area, but Frank takes most of the heat for the edit war. This topic area came to arbitration, and the Committee came close to banning Frank from the topic area. No attempt was made to sanction Theo and John.   At present, the committee typically only neutralises editors who interact problematically, such as by being uncivil. Such an approach is deficient, because most individuals whose goal is to subvert NPOV are skilled at behaving properly whilst contributing disruptively. Many advocates are unblinkingly civil, and will contribute to consensus-building discussion (and even mediation) with no intention of ever compromising. Many of these editors will edit war slowly, over many months, to ostensibly abide by Edit warring and Three revert rule. These tactics wear down the opposition, resulting in flame-wars that allow the collation of evidence to have their rival topic-banned.  The Committee has begun to focus on contributions as well as behaviour, for instance in Kehrli, but must do so more often. As an example, here is a description, with the details anonymised, of a Wikipedia dispute that went to arbitration. Decide who the problem editors are, and then compare who the Committee sanctioned. (See box on right.)  Like most contributors, I thought that such behaviour does not exist. It does, and it has gotten us quite a bad name amongst the academics and others who have an interest in these areas. If the Committee won't combat serial POV-pushing, then I struggle to see who will. The WMF are too aloof. The community is too disjointed. Jimbo does not have public support. Wikipedia is not too big to fail, and such behaviour can breed irreversible decay. The Committee must neutralise these POV-pushers, and the only way to do so is to determine whether their edits violate our NPOV policies.  In summary, it is easier to slam the ban-hammer on everybody in an intractable content dispute who has behaved uncivilly; however, the real problem lies in those who abuse our encyclopedia to introduce (often by co-ordinating as a tag-team) content that wilfully violates our policy on the neutral point of view. ArbCom should face up to these issues and, when asked to do so by the community, deliver meaningful decisions that target the editors who have undermined what our project stands for - not the guy who got frustrated that this has happened and barked a few profanities (though as a side issue, chronic unprofessionalism also should not be excused).  AGK  [ &bull; ] 15:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) ArbCom and motions:
 * a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
 * A: Without descending into a recitation of the different motions available under Procedure, a motion is essentially a method of reaching a decision of the committee without a full case. I do not believe that the practice of holding an on-wiki motion in lieu of a full case is especially helpful, except in the simplest of disputes; I would prefer to open a case and simply reduce the length of the timetable if the dispute is not complex. I believe that the practice of holding off-wiki motions for decision-making not related to disputes (ie decisions about the committee's peripheral functions) is a good one because a clear "Do you support or oppose?" process avoids things like the Orangemarlin fiasco; however, I think the discussions for motions should be held in an on-wiki (albeit exclusive to arbitrators, to avoid excessive noise) forum unless confidentiality requires otherwise. I believe the process of resolving clarifications by motion is helpful, because that process is normally not unduly complex. However, I think amendments should in most instances be given their own case because of their complexity. If issues are being handled by motion when they need a full case, then we have the potential for comments by involved or uninvolved editors to be missed, for the evidence process and workshop/evidence-analysis process to not be given enough weight, and accordingly for careless decision-making.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 09:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
 * A: As I mentioned in my previous question, it is not appropriate to hold a motion if a matter: 1) is new to the committee and not preceded by a full case; 2) at all complicated. If a motion is used under either of these circumstances, as opposed to a full case, then we have the potential for careless or rushed decision-making, and for the legitimacy of the decision to be reduced (because it was decided carelessly or because the views of the parties and the wider community have not been taken into account). I'm not sure I understand the question: do you mean that the involved editors have already settled the dispute among themselves, or are you talking about the type of case where the dispute is not editorial? Do you mean that the related policies are the cause of the dispute, but that the community's consensus was always clear—or, that the community had reached a consensus in parallel with the request for arbitration? Well, broadly, I do not think ArbCom can nor should overrule any clear consensus of the community, ever, although I do think it must have the ability to ask the community to re-visit a decision if the professional view of the arbitrators is that the consensus on an issue is problematic. I believe ArbCom should be able to resolve such a dispute even if no member of the community can do so, but I think this must be preceded by a period of informal consultation with the community. ArbCom must be seen to become unilaterally involved only with great care, and should never wade in high-handedly; asking the community "Do you want us to take a look at this area?" doesn't take much time and is easy to do, and anyway might result in an editor bringing a case themselves to avoid all the bother! Also, I do not think such issues should ever be handled by motion; a full case is needed, to allow for the community to be consulted during the case and for evidence to be submitted as needed.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 09:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
 * A: The ongoing Motion on Arbcom-unblocked editors has passed the point of absurdity, and is a perfect illustration of the problems with the concept of "Motions". If it needs eleven motions, then it needs a full case, and I am very disappointed that the committee even entertained the idea of hearing that matter as a motion, not a case. Changes requested to the checkuser and oversight permissions was controversial because it perceivably meant that ArbCom was playing GovCom. Although ArbCom has sole jurisdiction over who has access to the checkuser and oversight permissions, it was silly to unilaterally submit by dictum a request for the MediaWiki software to be amended to allow CU/OS access holders to not necessarily be administrators. If the consensus of the committee was that those technical changes were necessary, it would have been preferable for one or two arbitrators to consult the community informally on the changes; I do not doubt that enough traction could be obtained on the issue for the community to initiate the changes themselves.  The May 2011 injunction on BLPs and FlaggedRevs was controversial for similar reasons: it was perceived that ArbCom was overreaching.  Lastly, the motion to desysop User:Rodhullandemu provoked a lot of flustering, but the issue there was quite unique and, because it involved sensitive information about the subject's real-life, I would prefer to not revisit the matter unless anybody is especially interested in my views on that particular matter.  The tendency for motions to provoke more controversy than cases is, I believe, because the quality of decision-making in motions is also lower than that of full cases. In pursuit of quicker decision-making (which must be said was a perpetual and prominent wish of the community), the community had adopted the motion paradigm—and so sacrificed the opportunity for more structured, organised discussion (not that all cases could be so characterised…) between the arbitrators, involved parties, and uninvolved editors.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 11:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
 * a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
 * A: The Arbitration Committee, in addition to its role as the final adjudicator of on-wiki disputes, has a secondary role of absolute jurisdiction over Wikipedia incidents which involve private, real-life, or confidential data or other information. I believe that this must continue, because the alternative is having such incidents being the purview of the community—and confidential information should not be in the public domain if we can help it. Nevertheless, the committee has a duty to ensure that private information is kept private. I cannot comment with any degree of confidence because I am not privy to the internal discussions of the committee, so I am not sure how often it finds itself having to consult old data, but I imagine that it must occasionally do so: the type of nasty incidents that the arbitrators deal with privately have an equally nasty habit of recurring. Yes, I think the committee should retain such data, but that it must not do so indefinitely. Some sort of fixed limit on the retention of such data might be an option, but if, say, the committee's policy is to delete data after three or four years, then the subjects of the data might simply wait until the data is passed before resuming their abuse. To offset this, perhaps data could be locked down after a few years, in a secure WMF archive for instance, such that it could only be accessed with the support of a majority of the arbitrators and with good cause. This would prevent old data being browsable by any Tom, Dick, or Harry, but also prevent users "waiting out" the deletion period before resuming behaviour that cannot be tackled without reference to private information. I don't think this would be an especially difficult thing to implement, and if appointed I would make it a priority to institute a better policy on the retention, handling, and accessing of the committee's years of archives. AGK  [ &bull; ] 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * b) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
 * A: I think I covered this in the previous answer, but to be clear, only current arbitrators could archive old data, and only with good cause. Data could be kept indefinitely or for a long period like ten years, so long as it was held securely and remained inaccessible except by a motion of the committee. AGK  [ &bull; ] 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * c) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
 * A: Yes, I do. I do not think the heavy use of Arbcom-l that takes place at present is justified, although I reserve the right to change that view if I am elected and I have reason to change my opinion after observing the committee's internal practices. Some sort of public discussion area, or even a separate public mailing list, would be preferable to having all discussion off-wiki that does not relate to an open case. AGK  [ &bull; ] 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * d) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
