Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Off2riorob/Questions

Questions from Lar

 * Note to readers:
 * This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.


 * Notes to respondents:
 * In some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.
 * Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.
 * It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
 * For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
 * Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.


 * The questions


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.


 * Answer - BLP policy - IMO we have a strong duty of care to write articles about living people to the highest standards, supported by wiki quality reliable sources, well balanced and in full compliance with all wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our current BLP policy is imo firm enough as presently written if complied with.
 * Answer - "Opt Out" - I support this in its current form, as in, no guarantee, each case individually discussed at AFD with a "default to delete" if there is no consensus. 
 * Answer -  "Liberal semi protection" - I support Jimmy Wales principal three : - "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred... For this reason I generally support pending protection in preference to semi protection as it allows free editing and protection of the article at the same time. Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * Answer - Policy in regards to BLP. Opt-out is a failed proposal but on request a AFD is usually opened allowing for open discussion. In respect of previous cases, I don't see the statements from the committee as mandating policy but more like clarification of interpretation of policy as all policy is already mandated.
 * Answer - In previous cases it is clear that the committees decisions have been taken with a strong regard towards implementation and full compliance with current BLP policy and I fully support that position. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * Answer - I see Project Development as being a discussion based, consensus led, evolutionary fluidity. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
 * Answer - I support any attempt and trial of what I basically see as just another tool in the box to assist us in allowing openness of contributing to all and yet still protecting articles from vandalism. There was and is a fair bit of vocal opposition to the tool but I don't think the community has in any way failed to come to a decision about it, more that it is still evolving. The tool has some implementation and development issues which are currently being worked on and more discussion is required to assess the scope of any continued trial and its best usage. There are articles on my watchlist where it hasn't worked well and some where imo it has worked well and is still working well in assisting in keeping vandalism out of the article and yet still allowing users not auto-confirmed to contribute. I don't see a specific role for ARBCOM in evaluating or implementing the tool. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * Answer -I fully support this and this freedom of access to contribute without registration is part of the attraction of the project. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * Answer -'''A users good faith requests for privacy should be respected if possible. Good faith requests for the oversight of previously released personal details should be considered on an individual basis depending on the specific situation, account renaming can help a fresh start etc. Contributors to the project should bear in mind that it is difficult to herd cats back into bags once released. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)
 * Answer -I do not openly acknowledge my real identity and see no reason or any benefit for Arbitration committee members to have to self declare their identity to the public domain. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from 2008)
 * Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * Answer - I hadn't heard of this "remarkably unwelcome" category of previous contributors, I imagine they must have been pretty disruptive to get such a label. I think if some content has been added and is beneficial to the article and well cited and policy compliant, removing it would be a bit pointy, better ignore and not make a fuss about it. If a BOT revert is requested to a large number of contributions then it would be down to the local editors at the article to replace themselves the addition if it was beneficial to the article .. we are here to improve our articles after all. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * Answer - Its a free world, so it is acceptable, perhaps unavoidable. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * Answer - No I don't have a blog or other form of media vehicle for independent expression. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * Answer - I don't have strong opinions about wikipedia review and think it is acceptable for users if they want to comment there without being criticized here for doing that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
 * Answer - If an identifiable wikipedia User, Admin or Arbiter comments in a public of wiki site, in the way of personal attacks against other contributors here or assists in the of outing of a contributer to this project then there would be a case for a report and a community discussion with resulting restriction of their editing privileges here being one possible outcome. If their comments there are in good faith as we would expect of them here then that is totally acceptable imo. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * - Wikipedia seems to me to be a microcosmic reflection of the world in which we live, so factionalism is also reflected as are, racism and bullying and so on. The Arbitration and Administrative actions and processes are in place and constantly evolving to deal with such issues. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * Answer - Sky blue - turquoise. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * - Wikipedia seems to me to be a microcosmic reflection of the world in which we live, so factionalism is also reflected as are, racism and bullying and so on. The Arbitration and Administrative actions and processes are in place and constantly evolving to deal with such issues. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * Answer - Sky blue - turquoise. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * - Wikipedia seems to me to be a microcosmic reflection of the world in which we live, so factionalism is also reflected as are, racism and bullying and so on. The Arbitration and Administrative actions and processes are in place and constantly evolving to deal with such issues. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * Answer - Sky blue - turquoise. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer - Sky blue - turquoise. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Submitted 18:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c

