Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Durova/Questions for the candidate

Navigation guide

Some candidate questions share similar themes. So here’s a list organized by topic. Question numbers are reformatted to provide navigation links. I hope it makes the page easier to read. Durova^Charge! 11:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question themes

Topic	Question links
arbitration process	2, 5, 7, 10, 22, 28, 29, 53, 61
checkuser/oversight	9, 27, 51, 54, 70
difficult editors	18, 19, 24, 44, 57, 67
miscellaneous	11, 13, 17, 31, 40, 41, 48, 55, 58A, 63, 68
other dispute resolution	32
policy/guideline issues	15, 16, 23, 29, 30, 35, 36, 37, 38, 45, 52, 60, 71, 72
private evidence and cases	12, 33, 34, 43, 43A, 49, 73, 74, 75, 80
qualifications for arbitratorship	3, 4, 6, 39, 47
remedies	14, 20, 21, 25, 26, 46, 56
sysops/editors	59, 66
time management for arbitrators	1, 8, 42, 58, 58B, 62, 64, 65, 69

Questions from Daniel

1

Your input, suggestions and enforcement in discussions about problematic users on the various noticeboards is generally beneficial to resolving the dispute whilst avoiding blocks. If you are appointed to the Arbitration Committee, will you continue to participate so heavily in resolving user conduct disputes as you have done in the past? Do you think you will be forced to abstain from such discussions to avoid recusals if the case reaches requests for arbitration? Daniel 00:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the compliment. While I certainly intend to continue volunteering in other areas, arbitration is a major commitment. That trust deserves top priority. Next priority is admin coaching because the site needs more good sysops at the conflict of interest noticeboard and the suspected sockpuppets board. As for the kind of noticeboard activity you mention, I'll keep doing it, but probably somewhat less than in the past. I don't foresee the potential need for recusal as being a factor so much as a realistic estimate of the time constraints. Durova^Charge! 02:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

2

Following on from the above, in your experience, do you believe the Arbitration Committee rejects too few/too many/just the right amount of cases with the intention of allowing the community to deal with them? Daniel 00:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Committee usually makes the right call about which proposed cases are suitable for arbitration. That doesn't necessarily mean it hears all the cases it could or should: a lot of self-selection occurs before nomination. As an administrator I've waded in the swamps, so to speak, seeking resolutions for difficult disputes that many people preferred to avoid. We all ought to be asking ourselves how to address more of those situations in the early stages, before they degenerate to a point where extreme remedies such as sitebanning become necessary. Durova^Charge! 02:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly

These are generic questions I'll be asking all candidates, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)

3

How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?

Mostly it's a matter of temperament. I like to bring difficult matters to resolution with an eye for durable principles. A lot of people who come to arbitration as participants have a very clear idea of what would solve their own situation, but can't or won't look beyond that to see whether the same principle would cause bigger problems than it solves. Critical thinking is very important also, and a good eye for logical fallacies. Balance that with a willingness to withhold judgement, and on occasion to change one's mind if new evidence comes to light. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

4

Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?

Someone I respect very much once described Wikipedia as an organization committed to reinventing the wheel. This site operates in a lot of counterintuitive ways and every successful Wikipedian has a measure of adaptability. In terms of group decision making and administration, I'm a former board member of the Columbia University Alumni Association of Southern California. From what I've seen, though, on-wiki experience is probably more relevant.

Upon further consideration I'll add to that. The arbitration committee sees a lot of cases where one or more participants is not rational. Although I have no qualification to estimate the reasons for that behavior, I do have relevant experience. My mother had a head injury and my father had a brain tumor. These were both intelligent, educated, articulate people who worked around specific deficits to the best of their abilities. I doubt they would have made good Wikipedians. If I remain calmer than most editors among difficult people, and if I sometimes succeed at guiding those people into productive directions, that has something to do with the practical skills I honed at home. Durova^Charge! 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Majorly (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, and thank you. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718

5

Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?

Two of the longest and most difficult cases where I was active were Waldorf education and COFS. Waldorf education opened on November 24, 2006, went into review just a month after it concluded, and the review finally closed March 20, 2007. COFS opened July 2, 2007 and closed September 23, 2007. Both of these cases resulted in little more than article parole. Anthroposophy and Scientology are contentious subjects in the real world and it isn't surprising that some of the antagonism surfaced on Wikipedia. The good thing is, article parole works: it helps disputants settle down and results in better articles. Right now only the arbitration committee is empowered to implement that remedy. It would make sense to look for some reasonable and streamlined alternative to arbitration that could apply this solution without putting people through the mill for three months. In a broader sense the arbitration committee should be handling the most difficult cases and giving them the attention they need, but not letting things drag on to the point where good editors quit the site in frustration. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

6

How do you think your experience in complex investigations will help you in performing your duties as an arbitrator?