 * A: All things considered, the committee handled the leak as best it could. The issue was how the leaks happened (in the technical sense), and the committee is not a body of professionals (nor does it have a network officer or security consultant) so it could not reasonably be expected to pin down the source immediately. In the panic to identify how the messages were leaked, I get the impression the arbitrators were chasing a lot of false leads—which explains the relatively confusing communication from them in the subsequent days. The communication could have been better, but it's far easier to say that in retrospect I suppose. I gather that they have improved their security policy (and if appointed, I will make a point of confirming that point in the early days), which is what I and any other reasonable contributor would have done. Ideally, they would have went a step further and undertaken some meaningful consultation with the MediaWiki folk; I do not think the current configuration for Mailman is ideal, from a usability, workload-management, nor security perspective. ArbCom recently created a WMF liaison position; I would pursue the creation of a MediaWiki liaison position also, because I don't think the current software the committee is using can be used for much longer. AGK  [ &bull; ] 11:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
 * A: I do not intend to declare my public identity if elected, but I also do not care much if it is revealed. I have nothing to fear from having my identity outed, and I have only not revealed my public identity because I really don't think that anybody cares, nor that it matters. AGK  [ &bull; ] 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Division of responsibilities:
 * a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
 * A: The Wikimedia Foundation, with their in-house counsel, has the resources to send cease and desist letters and pursue legal action. Accordingly, it is in a better position to: (1) Protect our contributors from harassment; (2) Protect our websites from abuse and attacks; and (3) Take action in relation to other issues with statutory or serious legal implications—such as copyright infringement, blatant libel, and child protection.  As a professional organisation, the WMF is therefore in a better position to deal with such issues, even at a project level. Moreover, I question the judgment of the Foundation is allowing such issues to be devolved (at least to some degree) to communities or their Arbitration Committees. On any other website, it would not be the project volunteers but the steering organisation that takes care of issues with such serious legal or real-life implications. I believe the Arbitration Committee has become involved in these types of issues only out of necessity. With the WP:OFFICE paradigm, the Foundation has been taking an increasingly prominent role in dealing with such issues; if this trend could continue, then so much the better.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
 * A: Policy-making must be the domain of the community. Issues that require confidentiality must be the domain of the Arbitration Committee. Issues that cannot be settled by the community and that are proving seriously damaging or divisive should be settled by the committee. Problems that require the attention of the arbitrators should be brought to the committee by the community; arbitrator-led "inquests" would be abhorrent. Desysopping is currently the purview of the committee, but I think the community needs to be more involved in this process, with some kind of desysopping community process being created. The scrutiny of advanced permissions like CU and OS must continue to be the mandate of the committee, because the alternative is that the entire community would be involved in the scrutiny of these tools—which for privacy reasons is totally unworkable. Other than this, I don't think there is any unbalance in the committee's mandate. AGK  [ &bull; ] 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
 * a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * A: The Wikipedia community has a remarkable ability to stomp on people who collect hats or acquire an inflated sense of their own importance. Moreover, I think we inherently understand (though perhaps do not explicitly acknowledge) that our time as volunteers is extremely valuable, but conversely that every volunteer is valuable and that our time is no better than that of our peers. I do not think Wikipedia has a problem with vested contributors in that sense, and the Arbitration Committee even adopted this in one of its principles (at Durova in 2007); if a principle is adopted by ArbCom, it usually has the general acceptance of the community. However, while I do not think that we have a problem with hat-collectors or cabals, I do think that an associated problem affects us. Established contributors can let their egos obscure the issue and affect their judgment, with the result that (often unimportant) meta-discussions become flamewars because nobody will drop the stick or accept they won't have the last word. We are all mature and reasonable enough to not let our egos disrupt the project very much, but I do confess to occasional exasperation when the latest ego-driven flamewar appears at ANI, or AC/N, etc. Curiously, when such things do arise, it's usually the administrators whose judgment suffers most when their egos are assaulted, which I think is a reflection that there is a little "vested contributor" in every long-term Wikipedian…  AGK  [ &bull; ] 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Post-script: I looked for an essay on the topic of "Egos", because I'm sure I read one a few years ago and it may have shaped my thoughts, but I can't seem to find anything except WP:EGO .  AGK  [ &bull; ] 16:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * A: As I have said elsewhere, I think tag-teaming and nationalist editing is a significant issue, and I have had the unpleasant experience of dealing with these issues extensively in my work at WP:AE. Please see my answer to general Q4. AGK  [ &bull; ] 17:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
 * A: The statistics suggest that we have a problem with editor retention (cf. Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-04/Editor retention). Part of the problem may be that the community has become more complicated: people are less willing to persevere when faced with a steeper learning curve for coming to understand even basic processes for article development, accreditation, review, and deletion—to say nothing of the myriad of processes for resolving disputes, or asking for help with a disruptive or uncooperative contributor. I really don't know what we could do to solve this, however, and I think I would need more than the couple of weeks that this Q&A is open for to arrive at something like a well-founded answer. Projects like School and university projects are fantastic, and I seem to be far from the only one who is acutely aware of this problem; but, in the context of this being an election to ArbCom, I do not think there is terribly much I could do if elected to solve this problem: an arbitrator deals largely with protracted problems involving well-established, experienced contributors (although there are exceptions like Scientology). Of course, some areas are under-represented among our community. Articles on corporations suffer from serial neglect, with the result that partisan contributors have the run of the mill. Articles on certain nationalist disputes, especially those that derive from real-life (and often long-running) cultural disputes, are dominated by partisan contributors; ArbCom has tackled this problem in the past, but I am confident the "job done" banner will remain in the closet for years to come. There are many inactive WikiProjects, and the parallel subject areas are often similarly neglected. There are ~71'000 articles awaiting cleanup. BLP maintenance is also understaffed, with ~691'000(!) pages awaiting Persondata fixes.  I could go on, but I think it is clear that some aspects of the project are in desperate need of attention. In real-life, as an organisation we would simply move some manpower away from topics that have plenty of attention and onto those that don't, but we are volunteer-run and there is no mandate to compel people to work in areas that bring them no enjoyment. The plethora of useful bots help to simplify many areas, but the inevitable problem is that we simply don't have enough folk to do what needs done—and probably never will.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 17:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * A: The decision reached in MickMacNee for the most part was useless waffle, and I got the impression from that case that the committee didn't really know what to do—or worse, it thought that the decision it reached was actually meaningful. The issues at play in that case were broader than the question of MMN's editing, and I was disappointed that the question of the reversal of administrator actions was not conclusively answered by ArbCom. Aside from that, I do not think any of the cases were badly-handled; the problem this year has been with the committee's decision-making outside of full cases, for instance in private or public motions. Please see my response to Q5(c) for my views on the committee's decision-making in motions for 2011. AGK  [ &bull; ] 11:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
 * A: Forthcoming, but here is a preliminary list: (1) The delivery of decisions needs to be overhauled. Workshops are mostly side-shows that seem to receive little arbitrator input (although the specific arbs involved does make a difference, with some being more hands-on than others). Arbitration case talk pages likewise need more committee involvement. (2) Motions are overused. Motions for anything but internal matters or the simplest of matters will result in careless, rushed decision-making; I would prefer we open a full case. (3) Routine internal discussion that does not involve aspects that require confidentiality should be held on-wiki, ideally in some arbitrator-only space of the Wikipedia: space but alternatively by e-mail on a mailing list with a public archive. (4) Periodic reviews of the committee's performance (other than our annual elections, which any case are not well-suited to this purpose, or WT:AC/N which is too informal) should be held. Most other comparable public bodies have a complaints process; I do not think it would use many resources to have a similar system for ArbCom. We need to be more receptive to the community's thoughts on the committee's business, as well as to genuine complaints about the actions of specific arbitrators or the conduct of specific cases or proceedings.   AGK  [ &bull; ] 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Questions from Hurricanefan25

