Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Count Iblis/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?
 * My scientific background makes me more suitable to be an Arbitrator than most other people, I am particularly good at putting aside any preconceived notions I may have. I have a pragmatic, no nonsense attitude. I'm usually not constrained by having to do things in a certain way, just because it has always been done like that.


 * 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.
 * Speed of light case. This was my first experience with Arbitration, I didn't know much about the ArbCom system before, so I really thought that we would get a sort of mediation by the Arbs. The core issue at the time were that you had two problem editors, Brews Ohare and David Tombe. Brews is someone who tends to argue for too long, a problem that persists to this day (so the ArbCom case didn't achieve much). This problem exploded and became the subject of arbitration because he was arguing too frequently on the speed of light talk page for a mistaken view (obviously, tolerance for talking too much will be a lot less if you are wrong according to almost everyone else). David's problem was topic related, so the topic ban did work, but in case of Brews it wasn't and it caused a huge fallout. When I tried to address that problem later, I ended up being attacked for "defending Brews" by other editors despite me arguing for a pretty stringent alternative restriction on Brews (Brews confined to his talk page and editing from there; in his particular case this set-up would work well, and Brews had said he would prefer this).
 * The fallout of this case was
 * The desysopping of User:Trusilver by ArbCom. What had happened was that due to ever more escalation of the physics topic ban placed on Brews, he ended up being restricted from doing anything outside of article space. That despite the fact that at Arbitration Enforcement (AE), it were always the same people complaining there, it wasn't that there were many more editors complaining about Brews' new activities. Then Brews posted a comment at de-admining RFC, User:Sandstein removed that comment and blocked Brews for some considerable time for violating his restriction. Trusilver thought that Sandstein's block was over the top, so he reduced the length of the block. Sandstein went to ArbCom, asking for Trusilver to be desyssoped for daring to overturn his AE block. That discussion was also quite heated, with Sandstein threatening to quit AE if Trusilver was not desyssoped. Trusilver was then desysopped, despite there not being any previous complaints about his sysop actions. This case set the precedent that on every AE block is referred to. One may then think that this was a good decision, AE blocks should not be overturned. However, ArbCom could have made that ruling without desysopping Trusilver. Just consider Trusilver's point of view here. He took the time to look at what the case against Brews actually was, instead of mindlessly enforcing ever escalating restrictions. Someone doing that would not fail to notice the light-years of distance between arguing too long on the speed of light page and not being able to post on the de-admining RFC.


 * User:Likebox kicked out Wikipedia. He had some issues (he was a bit of a hothead), but what triggered his departure from the project was that he thought that ArbCom would listen to rational arguments. So, against my advice, he appealed the topic ban Brews was subject to and argued for it being lifted (I was in favor of Brews being constrained to work from his userpage). He made valid points, it was the way they were rejected by ArbCom and the way other editors were playing games (knowing that ArbCom would side with them) instead of pragmatically discussing a way forward that made him angry. ArbCom later passed a motion against him, me and a few others, barring us to talk about Brews. To him this was the limit, he committed Wiki-suicide using this restriction. A sad departure from the project by someone who knew so much about mathematical physics, who could write accessible articles on that topic (which actually caused some friction with him and the math community here; in pure mathematics, absolute rigor is valued a lot more than in theoretical physics).


 * At the time I still gave ArbCom the benefit of the doubt. I was thinking that this could be a rare mistake and because there is no real independent appeal, the situation can then escalate a lot more. It was only later, after the climate change case that I changed m view, it was clear to me then that the system itself does not work, that it cannot be remedied by electing better Arbs.


 * The other cases that I've gotten involved a lot in was the climate change case. I have had minor involvement in the Cirt case, the Fae case, the case against Delta and a few other cases.


 * 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 support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?
 * ArbCom's role is to solve some existing problem that the community likely cannot solve. Due to mismanagement of the ArbCom system over the last several years, this system has degenerated into such a dismal state that we can now ask this question. The policy page on banning says that this is a last resort measure, but clearly this isn't the case in practice. However, that doesn't mean that we should simply impose lighter sanctions first. The issue is not sanctions per se, rather how do we solve some problem that we are presented with. If the community (or ArbCom) has repeatedly implemented a measure to deal with a problem and each time it failed, then one has to study why each time it didn't work and if there is something save of the most severe option (banning) that can realistically work, given the previous failures. If not, then one can decide to use bans as a remedy.


 * 1) ArbCom Practices:
 * a) ArbCom and policies:
 * i) 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.