Follow up question by Jehochman
Do you feel that administrator access should be granted automatically if a non-administrator is elected? It seems rather cart-before-horse for an editor to have Checkuser and Oversight access, but not administrator access. In addition, being elected to ArbCom is a much higher hurdle to clear than RfA. (My own bias is that yes, such administrator access should be automatically granted to any successful candidate.) Jehochman Talk 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for asking and expanding. Answer - If needed I assume it will be granted. As previously stated, if I am successful in this application I will be looking to avoid any undue or unnecessary authority creep and if automatically granted Administrative rights will only be using them for necessary procedural actions and only in a minimal capacity if and when required. I will not assert any of the authority attracting controversy usually associated with the status such as blocking of editors. I also would be looking to return any automatically granted authoritative rights with the completion of the term. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators often get into hot water when they use administrator access. Except for totally uncontroversial situations, arbitrators are best off not using administrative access to perform any actions other than reviewing deleted contributions. Your approach would be very compatible with my view. Jehochman Talk 15:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fully support your statement, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754
Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!


 * 1) What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE  b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
 * 2) Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1 - Hi Rschen, excuse me for the delay, I missed these questions. I have only seen a few users get blocked for competence - its quite easily accessible the project, if I can help a user to contribute then I will, or I will point him in the direction of someone or something that can. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Not therapy, this seems to come up more, often it just seems like trolling for attention to me, if they don't cause must trouble, best ignoring them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 2 - I don't think they do no. The project works on discussion and levels of agreement - "imposition is evil"- and you can quote me on that. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Ncmvocalist
If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Q1. In your opinion, are unblocks more harmful than blocks? Why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Q 2-3 relate to the following scenario: ''A request for arbitration is submitted concerning an administrator who: (1) is territorial over their admin actions - refusing to permit their peers to modify their actions in any way, (2) has a history of threatening their peers with arbitration requests, and (3) appears to generally view their role on the project as a combination of cop, prosecutor, and jury (in favour of convictions via blocks) rather than the actual role that many Wikipedians expect of admins. The admin in question spends a lot of time in AE, praising and defending AC, as well as statements that you have made as an arbitrator. This request is filed at a time where AC is still the only body capable of desysopping an admin. Assume that a request for comment on user conduct has resulted in mixed responses, but the admin in question has refused to heed any requests to change his approach.''
 * Administrators
 * Answer - unblocks are a direct resulting action of blocks, neither are particularity harmful and are easily reversible, although neither action should be taken lightly. They are both simple editing restrictions in response to users contributions and comments.  Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC) To explain my position better, our primary position should be, how can we help users to contribute and not, how can we restrict them. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Q2. How would you deal with or respond to this situation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer - Community attempts at resolution have been tried and apparently not reached consensus, the Admin in question has ignored the good faith complaints and continued as if nothing is amiss. If such a case was presented to ARBCOM I would vote to accept the case, with all options including desyopping as a possible outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Sven Manguard
I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard  Talk