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


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

Questions from Rschen7754
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

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

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


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
 * A: I cannot comment on what circumstances led to such a delay, but three months to resolve a case is of course unacceptable. The community has made it clear in the past, with such wrecks as the six-month-long Scientology, that the protracted delivery of resolutions to cases is intolerable. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
 * A: WikiProjects are valuable because they allow editors with similar interests to triage their workload, identify articles that need improvement, and, yes, summarise site policy relating to article layout and other standards. However, I do not think such projects should be taking on an active enforcement role: that would be akin to a book club telling its members what book to read, and how quickly to read it. The entire community should be involved in formulating policy, and if a wikiproject member is taking on the role of enforcing community policy, they should not do so in any capacity other than as a community member, because the project would come to be a cabal. One great aspect of Wikipedia is that non-experts can become involved in the development of almost any article; I do not see how we can reconcile that principle with hobbyists becoming regulators of their pages. I would go so far as to say that such a practice is no better than tag-teaming. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * A: Wikipedia functions as well as it does because it has a dedicated base of contributors. Site discussions are rare in comparison to the volume of 'pure' article improvement that happens daily on this site. If a contributor is unable to participate in a professional way to meta-discussion, it would follow that we must resort to excluding them from projectspace discussions. If a contributor is unable to participate not only to administration meta-discussions but also to debates about the content of an article, for instance article talk or user talk threads about a given edit, then that editor could not comply with Consensus, Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, and related tenets of our community. In the former case, the editor should be excluded from the project space; that may alleviate the problem, but allow the contributor to continue his or her mainspace work. In the latter case, the only option would regretfully be to ban the editor from the project (or to place them on something like a civility parole, but frankly I think such things are a waste of our time). I do not believe that you or I or any other editor are above the expectation that one interact properly with our colleagues when necessary, and I would accord with that belief in my dealings as an arbitrator. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
 * A: In what way is the hypothetical editor incompetent? In some cases, for instance if an editor is so incompetent with a given topic area that they are only able to contribute nonsense, we could forcibly exclude the editor from the given topic area—such as with a topic ban. In other cases, for instance if the editor is unintelligible or is so socially inept as to be unable to interact professionally with other editors, then the only recourse would be to site ban him or her. It would depend very much on the specific case, and both how and to what degree the editor in question was incompetent. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
 * A: It would depend on the specific case, and I see limited usefulness in judging hypotheticals—although your questions are of course very valid. However, yes, if an editor is unable to participate constructively, some sort of restriction on their activities (for instance a namespace or subject area/topic ban) may in the end be warranted, as would a siteban. For whatever it's worth, I think the Arbitration Committee is today dealing much less with routine cases of editorial incompetence or editors with difficult temperaments, and more with editors who are deliberately disruptive or malicious. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
 * A: I don't think that's a reasonable perspective to hold. ArbCom isn't a criminal court and does not take into account "mitigating circumstances" like one party being made to be abusive by another editor. That said, if an editor was obviously baited by another, the resulting discourse may not be an accurate representation of how the first editor routinely behaves, and I would imagine that the cause of the disruption would be held to be the second editor—not the first. It would depend on the specific case; the purpose of ArbCom is to resolve disputes and end drahmaz, and it must do whatever is necessary to achieve that aim in any given case. AGK  [ &bull; ] 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
 * A: My views on this subject are conservative: ArbCom should be the body of last resort. I would only support our acceptance of a case where the community has been unable to provide a resolution (such as when other methods of dispute resolution have failed), or where the community would be unable to deliver a resolution (such as in the case of administrator abuse: the community has no "de-adminship" process). The array of cases which come to arbitration are more varied than in the past, which is a testament to the community's new-found proficiency at resolving disputes without arbitrator involvement, but broadly I think cases should be accepted when absolutely necessary. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
 * A: Presuming you mean an indefinite or one-year ban (or something similar), only where it was absolutely necessary. Most cases of outright abusiveness are dealt with at ANI today, so long-term bans (as oppose to non-sitebans such as topic bans) are only meted out when there is no other way to conclusively resolve a dispute. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * A: Yes, absolutely. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

Thank you. Rschen7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Sven Manguard