 * If ArbCom looks into a case and finds that a problem arises due to a problem in a policy, it can publish this in the final decision of a case. It is then up to the community to take this into account. If, however, the community fails to solve this problem after ArbCom has first identified such a flaw in a policy, then the matter will eventually come back at ArbCom and then ArbCom would be justified to fix the policy. The case presented by the community to ArbCom in such a follow up case will then be some intractable editing dispute of the relevant policy page. Per my candidate statement, ArbCom should then likely refer the case to compulsory mediation, unless the problems are dominated by bad editing behavior.


 * Now, I do think that it is misleading to say that "ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy", because indirectly ArbCom and particularly ArbCom Enforcement has resulted in changing the way policies regarding (topic) bans are implemented. Also, banning is now no longer the last resort measure that the policy page on banning says it should be.


 * ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?


 * The Five Pillars define Wikipedia. The disputes we get on Wikipedia that escalate all the way to ArbCom usually are the result of editors feeling very strongly about certain issues but usually committed to the Five Pillars, clashing with each other as a result and then sometimes forgetting about the second lowest pillar. This pillar is often indirectly referred to in ArbCom rulings (usually it is the first ruling).


 * iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?


 * In my candidate statement, I suggest that after accepting a case, ArbCom should always first look if content issues have been sufficiently dealt with. In the typical BLP disputes, you have a paralyzed BLP noticeboard due to polarization in the community. ArbCom then needs to decide if this is driven by some reasonable content dispute that can be resolved in a different environment, or if the problems are driven more by bad editor behavior. In the former case, ArbCom should refer the case to compulsory mediation. In the latter case, ArbCom should look into the case itself in the usual way.


 * b) 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.


 * Binding dispute resolution is indeed what ArbCom must always consider in each case. Only if content issues are not the most relevant problem should ArbCom hear cases in the conventional way. One has to consider here that bad behavior is often the result of frustrations (justified or not) due to not being able to address some content dispute. At the Admin and ArbCom level content issues are off limits, so what you often see is that behavioral problems tend to escalate the higher up you go in this process.


 * c) ArbCom and motions:
 * i) 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.


 * ArbCom may need to act without community input, or with limited community input. This is appropriate for dealing with emergency situations like compromised (Admin) accounts. Motions can be used by ArbCom to make new rules for ArbCom itself. In case of issues that affect a single editor (like e.g. appeals by editors, or if an editor subject to an ArbCom case proposes a voluntary measure to resolve a problem, etc.), motions are also appropriate.


 * ii) 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?


 * It's not appropriate to settle a dispute by passing a motion. ArbCom should not overrule a community consensus using a motion. ArbCom should also not resolve issues by motions that the community cannot solve, because in such a case, the community should present a case to ArbCom. If that's done, then ArbCom could pass a motion, but only under certain circumstances mentioned in i).


 * iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 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.

There was a motion that topic banned Brews Ohare from all physics and physics related math topics. This despite his ArbCom restrictions having expired. This was totally inappropriate because the problem here was never ever addressed previously by ArbCom, and because you should never sanction editors not currently affected by an ArbCom ruling using a motion.

There was also a proposed motion that did not pass that would have imposed an interaction ban on Mathsci (making a one sided interaction ban two sided). This would have overruled the judgment of Admins at AE. This was also a inappropriate motion, not per se because ArbCom would have disagreed with AE Admins ,but because they would propose a new restriction on an editor that was not previously found at fault, without a case being presented.


 * d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
 * i) 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?


 * Only if such records could be relevant in an appeal.


 * ii) 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?


 * It should be kept (if decided to be relevant for appeals) as long as the remedies are in force. It should be added to the publically accessible ArbCom case files in encrypted form. ArbCom members should have access to the decryption key for each ArbCom case.


 * iii) 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?


 * All ArbCom discussions should take place privately. It is not always clear when private information comes up indirectly.


 * iv) 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?


 * ArbCom should have made the entire mailing list public. We now don't know when some parts that haven't appeared on Wikipedia Review will appear. What they did right was to have community discussions about the problem when it arose.


 * v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?


 * I have identified myself on my userpage.


 * vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them?  To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?


 * Users have the right to question witness' statements against them. I do think that ArbCom has taken a way too legalistic approach where these sorts of questions arise. This happens in an effort to deal with complex behavioral issues that could easily have been bypassed by focussing on the underlying editing disputes. While ArbCom cannot consider content issues themselves, referral to compulsory mediation is an option per my proposal for change.


 * e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?


 * Past case files can be consulted as background information, but it should never be taken as face value. It can be the case that what ArbCom accepted to be facts in a previous case is not correct, obviously you can't afford to be biased in a present case.