 * - Thank you for your interest Sven. I will took to answer these in the next day or two, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
 * A.
 * 1) What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
 * A.
 * 1) What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
 * A. - It could never have too many contributors. the more the merrier imo. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
 * A. - Contributors come and go, I see it as a natural progression and part of the refreshing of the project. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
 * A. - 'I would like to see more of the work that was highlighted recently, as regards un-cited BLP articles and the BLP prod template creation was part of. The BLP prod has helped limit the creation of uncited BLP articles and I am right behind that. I think this type of quality control is the way to go. The viral nature of the www and wikipedia's high profile place in it, mean it is basically, in a well meant expression, out of control'' but we have a duty of care to focus on controlling the quality of it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A. - Yes, absolutely. This freedom to contribute is part of the viral nature and popularity of the project. Off2riorob (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A. - I would work on improving project interface allowing easy as possible access to new contributors and a reduction of workload on experienced contributors, additional bot development for the simple tasks - for the future a 3D interface beamed straight into my cerebral cortex - no typing. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Original full text of Kingpin13's question
You may recall back after the Pending Changes trial reached it's end date, there was a poll about keeping it on after the trial until the next version was released. You got a bot to deliver a notice about the poll to users who had edited previous poll pages. At the time there was some concern from editors (including myself) that this was canvassing (see WT:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage). Now that some time as passed I'd be interested in your views on this specific case, and in general about the discussion required to establish consensus, and issues regarding your involvement in cases: do you think the discussion you had prior to delivery was extensive enough to establish a consensus for said delivery? And since you were involved in the issue before, was it appropriate for you to take the kind of action you did? - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I edited this down to 80 - 85 words on the main questions page to comply with The Rules posted at the top of the individual questions section. As an election coordinator, Jehochman Talk 13:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Offliner
Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am from the UK, I have lived in other countries as a foreigner for lengthy periods of time and have strong connections to India and South America. I don't know the nationally of many of the current Arbcom. I think a little diversity is definitely a good thing but see the contributions of an editor as the way to assess them. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of JzG's question
No, it absolutely is not a content issue. As you must be aware, there is a strong recommendation not to undo WP:OTRS volunteers' changes without prior discussion. You did precisely that. Your username is referenced by the article subject as a significant part of the problem, reverting edits that are intended to correct factual inaccuracies. The editor you've mainly been reverting is a journalist with specific subject knowledge. Your stated rationale for the revert cited above was that you preferred correct formatting to factually correct content. On a WP:BLP. No, that's not a content issue, it's a lot more serious than that. When dealing with a WP:BLP that has been used as an attack vector and which has risen to the point of complaints to the Foundation, we need to be deeply conservative. Stubbing the article and rebuilding is defensible, reverting on the stated basis simply is not. I think it was an impetuous act that shows poor judgment. You say it's a content issue and that version to which you reverted looks OK to you, but you restored the text "The French magazine L'Express has paid tribute to her work. [8]" - if you actually read that article it is a snide attack on the Russian presidency of the Council and is absolutely not a tribute to her work, quite the opposite; it paints her as Terry Davis' puppet. It is clearly a complex one, PaulRaunette is a journalist with specific subject knowledge, why on earth would you not start from his version and coach him in referencing, rather than going back to a version that is stated by an expert to be incorrect? And this:. You accuse someone of vandalism when their edit summary is: ''This is a review of previously incorrect bio. She never studied at MGIMO, for example. Also, other content was incorrect.'' Vandalism? Really? We should be deeply small-c conservative with biographies, I really would not expect to have to have a conversation like this with someone who is presenting themselves as a candidate for the arbitration committee. [] does not make you look good, and I am surprised and disappointed by that. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Well. imo you are wrong, and a bit carried away, I suggest you have a better look at it all. I have again answered on your talkpage User_talk:JzG as imo it still is a simple content issue. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You think. But I draw your attention again to the discussion on the talk page. Let me refresh your memory:
 * 5 albert square did a poor job at reverting the accurate work by Biowulf. Previously placed information about her studies at MGIMO are complete lies. She studied at Moscow State University which is confirmed by a friend that knows her well and studied with her. In fact all the current edits by Biowulf were 100% accurate as opposed to the previous article with only 50% or less accuracy.