 * 1) Your nomination statement didn't carry too much enthusiasm. In elections past other candidates have put forward 'It's not that I really want to do this, but since nobody else is, I might as well' type statements, to mixed receptions. Is my assessment that you lack enthusiasm or any great want for the role accurate? If so, how would it effect your term?
 * A: Having worked with the arbitrators for some years, I perhaps am more aware than most candidates are that a seat on ArbCom is rarely pleasant. Nevertheless, I am pleased to serve on the committee, but I view it as a necessary duty—not something to look forward to. It would be fair to say that in the past, I have been generous to the project with my time, and when I make a commitment, I see it through. I do not view my candidature as being one designed to "fill out" the pool of nominees, as has been seen in past elections. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Many content disputes come through mediation on their way to ArbCom. Under what circumstances would you decided that you have had enough involvement in a case, prior to it winding up at ArbCom, to warrant you abstaining from the case? Do you foresee having to abstain often enough that it would negatively impact your effectiveness as an Arb?
 * A: If I had had a significant involvement in a dispute as a mediator, I would recuse, because any significant involvement with the disputants (even in a role as inherently neutral as that of the mediator) will inevitably cause one to prejudge the case. My primary duties as a mediator today is as the Chairman of MedCom, which is a role of administration and co-ordination, so I do not imagine that I would become a serial recusant. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Which of the roles (other than Administrator) which you currently serve in, if any, will you resign if you are elected? If you feel as though you would have to resign multiple roles, please discuss what you perceive the net impact of the resignations to be. If you don't plan on resigning multiple roles, please discuss the ethical ramifications of holding outside roles and an ArbCom position.
 * A: Perhaps we might cross that bridge when we come to it, but I imagine that I would move from the role of community Audit Subcommittee member to arbitrator member. I would end my term as Chairman of MedCom. I doubt I would have enough time to continue using the checkuser tool regularly, but the impact of this on SPI would be negligible because we have had a new intake of community checkusers (who were appointed at the same time as was I, though I had been using the tool before then because of my AUSC appointment). I am no longer a clerk (I stepped down when I joined AUSC), and I do not fulfil any other functions on the project that would interfere with my work as an arbitrator. AGK  [ &bull; ] 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions from Sven Manguard
Looking over ArbCom cases from the past few years, it is clear to me that many times, editors involved in the dispute being heard in a particular case use the Workshop page as a platform to continue their disputes. These Workshop posts tend to take the form of 'finding of facts that the people on the other side of the dispute have committed heinous acts, heavy sanctions for the people on the other side of the dispute, and people on my side of the dispute get off without even a warning' (it's usually less transparent than that, but barely).
 * 1) Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.
 * A: I agree that the Workshop has been abused in the past. As a clerk, I occasionally spoke out when I thought a workshop proposal was a thinly-veiled dig at another contributor, and I would do so as an arbitrator too. AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?
 * A: I would propose that the arbitrators stop spending so much time on the mailing list and doing other stuff, and focus on being involved in the actual cases. If the arbitrators took the time to read and comment on workshop proposals, problematic activity could be stamped out (or even discouraged, with increased arbitrator involvement implying that misbehaviour could more easily be reflected in the final decision than if the arbitrators were largely absent). If the committee was more involved, nonsense or malicious proposals could be shot down quickly, which is better than having them languish on the workshop and in the public record. AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Core questions
 * 1) Please describe your opinion on the following proposals in relation to Wikipedia's BLP policy: an expanded version of opt-out, "targeted flagging", and a more permanent version of the old pending changes trial. In your answer, please discuss your personal views on the pending changes trial: what you thought of it, whether we should ultimately implement some form of it (and if so, what form?), whether the community failed to come to a decision about it, and what you believe the role of the Arbitration Committee should have been.
 * A: Given the amplified legal and moral issues with articles about living people, I simply do not think that the standard Wiki model of content-writing is adequate. (1) Opt-out: I define the opt-out system as "Permitting the administrator who closes an AFD for a BLP where the subject has marginal notability and has asked that they not be included on Wikipedia to take the subject's wishes into account". Where the subject is of marginal notability, it follows that their inclusion on Wikipedia is not a significant issue. For instance, whereas we would commit a gross oversight in the depth of our encyclopedia by granting Barack Obama's request to not have an article, we are not doing our readers a disservice by removing our entry on the 1993 winner of the Derby Parish Council Award for Best Gardener. Especially in the context of the ongoing Leveson inquiry in the United Kingdom, if there are no other significant factors (such as that the subject is of interest to the general public, or is otherwise notable in their field), it is simply due professionalism that we afford marginal-notability subjects the right to not be biographed on a public site if they have a keen desire for privacy. In short, there must be a presumption in favour of privacy. I support the opt-out policy for BLPs.  (2) Targeted flagging: While I think that applying flagged revisions to under-watched BLPs is conducive to a more professional approach to BLPs, I do not think that it goes far enough. I support targeted flagging, but prefer a full roll-out of FlaggedRevs for all BLPs.  (3) Flagged Revisions: As I mentioned earlier in this response, I do not think that the standard Wiki model provides adequate editorial review and oversight of submissions in the context of the importance of providing professional, reliable coverage of living people. Unreferenced, unverified changes to BLPs are already reverted liberally, and on balance I think it is an acceptable compromise on our completely open model of editing to review those changes before, rather than after, they are made. We ought to accept the reality that Wikipedia is a top 10 website for most Google searches, and that we cannot reasonably allow our website to become a free-for-all, especially with the potential legal ramifications—and to say nothing of the resultant damage to our credibility.  I thought the Pending Changes (or FlaggedRevs) trial went well, but I was disappointed that the trial was not renewed and that it did not result in the retention of the system. I understand that this was largely an operational problem: the trial was meant to be temporary, but was retained for far longer than initially intended. The general annoyance that it was not removed when we said we would remove it was understandable, but also meant that the follow-up discussion did not focus on the actual merits of the system. Hearteningly, the discussion did suggest that most of the community continued to support Pending Changes after the trial, although we cannot take the most recent straw poll as hard evidence of that, because it did not have that issue at its core. I do not believe the Arbitration Committee should have had a role in Pending Changes (as it did with its May 2011 injunction), and I would not support it having one without a very explicit community consensus. Moreover, there was (and is) no need for arbitrator involvement: the community has not proven that it cannot settle the issue of BLPs and FlaggedRevs, neither to the general bar expected of issues that come to arbitration nor to the much higher level expected when the matter at hand has the potential to make ArbCom into GovCom.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Please describe an experience you have had with a significant content dispute. If you have had any disputes where you felt that either yourself or another party was either not acting in good faith with respect to the neutrality policy or with regards to source gathering, I would be especially interested to hear about your experience. What do you feel you did incorrectly and how would you have realistically fixed that for future situations?
 * A: I don't edit contentious articles, mainly by coincidence: my interests are in subjects that are not widely edited. For instance, I collaborated at Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom with User:Ironholds. The article had not been widely edited before we re-wrote it, and all of the content expansion was simply fact-finding and prose refinement—rather than debate about the content of the article. I haven't been involved in any content disputes for a long time, because what article contributions I do make are pretty routine. Sorry I can't answer at greater length, but I can't answer this unless it is from the perspective of an uninvolved participant (which I could probably talk about for years…). AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In my 2010 voting guide, I highlighted several quotes by other editors. Please select two from "On Administration" and state why you agree or disagree with them. Bonus points if you give reasons for your answers
 * A: I firmly agree with Heimstern's Essay on the Arbitration Committee. I find it repugnant that some of our contributors are permitted to do whatever they like with certain articles so long as they ostensibly embrace dispute resolution and discussion, and remain civil. I suspect that we have resorted to focussing, in many cases, on who is uncivil, rather than who is using Wikipedia for their own ends, because it is easier to do so. It takes far less time to slam the banhammer on a few diffs containing expletives than on an array of edits that prove a pattern of long-term POV-pushing or protracted edit-warring. I have spoken about this at length elsewhere, although not much recently because the issue is difficult to get much traction on, and I firmly agree that the spilling over of nationalist or real-life cultural disputes onto Wikipedia is one of the most serious issues this community faces. Civil but non-neutral or partisan speeches are not accepted in academia; why should they be on an online encyclopedia? I suspect that I have also responded to MastCell's comment in November 2010, but needless to say I agree with that too, for the same reasons as elucidated in the previous paragraph. I picked the first two because they are related (and because it's easier to just tackle the first two on the list), but if you want me to take a stab at Moreschi's essay, please feel free to ask a follow-up question.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 00:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that the policy on involved administrators using the admin tools should ever be relaxed to any extent? Does your answer change depending on whether general or discretionary sanctions are in place?
 * A: Like it or not, administratorship is not only a bunch of technical tools; it involves reasoned judgment. Nobody can reach a balanced conclusion if they are not impartial. Moreover, the legitimacy of their action is undermined if they are involved, because an involved administrator taking action gives the impression they are using their tools for their own ends. I do not think administrators should be using their tools in a situation in which they are not uninvolved, especially where the matter requires more balance and analysis (like the application of general or discretionary sanctions). We have enough problems with the body of administrators being perceived by non-sysops as an elite, without allowing administrators to use their tools in matters in which they are not impartial. The same applies to functionaries (like CU or OS access-holders), arbitrators, and so on. AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Wikipedia, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?