 * 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?
 * WMF should exclusively deal with the real world aspects of Wikipedia, while ArbCom should only deal with settling disputes that are relevant to the content of Wikipedia. WMF is currently involved with checking the identification of editors who have special permissions. This is a nonsensical task as I explain in my candidate statement, they should stop doing this.


 * 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?
 * ArbCom's role is to solve problems the community cannot handle. It's role is similar to the role courts and governments play in our society. However, the community then does have a role in deciding what the structure of the ArbCom system should be. Because the community will be typically divided on such issues, what you get is that there is no consensus for any particular proposal. This then causes the ArbCom system to slowly drift away in unwanted directions without anything able to stop that from happening. What is needed is for editors with like minded ideas to organize themselves in political parties, like the ArbCom Reform Party, have centralized discussions at each Party and then at the ArbCom elections let people vote for the Parties.


 * 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 "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * Yes, and this is why we need a good ArbCom system that can also look into content issues. I propose that ArbCom should have the option to refer a case to compulsory mediation.


 * b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
 * Factions exists, that's one of the reasons why the community can't resolve certain issues, which makes it necessary to have an ArbCom. ArbCom can make findings about factions, but ArbCom should always propose a realistic way forward. In case of the climate change case e.g., the factional behavior caused problems but this was a manifestation of the real world dispute in this area. The proper way to deal with this problem was to send the case to mediation, because only there could the content issues be dealt with that the dispute was really about. If disputants are able to raise what they really want to talk about and they are listened to seriously, they are much more likely to accept the outcome of the mediation, you are far less likely to see bad behavior if they don't get their way.


 * 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?
 * Yes, particularly in scientific areas, Wikipedia lacks editors. This then also causes a small group of editors dominating there. While disputes happen a lot less frequently in these areas, when you do get a big dispute, it then tends to be more polarized (take e.g. the speed of light case and the huge fallout mentioned by me above).


 * 1) Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * The Fae case wasn't handled well. Reasonable people can disagree here about some issues in this case, but banning should be a "last resort" measure, according to the policy that we have on banning. I haven't seen other cases this year that I can comment on.


 * 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?
 * Ideally I would propose ideas from the ArbCom Reform Party Platform. Unfortunately, there are not enough candidates running with this Party affiliation. In my Candidate Statement I have made the following two proposals that I think can be agreed to by the whole community.


 * Only a few Arbs should hear cases. Most cases can be handled by 3 or 4 Arbs. They can divide up the task of looking at all the evidence and come to a consensus view on a way forward to make the topic area healthy again. Compared to the present system, the decisions are then made by those Arbs who have actually looked at all of the evidence in detail. The Arbs that look at a case will have been selected based on their availability, so this would speed things up. This also frees up manpower, allowing a few cases to be handled simultaneously.


 * After accepting a case, the Arbs will first determine if the content issues have been dealt with sufficiently. If not, then ArbCom will refer the case to compulsory mediation. If that mediation fails, then the case will come back at ArbCom. It is then a lot easier for ArbCom to determine the proper remedies. A good example where this would have helped a lot is the climate change case.

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 Beeblebrox

 * 1) I note you stated  that you were "unelectable" about a month ago but then added your nomination at very nearly the last minute. That begs the question of whether this is a serious run or if you are more of a "protest candidate." So my questions  are:
 * Did you seriously change your mind or is this just an attempt to gain more exposure for your ArbCom Reform Party project, like the Recruitment RFC that you opened a few weeks ago?
 * If you and your "running mate" were to get elected, what specifically would be your first priority in your plan to reform the Arbitration system?
 * Do you believe it is a good idea to deliberately create factions within the committee, or in any other area of Wikipedia?
 * You have statements on your userpage to the effect that you reject most site policies and all Arbitration decisions. How, if you do not believe we have binding policies, can you expect to reform anything? If all policies and all arbitration decisions are illegitimate how can you legitimize taking any cases or issuing any decisions? if you were elected and granted admin powers for the role would you follow through on your own call to arms on your talk page and begin unblocking anyone currently blocked pursuant to an arbitration remedy?

(and for the record you have not made the required statements in your nomination regarding willingness to identify yourself and previous accounts) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A: I've updated my statement, this now addresses your questions.