 * If Off2riorob chooses to retain inaccuracies, then it is a complete disservice to the Wiki community. You may as well delete the article completely. Compared to all other contributors to this article Biowulf is the most accurate and should be commended for fine work. Stating that the "Edit was detrimental to the article" is farcical and shows a lack of respect for authenticity. PaulRaunette (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the way you are editing the article is detrimental to the article, you are adding inline citations and removing the formatted citations. If you are understanding of that and willing to discuss then we have a good option, if not, then I will not allow you to edit the article detrimentally. If you have issues with the article then you need to start discussing . I am here almost every day and am ready to discuss any issues anyone may have with the content. Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This reads to me as: fuck accuracy, it needs to look good. Can you see why it looks that way? Can you see why that would be a rather bad message to send? Guy (Help!) 17:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Guy, there are kids reading these pages, could you tone it down slightly? "to hell with accuracy" would also get the point across. Jehochman Talk 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - This was not as you say a f*** accuracy  at all. It was more a, if you want to totally rewrite the article can we discuss what is actually wrong with it and that I am here to help you. I also left a example of citation formatting on the talkpage to assist them further. There were multiple issues and previous bad faith edits and sockpuppets and similar dubious otrs reports. Guy, you need to calm down a bit, I have again replied on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your stated reason for reversion is above. Your stated reason for reversion was: "the way you are editing the article is detrimental to the article, you are adding inline citations and removing the formatted citations". As a response to "Previously placed information about her studies at MGIMO are complete lies [...] all the current edits by Biowulf were 100% accurate as opposed to the previous article with only 50% or less accuracy" that is an extremely bad rationale for reversion. An editor who states that he is a professional journalist who knows the subject, and is changing the article because it is substantially inaccurate. And you revert because you say the format of the source citations is wrong. Whether or not that was your sole reason or even your real reason, it is a terrible reason, isn't it? And actually you reintroduced content which was almost immediately removed by another OTRS volunteer as being inappropriate, because if you read the piece both the paragraph and the article were distinctly snide. So I don't think this was the result of a careful consideration of content, I think it was a snap judgment (which is fine) that you then felt the need to defend and repeat the reversion when the faults were pointed out (which is not). Your response here is not encouraging. "Oops, bad call" would have been entirely satisfactory, but "it's a content issue" is not.
 * And that's not the first problem with that article. An edit was made with the summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seda_Pumpyanskaya&diff=prev&oldid=394880036 This is a review of previously incorrect bio. She never studied at MGIMO, for example. Also, other content was incorrect]. You reverted with the summary Reverted 1 edit by Biowulf (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by 5 albert square. (TW). Please, we do not revert edits stated to be fixing substantial errors of fact in biographies as "vandalism".
 * This is a case of a biography having been used to disparage the subject, with significant sockpuppet involvement, resulting in an email complaint. That may not be immediately obvious. What should be obvious is that it's not a simple content issue to be brushed aside. As far as I can tell, you just don't get why I think this is important, and why I feel in particular that reverting on stated stylistic grounds an edit made in the name of greater accuracy, is a bad thing to do. Rightly or wrongly you gave the impression here that frmatting is more important than accuracy in a biography, and when challenged you have dug in and refused to accept that I have a valid point. And that worries me. I don't recall having disagreed with you n the past, but I do here, and what I'm seeing is defensiveness and a lack of understanding of what the issue is and why I think it is a big deal. That is core competency for an arbitrator, wouldn't you say? Showing that you understand the problem and why it is a problem, and making sure that people don't feel they've been brushed off or ignored? It's not like I'm a newbie here or anything. Anyway, I think that's enough from me o this, you have my thoughts on it. I do not think you are a bad person or an unfit admin. I am seriously concerned, for the reasons stated above. I do not think that, say, Newyorkbrad would have done what you did or responded as you responded. That's all I have to say on the matter I think. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * - Perhaps you would have approached Newyorkbrad a little less aggressively. You mention that it was a BLP used to disparage but that is nothing at all to do with me. I have not dug in as you allege but have stood up for my edits and contributions. There has been more than one previous bad faith email complaint. As previous there is replies on Guys, talkpage. - User talk:JzG - Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you miss the point. I would not have had to approach Newyorkbrad. He would not have done that. He'd have talked before reverting an OTRS volunteer, for a start. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)