 * A: The ostensible justification for blocking editors who make legal threats is that the dispute-resolution process would otherwise be undermined. From that perspective, legal action is identical to the threat of legal action. (Personally, I think we block editors who make legal threats because it's just not sporting, and must be especially discouraged in the context of the litigation-happy culture in some states in the USA.) I do not think any candidate could speak confidently about this issue, but I'll give it a shot. There are several scenarios under which two editors could become involved in legal proceedings after an action or action on this website:  (1) If legal proceedings were initiated by editor A over editor B with regards to a disagreement over content, the matter would be laughed out of court; a public disagreement is not libellous, and neither volunteer could conceivably be liable in any other tort. (2) If editor A sued editor B with regards to a public insult or remark which caused offence, perhaps made in the course of a meta- or article-discussion, then the matter would again probably be dismissed by any reasonable court. (3) If editor B is sued by article-subject A for writing a verified, referenced, and accurate article that the subject nonetheless finds objectionable, the matter would not lead to legal action because: i) the article is valid because it is supported by sources and therefore truthful; and ii) it would anyway be publisher of the sources, not the Wikipedian, who is liable. (4) If editor B is sued by article-subject A for using Wikipedia to publish defamatory content, then editor B might conceivably be liable, but frankly we do not need to concern ourselves with such an individual.  In all cases, the legal proceedings would be for insult or injury, rather than to obtain a legal ruling to change Wikipedia content. Accordingly, the respondent should not be blocked; and likewise, there is no need to prohibit mention of the proceedings (although the involved editors should be mindful of the doctrine of contempt of court). However, the appellant should be blocked, because by pursuing legal action he is (deliberately or inadvertently) intimidating the other editor into changing his views on content; such is not how Wikipedia functions.  I do not see why the Arbitration Committee should become involved, unless the editors who are subject to the legal proceedings cannot settle the content question even after the legal proceedings have ended (if indeed they ever began, an idea which in most cases is laughable). If a good-faith contributor has been sued under scenario 1 or 3, I believe the Wikimedia Foundation is obliged to provide legal counsel and assistance—although I understand that it is indemnified from doing so by the Terms of Use or some other document. If a contributor is sued under scenario 2, the Foundation may be obliged to provide assistance if the contributor was not deliberately obnoxious, harassing, or abusive. If a contributor is sued under scenario 4, no Wikipedia organisation should be obliged to assist them.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Like it or not, administratorship is not only a bunch of technical tools; it involves reasoned judgment. Nobody can reach a balanced conclusion if they are not impartial. Moreover, the legitimacy of their action is undermined if they are involved, because an involved administrator taking action gives the impression they are using their tools for their own ends. I do not think administrators should be using their tools in a situation in which they are not uninvolved, especially where the matter requires more balance and analysis (like the application of general or discretionary sanctions). We have enough problems with the body of administrators being perceived by non-sysops as an elite, without allowing administrators to use their tools in matters in which they are not impartial. The same applies to functionaries (like CU or OS access-holders), arbitrators, and so on. AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Wikipedia, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?
 * A: The ostensible justification for blocking editors who make legal threats is that the dispute-resolution process would otherwise be undermined. From that perspective, legal action is identical to the threat of legal action. (Personally, I think we block editors who make legal threats because it's just not sporting, and must be especially discouraged in the context of the litigation-happy culture in some states in the USA.) I do not think any candidate could speak confidently about this issue, but I'll give it a shot. There are several scenarios under which two editors could become involved in legal proceedings after an action or action on this website:  (1) If legal proceedings were initiated by editor A over editor B with regards to a disagreement over content, the matter would be laughed out of court; a public disagreement is not libellous, and neither volunteer could conceivably be liable in any other tort. (2) If editor A sued editor B with regards to a public insult or remark which caused offence, perhaps made in the course of a meta- or article-discussion, then the matter would again probably be dismissed by any reasonable court. (3) If editor B is sued by article-subject A for writing a verified, referenced, and accurate article that the subject nonetheless finds objectionable, the matter would not lead to legal action because: i) the article is valid because it is supported by sources and therefore truthful; and ii) it would anyway be publisher of the sources, not the Wikipedian, who is liable. (4) If editor B is sued by article-subject A for using Wikipedia to publish defamatory content, then editor B might conceivably be liable, but frankly we do not need to concern ourselves with such an individual.  In all cases, the legal proceedings would be for insult or injury, rather than to obtain a legal ruling to change Wikipedia content. Accordingly, the respondent should not be blocked; and likewise, there is no need to prohibit mention of the proceedings (although the involved editors should be mindful of the doctrine of contempt of court). However, the appellant should be blocked, because by pursuing legal action he is (deliberately or inadvertently) intimidating the other editor into changing his views on content; such is not how Wikipedia functions.  I do not see why the Arbitration Committee should become involved, unless the editors who are subject to the legal proceedings cannot settle the content question even after the legal proceedings have ended (if indeed they ever began, an idea which in most cases is laughable). If a good-faith contributor has been sued under scenario 1 or 3, I believe the Wikimedia Foundation is obliged to provide legal counsel and assistance—although I understand that it is indemnified from doing so by the Terms of Use or some other document. If a contributor is sued under scenario 2, the Foundation may be obliged to provide assistance if the contributor was not deliberately obnoxious, harassing, or abusive. If a contributor is sued under scenario 4, no Wikipedia organisation should be obliged to assist them.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A: The ostensible justification for blocking editors who make legal threats is that the dispute-resolution process would otherwise be undermined. From that perspective, legal action is identical to the threat of legal action. (Personally, I think we block editors who make legal threats because it's just not sporting, and must be especially discouraged in the context of the litigation-happy culture in some states in the USA.) I do not think any candidate could speak confidently about this issue, but I'll give it a shot. There are several scenarios under which two editors could become involved in legal proceedings after an action or action on this website:  (1) If legal proceedings were initiated by editor A over editor B with regards to a disagreement over content, the matter would be laughed out of court; a public disagreement is not libellous, and neither volunteer could conceivably be liable in any other tort. (2) If editor A sued editor B with regards to a public insult or remark which caused offence, perhaps made in the course of a meta- or article-discussion, then the matter would again probably be dismissed by any reasonable court. (3) If editor B is sued by article-subject A for writing a verified, referenced, and accurate article that the subject nonetheless finds objectionable, the matter would not lead to legal action because: i) the article is valid because it is supported by sources and therefore truthful; and ii) it would anyway be publisher of the sources, not the Wikipedian, who is liable. (4) If editor B is sued by article-subject A for using Wikipedia to publish defamatory content, then editor B might conceivably be liable, but frankly we do not need to concern ourselves with such an individual.  In all cases, the legal proceedings would be for insult or injury, rather than to obtain a legal ruling to change Wikipedia content. Accordingly, the respondent should not be blocked; and likewise, there is no need to prohibit mention of the proceedings (although the involved editors should be mindful of the doctrine of contempt of court). However, the appellant should be blocked, because by pursuing legal action he is (deliberately or inadvertently) intimidating the other editor into changing his views on content; such is not how Wikipedia functions.  I do not see why the Arbitration Committee should become involved, unless the editors who are subject to the legal proceedings cannot settle the content question even after the legal proceedings have ended (if indeed they ever began, an idea which in most cases is laughable). If a good-faith contributor has been sued under scenario 1 or 3, I believe the Wikimedia Foundation is obliged to provide legal counsel and assistance—although I understand that it is indemnified from doing so by the Terms of Use or some other document. If a contributor is sued under scenario 2, the Foundation may be obliged to provide assistance if the contributor was not deliberately obnoxious, harassing, or abusive. If a contributor is sued under scenario 4, no Wikipedia organisation should be obliged to assist them.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional questions
 * 1) What is your opinion of specialized content guidelines like Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Do you think it is a practice that we should encourage with other guidelines like Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) or Identifying reliable sources (history)?
 * A: Yes, I think some topics require a more specialist approach than others. Medicine, for instance, demands a more refined approach to the verification of content and the use of reliable sources; to take that example, although the broad thrust of policy (that only mainstream sources may be used), the community has refined this further by, for example, requiring that we not use material that is not supported by mainstream scientific consensus or that contradicts mainstream consensus without systematic reviews. Medicine is a curious example, because although we do not give medical advice, we must accept that there is a high bar for such articles because our website is probably going to be the first hit for an ailment or condition a self-diagnostician is searching for. Scientific consensus also varies more drastically in the medical community, especially where new studies or emerging diseases are concerned, and so we require more a more specialised approach to content-building for medicine than we do in most other topics. If the users in the other major subject areas find that they require guidance for identifying reliable sources, then I do not see why we could not allow such a guideline to be created. However, I believe that in most cases, we must relegate such documents to "supplementary guideline" or even "essay" status, because we risk being overwhelmed by the weight of our own policies. I think Wikipedia's policy structure is quite complicated enough as it.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think we should have a policy for medicine and health in the same manner that we have WP:BLP for living people? What about for corporations?
 * A: The BLP policy is peculiar because it simply re-states what Wikipedia policy prescribes elsewhere. In theory, all articles are required in equal measure to conform to our core content policies and especially to be neutrally-written and verified with reliable sources. The BLP policy only re-states these ubiquitous requirements, and emphasises their special importance when the subject is a living or recently-deceased person. The policy implements the community's view that BLPs be carefully-written by establishing some special processes, like WP:BLPPROD (and previously, the FlaggedRevs Trial). Despite what our disclaimer for medical articles suggests, Wikipedia is one of the first stops for people who are researching their symptoms online, or are learning about conditions they (or a family member or friend) have been diagnosed with. Accordingly, I am of the view that medical articles must be as carefully written as are BLPs. Although policies are not prescriptive, their formulation does represent a community consensus on a particular issue. Just as we formed the BLP policy to show we are serious about tackling poorly-written BLPs, so too could we form a Medicine policy to show we do not accept quack medicine or wrong information on articles about medicine and health. I do not think we have a problem with our coverage in this topic, but if the community decided that we did, I would agree to forming a similar policy for medicine and health.  For corporations, I do not think the stakes are as high, but conversely I think the problem is comparatively worse: many of our entries on organisations, especially small and medium-sized ones, are laughable at best. Moreover, many such entries are edited by employees of the actual organisation, and I do think this subject area is a serious problem. Similarly, if the community concluded that the state of our coverage about corporations is intolerable, the formulation of such a policy could be the solution.  As an important addendum, I understand that it is important that you assess the candidates' views on these issues, but I do not think that this would be something for the Committee to address without consulting the community. While I think these subject areas need development, and that a BLP-like policy could be the answer, I do not think that ArbCom should be GovCom.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree?
 * 1) Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree?
 * 1) Given that it is said that the Arbitration Committee does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that the Committee does not decide content questions: the Committee has taken some actions in the past with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree?