Questions from Rschen7754
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
 * A:It took too long. If as I suggest in my candidate statement, only a few Arbs hear cases, cases wold be decided better and faster. Not only would the Arbs who have the most energy and time available get involved, you would also free up manpower so that more cases would be handled per unit time.
 * 1) What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
 * A:To bring together editors with an interest in the same topic area to help them to collaborate.
 * 1) 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:Yes, but typically the ArbCom cases are about problems involving vested editors because the community will typically be too split on what to do about such problems.
 * 1) Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
 * A:f due to whatever reason, I can't function properly.
 * 1) a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
 * A:In may cases you have two (or more) editors involved in a dispute where you can't assess particular incidents by one editor if you don't look at the whole picture. However, the question that ArbCom typically fails to consider is if these sorts of (often Kindergarten type) behavior are really the core of the dispute, or if it all escalated from some content dispute that can be addressed (via compulsory mediation). Sanctions should always be imposed as a measure to solve some problem. The word "sanction" is thus not appropriate, we are actually talking about "remedies". Also the severity of some "sanction" is not the relevant way to think about this.
 * 1) ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
 * A:In clear cut cases you'll have an Admin who uses his/her tools while being in a dispute, but such cases are rare and you'll have a overwhelming consensus that Admin abuse did take place already at AN/I. It is thus more likely that ArbCom would be dealing with the gray areas that exist here. It's not possible to always frame things in terms of policies. If e.g. an Admin repeatedly uses its tool in some area while not editing that area and there is friction about his actions, then ArbCom can ask if that Admin would be willing to not get involved there anymore. This was e.g. done in the climate change case.
 * It is thus possible to resolve such issues without having to label actions as "abusive". Sometimes a gray area really is gray and will not turn black or white upon further investigations. The best thing ArbCom can then do is acknowledge that fact instead of voting if it is white or black. In general, I'm in favor of having more discussions between ArbCom and the disputants so that disputes can be settled more via voluntary restrictions.
 * It is appropriate for ArbCom to act via a motion if action is needed immediately to protect Wikipedia. This can e.g. happen if an Admin account is compromised.


 * 1) What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
 * A:Enwp does not have jurisdiction over other sites. Actions by other editors elsewhere can be used as evidence in cases. Public evidence on other WMF can be used in ArbCom cases, but not private evidence.
 * 1) What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
 * A:There was an issue here with Apple allowing over the phone password resets. Apart from that, it's a good idea to have multiple layers of security. If one account is hacked that shouldn't allow the attackers to take over another account. In this respect, I don't like the idea of having to identify the WMF, despite this being quite secure. The connection between your Wiki account and your real name is valuable information to any hacker.


 * 1) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * A:Yes.

Thank you. Rschen7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

 * 1) Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end. There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many Admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally. How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?
 * A:I agree with you here, we have rules to facilitate the development of Wikipedia. This is made very clear by the mother of all policies, Ignore all rules. It says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."


 * 1) What does "Civility" mean to you?
 * A:Here on Wikipedia. it is behaving toward others in a constructive, collaborative way. This means that if you need to call out someone because he/she is causing a problem, you should do so as we're here primarily to build an encyclopedia, not to socialize with each other. However, you should be as pragmatical as possible when doing that.

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

 * 1) How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
 * A: This is now a real problem because too many Arbs are involved in hearing a case. We should only let a few Arbs who have enough time and energy, handle a case. If one Arb drops out, there will be plenty of other Arbs who can take his/her place.
 * 1) Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee. Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?
 * A:Probably with incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, but this really depends on the details of how this is currently being handled.

Question(s) from Risker
With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.

How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel strongly about reaching unanimous support. I think the word "considered" you use here is very important. What is needed is a system where the word "considered" really applies. The changes I argue for is that only a few Arbs handle a case. There is no need to let 10 Arbs handle a case if 3 Arbs can easily handle it. A few people who have the time to delve deeply into a case is a lot better than 10 people, the vast majority of whom don't have the time to study the details and who then will end up disagreeing based on the small snippets they have focused on and any preconceived notions they had. Also, I feel strongly about attempting to get editors to agree to voluntary remedies, and also about remedies that are designed to really address the problem.


 * In such a setting, it is much easier for Arbitrators who may have had a different view about some case (perhaps due to prior editing experience) to defend the ruling.

Question from SilkTork
As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone).  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm typically availble from 21 UTC till 03 UTC.

Question from Resolute
In one of your above answers, regarding ArbCom and policy, you stated this: "If, however, the community fails to solve this problem after ArbCom has first identified such a flaw in a policy, then the matter will eventually come back at ArbCom and then ArbCom would be justified to fix the policy." This appears to be a typical attitude from you, as your candidate statement also includes language that could very easily be interpreted as an intention to modify policy by fiat in any matter you personally see fit. Given you have a history of unsuccessfully attempting to change policy regarding governance (and I would classify your 'reform' party as a similar failure), I would like to know why you are actually running. Not the "there aren't enough candidates" nonsense either, please. Specifically, are you running to further your personal agenda toward reshaping Wikipedia's governance to suit your own viewpoints? Please explain why you believe Arbcom should have the right to make whatever policy it pleases, irregardless of the wishes of the community. Resolute 15:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The context of this would always be some stalemate in the community that the community itself would find problematic. Take e.g. the issue about "Not Truth" in the Verifiability policy. The community had difficulties handling that dispute. There were to RFCs, the first one was controversial, there was another one and it was closed by a group of Admins. That process is a less formal version of what I think should exist in a more formal form. It would always be the community that would go to some venue and ask for intervention.


 * The dynamics of the stalemate was that 30% was opposing what 70% wanted to do, by arguing that they had the consensus for "not truth" years ago, and that 70% is not a big enough majority to overturn that previous consensus. In such a case if the 70% can live with that (agree to disagree with their fellow 30%), there would be no issue. If, however, like in case of "Not Truth", this this not the case, you need a system that can intervene and make a binding ruling based on what is the best way forward for Wikipedia. The more ad hoc that system, is the more likely it is that you get disputes about this (e.g. in the frst RFC a big dispute arose; Slimvirgin argued that the RFC wasn't widely enough advertised, that was fixed, but also the deadline was changed and then others argued that it was wring to make these changes). Count Iblis (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Bazonka
Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved in off-line meetings, and that will likely remain the case in the future (regardless of whether I get elected ). Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Begoon
I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?


 * I agree with you about the present ArbCom being GOVCOM. That's why I'm not simply running as a candidate, rather I'm running based on the ArbCom Reform Party's platform.


 * How did we get here? I think this is because of social dynamics. Wikipedia has a lot of contentious articles where the content issues are quite easy to settle, but where people fight out battles instead of collaboratively editing with each other. This means that the main focus of Admins and ArbCom has been those sorts of Kindergarten type disputes since Wikipedia's started more than ten years ago. This has transformed ArbCom into a sort of a Kindergarten nanny system.


 * Articles are considered as playgrounds for the editors (toddlers), and the job of the nanny is to keep fighting toddlers apart, give them time outs if they are naughty, or bar them from playing in particular playgrounds. The nannies will try to look into who started a fight, but they can't get it always right.


 * The problem with this is, of course, that there are also serious editors here and for them Wikipedia is more like a University than Kindergarten. The Kindergarten system doesn't work well for University where the details of the dispute matter a lot more. If you're doing serious work on a computer then someone else trying to disrupt that and you pushing back, is not the same as you not letting your fellow toddler play with a toy. The nannies, however, will construe the problem that way, and you may end up being sanctioned (take e.g. the climate change case, where serious editors were sanctioned for "tag team" behavior).


 * To fix this system, I propose that ArbCom first study if the content issues have been dealt with sufficiently. If not, the case goes to compulsory mediation, otherwise it can be treated in more or less the usual way. Count Iblis (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from GabeMc

 * 1) Question: Would you close a formal mediation RfC when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that eventually resulted in said RfM and RfC? Assuming that this has happened, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc  (talk 02:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A: No, this would undermine the authority of such rulings. Putting aside whether or not you could make an objective decision, what makes collaborative systems work is that people who don't (fully) agree with certain decisions, will agree to disagree because they support the system. You only need to undermine the huge consensus for the system by a little to create big problems.


 * The remedy should be to appoint a neutral editor to re-close the RfC and a finding that the original closing by that non-neutral editor was inappropriate. Count Iblis (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Civility enforcement questionnaire
Or more of a request: I'd appreciate it if you'd take part in the Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire, or if you decline, say here why you consider this questionnaire not to be worth your time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll do this asap. Count Iblis (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions
Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
 * 2) on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
 * 3) to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
 * 4) do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
 * 5) do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize?


 * 1) and 2). A full site ban should be reserved for people who cannot contribute constructively to Wikipedia under any reasonable accomodation for that editor. It must thus be very clear that limited bans would not work, so it should always be a last resort measure. I agree with the points you made about this in your essay.


 * 3) A full site ban is like a life sentence, so I agree with 4).


 * 5) The US justice system is the worst of the first world countries, crime rates are the highest there. Count Iblis (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Question from Martinevans123

 * 1) Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? or have any opinions at all on the matter? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A: It's acceptable i.m.o. in the sense of not being a reason to take measures against the person who uses such language. I don't think this would bring everyone on the same level, rather it would help people (who don't use such language) to focus on the real issues by not making a big deal about irrelevant issues. Count Iblis (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your calm and sensible answer. And I admire your detachment. I have now voted. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)