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification
Restraining aggrieved parties in emotionally charged scenarios is central to the Committee’s role, and arbitrators are in principle exposed to legal action by those parties in a real-world jurisdiction. It matters little whether an action is launched or merely threatened, and whether it is quite unreasonable: the costs for an individual arb to forestall a default judgment in a foreign court would be considerable (and I believe it’s not hard to transfer an order to the courts in one’s local jurisdiction). The risk is greater because as volunteers we can’t be expected to provide professional mediation as an intermediary between wiki and real-world judicial processes—mediation that might head off litigation in the first place.

Given the WMF's annual income of some $20M, what is your view on whether the Foundation should:
 * 1) set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
 * A: I do not imagine that mediation would be especially useful in such a situation, but if the arbitrators became involved in legal proceedings, then yes, I would hope the Foundation would provide assistance. As the Foundation retains an in-house counsel, I do not imagine that mediation would be especially expensive (at least in raw terms). Perhaps I am grossly naive, but I do not think we need to prepare for every eventuality—especially because most foreseeable legal proceedings are unreasonable or vexatious, and therefore unlikely to make it far before dismissal. AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Nothing in the Foundation's Terms of Use or other policies makes them liable to protect an arbitrator (or any editor) who becomes subject to legal action because of their constructive contributions to Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee is a community process, not a WMF one, and I do not see why the Foundation would be obliged to offer legal indemnity. However, that does not mean that I think they should not offer assistance; I do. However, as I have opined elsewhere, I find it unlikely that an arbitrator would be the subject of legal action in the course of their routine work as a member of the committee. I may be naive in holding such a view, but in any case I am volunteering to arbitrate disputes—not to shape any debate on what the Foundation might do in the unlikely event that legal action might somewhere be taken against me or another arbitrator… AGK  [ &bull; ] 10:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Russavia
There is a still open RfC at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. As evidenced at this request, there are numerous admins and editors who have serious doubts over the Committee's unblocking of what is suspected, with a high level of good faith and WP:DUCK evidence, to be a banned disruptive sockpuppet. Do you think it is appropriate that after nearly a month and a half:


 * 1) the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.
 * A: No, the delay is excessive. I have not followed the RfCl, but from what you tell me, the communication of the committee leaves a lot to be desired. AGK  [ &bull; ] 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
 * A: Presumably those responsible for the unblocking are publicly listed at WP:BASC. AGK  [ &bull; ] 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
 * A: Of course I don't think it's appropriate, but I don't know why there may be such a conflict in communication. Presumably, the arbitrators just crossed wires on that particular aspect of the matter; on a Committee of nearly twenty, such things must be anticipated at least occasionally. I agree, however, that that issue should have been cleared up when the RfCl was filed. AGK  [ &bull; ] 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?
 * A: I don't know if they have, not being privy to their internal discussions, nor having even followed the RfCl. I would be loathe to judge the case based on your representation of the facts, especially because everybody views such incidents differently. However, I certainly think when the committee errs, it should hold its hands up and say so; brushing things under the carpet has been shown, especially when it comes from ArbCom, to not work, nor to be acceptable to the community. AGK  [ &bull; ] 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The last question is especially important as there are numerous uninvolved admins and admins who have previously dealt with the user in question, who are too "afraid" of going over the Committee's head, even in the face of evidence; if one assumes ownership of a problem as the current Committee has, then surely the current Committee must also assume ownership of their actual ownership of the problem possibly being part of said problem. If one looks at the answers thus far given at the request from arbiters closely, one can see that there seems to be a theme amongst arbs to suggest that the Community block the editor for other current issues; all the while the Committee avoids answering Community concerns at the actual clarification request. However, the other issues have only strengthened the opinion of sockpuppetry amongst other members of the Community.

Although you are not a currently sitting arb, I would also request a response to the following:


 * 1) if elected what will you do as an individual on the Committee to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
 * 2) absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?
 * 3) how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)

 * 1) Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
 * A: There are none, although if I had had a previous involvement in some specific incident that later came to arbitration, I would of course recuse. I would also reserve the right to recuse from a topic area in future. AGK  [ &bull; ] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?
 * A: I would always respond in full to a request that I recuse, by rebutting the arguments made for my recusal or by saying I will recuse. I would respond in full irrespective of how advanced in the requests process the matter was. AGK  [ &bull; ] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?
 * A: See above. AGK  [ &bull; ] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?
 * A: While I would tentatively be satisfied that most arbitrators would not seek to interfere with the committee's internal discussion about a case, I nevertheless think it is wrong for that arbitrator to even be privy to those deliberations. The committee's mailman software prevents 'selective unsubscription', and I think that is damaging. If the parties to a case know one of the parties has been able to read internal discussion (and maybe even participate in it), then the perceived legitimacy of the decision is lessened. The legitimacy of ArbCom's decisions is important. As for the arbitrator's involvement with the case before it comes to the committee: an arbitrator must either come to case proceedings with as much impartiality as we can expect from people, or must recuse. I do not think there can be much leeway here; a partisan arbitrator is a bad arbitrator. AGK  [ &bull; ] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
 * A: In the situation of having been involved in the matter before it comes to arbitration? I plan to avoid involving myself in disputes except in an official capacity, and I do not often come across a situation in which I cannot be neutral. However, if I am not impartial because of prior involvement or my own prejudices, I would recuse. AGK  [ &bull; ] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
 * A: Yes, because an arbitrator is most useful in their official capacity - and such prior involvement breeds a propensity to the need to recusal. Also, as a solely practical point, I do not imagine that most arbitrators would have the time to dolly about on the drama boards or mediating a dispute; the committee's workload is already large enough. AGK  [ &bull; ] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
 * A: I don't think that would be a useful practice. Arbitrators are experienced members of the community and could have a lot to offer such discussions. Moreover, I view being an arbitrator as being a regular editor but with an extra (albeit time-intensive) duty. If an arbitrator withdrew from important community discussions, the impression would be that they had "graduated" to a seat on the committee and was no longer involved (or in touch) with the community at large. However, to recycle that catchy phrase we use a lot now, ArbCom is not GovCom, and an arbitrator's involvement in policy discussions must be only as an editor. AGK  [ &bull; ] 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
 * A:

Questions from Joe Gazz84
I would like to apologize for the late questions, I've only just gotten the time to write them. If you see a question that you've already answered or one that is similar, please proceed to answer it, you may think of a new way to explain your idea/answer. Please answer all of these questions, they will weigh in heavily when I vote.


 * 1) Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?
 * A: I think it is helpful that a candidate declare what his or her "agenda for reform" is, and I will happily do so, but I initially emphasise two issues. First, I am being elected as an arbitrator, and my primary responsibilities would be to ensure that the committee's workload is despatched efficiently and to resolve disputes. While I have helped to drive reform at other Wikipedia bodies and would do so if elected, I do not intend to flog the metaphorical dead horse of my reform agenda. Second, I am being elected as one arbitrator of fifteen; even with the recent reduction of eighteen, I am still a significant minority. If I cannot effect reform on the following issues because of opposition from my colleagues (who are all also elected by the community) on the committee, I would have to acquiesce. The following issues are what I think need changed: (1) WMF consignation: The Wikimedia Foundation should continue to take on those aspects of ArbCom's remit that it is better qualified to handle. ArbCom has become to go-to body for every issue that is sensitive due to legal, privacy, or other real-life issues, which is not ideal because common editors are unqualified for a task with such high stakes. (2) Public discussions:' ArbCom needs to shake off the (rather sucky) notion that it is entitled to hold most of its discussion in private; a public mailing list or public discussion space should be created, because the us versus them mentality of some of the arbitrators that was evident in the recent leaks has undermined the community's confidence in the value of Arbcom-l. (3) Arbitrator involvement in cases: Arbitrators need to be more involved in the case process, including on workshops, evidence talk pages, and similar. Arbitration case talk pages likewise need more committee involvement. Arbitrator detachment from the users involved in the case gives the impression that arbitration proceedings are an unstoppable juggernaut that the parties can do nothing to change the course of, which really isn't a good thing: the committee must be receptive, and be seen to be receptive, to outside (and inside) views. Drafting the proposed decision and posting it on the workshop in good time seems to have fell out of practice, but is good because it allows the parties to read it (and post rebuttals if necessary, as well as to offer alternatives that could be considered). We must not forget that the aim of ArbCom is to resolve a dispute, not mete out street justice and silence the involved parties. I do not, of course, forget that many parties to arbitration have often behaved in such a way that they probably need to be site-banned, and I do not propose that we "go soft" and play nice with every party; I just think that bringing a modicum of discussion to the process is a good idea. (4) Overuse of motions: Motions are overused, and using them for anything but internal matters or the simplest of disputes means that the resulting decision is more likely to be rushed and flawed. I would lobby for a full case to be opened more often than would most arbitrators. (5) Periodic reviews of the committee's performance should be held (other than our annual elections, which any case are not well-suited to this purpose, or WT:AC/N, which is too informal). Most other comparable public bodies have a complaints process; I do not think it would use many resources to have a similar system for ArbCom. We need to be more receptive to the community's thoughts on the committee's business, as well as to genuine complaints about the actions of specific arbitrators or the conduct of specific cases or proceedings. I hope we can create a subpage of the main ArbCom case page that is an RFC Lite forum to which people can post their grievances about the committee. At present, the community can rant at WT:AC/N, or join (and rant at) Wikipedia Review. ArbCom should allow these editors to periodically rant directly at the subjects of their anger; without good feedback, I do not see how the committee can ever improve.  If you would like me to talk at greater length about any of these issues, please feel free to ask.  AGK  [ &bull; ] 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?
 * A: No, I do not think the committee should create policy. Please see my answer to Gen. Qu. 3. I think the committee should refer all issues of policy to the community for consideration. AGK  [ &bull; ] 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and its surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?
 * A: What rule? Did the user, for example, break WP:3RR once—or am I placing too much emphasis on "a rule"? If not, then I would not have accepted the arbitration request in the first place, and would vote to dismiss the proceedings: we don't punish good contributors for occasionally erring. If I am placing too much importance on "a", and you mean that the user is a good contributor but has proven to be significantly disruptive elsewhere, then I would not accept the argument that we should overlook those problems because the user has also contributed productively elsewhere. This is a community, and if an editor cannot function accordingly, then the committee would have no recourse but to do something about the situation. AGK  [ &bull; ] 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)
 * A:
 * 1) Q: If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
 * A:

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

Questions from Demiurge1000
When I was a wiki-newcomer with less than a year on Wikipedia, already a victim of some of the sockpuppetry that goes on in the Israel-Palestine topic area, I expressed my upset at a decision you made. You responded on my talk page by saying, inter alia, "I'm not sure where you learned to socialise, but, on a collaborative project, we don't do that kind of thing".

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

Two questions.

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

Second; given your obvious strong feelings about the topic area, do you agree, if you should be elected to arbcom, to recuse from all decisions that relate to the Middle East and the Israel-Palestine-Arab conflict, broadly construed? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A: Thank you for your questions. However, you have taken to narrating my entire contribution history as somehow obnoxious, based on two disconnected diffs: "this week" suggests that in the six months between these two comments of mine, I have consistently acted in the way you have characterise me. Anyway, I digress, and disagree that it even was wrong to post these remarks. I can't really remember the background to my remark in May 2011, but concerning Pesky yesterday: I think I made it clear in my comment that I was making a good-faith suggestion that she was not being consistent in her attitude towards other editors. It certainly is inappropriate to refer to any Wikipedia contributor as an "angry young man", much less to suggest that the majority are, and I don't really see a way around that truth; moreover, I'm not going to bite my tongue when I see something said that I think crossed the line. The "horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual" was a far more serious matter, by an order of magnitude, and irrespective of what Pesky said in passing, I don't for a moment suggest that Badger Drink should ever have said that—and I am pleased to see he is indefinitely blocked as a result of his remark. However, what happened elsewhere does not excuse Pesky's characterisation of "angry young men"; do you think it would be okay for somebody to post (for instance) that "As a British granny, why are you even here? Old people can't use computers." Of course it wouldn't, and the same intolerance for ageism against the old should extend to ageism against the young. Sorry, what strong feelings? I have never expressed a view on either of these topic areas, nor do I have one. I certainly have sanctioned a few editors from both factions of that topic area, but that involvement in itself does not require that one recuse from the topic area. An arbitrator is not required to recuse because they were on the committee when a dispute came to arbitration at an earlier point, and the same applies to the enforcement of arbitration decisions. I am not partisan in relation to these disputes, and have dispatched all enforcement requests relating to the topic with professionalism and neutrality. Unless you are able to substantiate your flippant claim that I have abused my position and sanctioned editors within a topic area in which I am impartial, it would be appropriate to retract your question.  Perhaps I have misinterpreted your position (although looking at the tone of this question, I suspect not), your comment at Pesky's talk page suggests there's something about me that you really don't like. Unless you want to tell me (with evidence that I've actually done something wrong, rather than that I have the stomach to speak up and not be a yes-man), there isn't much I can do about that. Respectfully,  AGK   [ • ]  12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Pesky was responding to the ANI thread about Badger Drink, and there was unanimous opposition to his "fuck off" comment, so I didn't realise the thread had made her stop editing. In light of your remark that she has stopped editing as a result and that she was bullied by other people (could you tell me who?), I'll need to look again at my comment about angry young men. Although it was appropriate to ask her to consider whether it was appropriate, in context that may not be so important if she's stopped editing. AGK   [ • ]  12:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * A: Thanks for your questions. I have said elsewhere in this Q&A that I consider policy to be a codification of the community's views on how Wikipedia should operate: common practice or best practice should prescribe our policies, not vice versa. I supported the blanking of TT's talk page, as well as his userpage, because that is a reasonable interpretation of policy. The community has decided that indefinitely blocked users (who are considered de facto banned) do not need a userpage or a talk page to explain who they are and what they do on Wikipedia. At the time, WP:BAN under #User pages held that that "Banned editors' user page may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making page", and "user page" was linked to WP:USER which in turn defines user pages as "pages in the User and User talk namespaces". His user page had been replaced with a ban notice, and it was a simple extrapolation of our site practice (and policy) that his talk page should be too. I felt that the point was especially important because of the content of TT's talk page: he had a politicised image about pontificating, which any visitor to his page would interpret as a comment on the community and its practices. TT was blocked because he showed a disdain for the project, and the consensus of the blocking discussion was that this was caused by disillusion with its community. My view at the time was that the inclusion of statements on his talk page, like the image, reflected this disillusion. If the aim was for TT to readjust his perspective on the Wikipedia community, a fresh start was required in all respects—including his userspace.


 * I prioritise the project and its article-writers over procedure, and have for instance disagreed with other administrators who enforce civility for civility's sake while ignoring blatant POV-pushing elsewhere at the article in question. I used to be very active at the Arbitration Enforcement (AE) noticeboard, and previously spent most of my wiki-time dealing with the threads there. You only need to look at my record at arbitration enforcement to see that I view the stability and reliability of our articles and the professionalism and well-being of our contributors over the letter of policy. To take one common scenario, policy requires that all contributors pursue dispute-resolution where an edit they have made was challenged; I have pushed for this to be waived where the edit that was challenged was a removal of ostensibly-sourced material that actually constituted a manipulation of secondary sources or was not a neutral summary of the subject of the article. By the same token, in cases where the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, I have moved to sanction editors who brought complaints about the civility of another party who was provoked out of frustration at the filer's blatant manipulation of neutrality. I have little patience for those who game the system, and such an approach by its nature requires that one "see the bigger picture" and not blindly enforce the letter of policy. (As an aside, I also take a dim view of editors who are uncivil, and this response should not be taken to suggest that I think unprofessionalism, even if understandable, is excusable or acceptable.) AGK   [ • ]  12:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Question from Martinevans123
If an editor creates multiple accounts to edit articles in different subject areas, not realising that this is in breach of WP:SOCK, how should he or she be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * About six hours left for voting? Is my question worthy of your attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)