A certain percentage of requests for dispute resolution or administrative attention in any site venue are political moves by an antagonist who wants to prejudice the outcome. I don't like to say that but it's true. Or to put it even more bluntly, I detect snow jobs. I also compensate for situations where an evidence presentation is weak, such as Midnight Syndicate, and I find methods to clear people of suspicion. Fewer of the latter type are widely known because I don't want to embarrass or offend someone who hasn't done anything wrong. Over time I've collected a large repertoire of investigative techniques and, perhaps more important, I've observed behavior patterns. Whether the topic at hand is Catholic theology or American football, if a sneaky IP vandal is dodging scrutiny and causing disruption then that person is very likely to be using a set of tactics I've identified and foiled before. Really original disruptive tactics are rare - I see something new once every two or three months. It's useful to have an experienced investigator on the Committee, because I notice things in five minutes that take other people days or not at all. Once I see those patterns I can usually demonstrate them pretty quickly. We want to reach the right decisions on each case. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, east.718 at 01:39, 11/1/2007

Much obliged. :) Durova^Charge! 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I

7

What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process? This includes anything related to the Committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i ^(talk) 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators fill a difficult role; I can't recall a case where they satisfied everybody. Disputes are usually embittered by the time they reach arbitration and the process itself is exhausting. The remedies at their disposal are crude and imperfect. They also have to anticipate all potential for wikilawyering and unintended consequences in each principle they articulate. That said, arbitration fills an important need and it usually works.

The problem I want to address is that this website's growth has outstripped its capacity to remedy disputes. The arbitration committee will be entering its fifth year after this election. Wikipedia has grown enormously since the Committee got started, yet when people mention community-based sanctions they usually mean banning and most people think of community ban as synonymous with siteban. The way I've seen that play out in cases such as Giovanni33-John Smith's is the community's ability to respond disintegrates when one or two productive content editors get into the habit of breaking the three revert rule and aren't deterred by short blocks. Common sense tells me there ought to be a way to implement revert parole without sending that sort of editor through full arbitration. Right now it's necessary for bureaucratic reasons because there's no simpler venue. That's why I'm seeking a 1 year spot on the Committee rather than a full term: a year is enough time to gain the insights that can help build those new solutions. We should find better approaches to these dilemmas before the site grows to 5 million articles. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Picaroon

8

Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007#2007's case workload - reference for potential candidates and User:Picaroon/Stats. Do you have time to vote on most of the approximately eight cases a month that will come before the committee? Would you resign your post if you found yourself consistently (say, 2-3 months on end) unable to even get near that goal? Under what conditions besides inactivity would you resign your post?

Excellent research and presentation! Yes, I've had some part in nearly 1/3 of the 2007 arbitration cases and am well aware of the arbitrators' workload. A major injury or illness might conceivably interfere, but I'm in excellent health and anticipate I can handle it. Durova^Charge! 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: can you imagine any conditions under which you might resign your post? Picaroon (t) 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Those conditions are less likely to occur under the short term I'm seeking than a full three year commitment, but I suppose if some opportunity developed that were too good to pass up and might be at odds with my role as an arbitrator then I would take the initiative and raise the subject of resignation. I don't foresee any immediate possibility of such a development, but I do write a column about Wikipedia for an outside publication and last month I was invited to speak about Wikipedia at a conference. I receive no compensation for either activity and it actually costs me some money to do these things. When I started I did that pseudonymously in order to avoid any appearance of seeking personal gain, but certain disruptive people kept coming along and posting my name, so I added my name to the byline. That's forced me to network in ways I hadn't intended. I'd still rate the chances of this resignation scenario as remote, but it would be poetic justice if it occurred, wouldn't it? The last lulz would be on the trolls who outed my identity. Durova^Charge! 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

9

Under what conditions should non-arbitrators be granted access to the arbcom mailing list? Former members, checkusers/oversights who have never been on the committee, board members, others?

The arbcom mailing list needs to be a place where the arbitrators can discuss issues candidly. I understand there have been limited exceptions and would accept in good faith that these have been done for wise reasons. In general I support keeping the list small and de-listing lurkers who aren't on the current arbitration committee. Durova^Charge! 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

10

Can you show an example or two of a normal case (ie, accepted via committee vote on WP:RFAR, not dismissed without remedies) where you largely disagree with the final decision? Please explain why you disagree with the outcome, and say what you would've supported instead (or, alternately, why the case shouldn't have been accepted).

About half a year ago I took another look at one of my first cases, Agapetos angel, and after careful examination I decided I had originally missed a large part of the problem. It's one of the site's deeper rabbit holes and the decision didn't nearly go far enough. There's a major sneaky vandal over there who ought to be sitebanned but isn't and who has been disrupting a variety of articles for nearly two and a half years. I have a couple of honeypots set up so I know he's still active. For complex reasons I can't really seek a community siteban. I've filed a motion to have the case reexamined, but the Committee didn't accept it. It's quite frustrating, but I am confident my evidence is strong enough to substantiate these serious claims.

Also, in more than one instance I've asked the Committee to develop a principle about the dividing line between legitimate investigation and privacy invasion. The first time that came up was the Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration where one of the editors had disclosed his own identity onsite early in his history. He wanted to recover some privacy, and that created a dilemma because one of the other participants had posted a link from a Wikipedia talk page to her personal website where she posted his name. If he had never disclosed his identity onsite than that link would have been grounds for sitebanning her. So what does it mean when an editor wants to recover that privacy? The same type of disclosure can be important when conducting site investigations and it's played a role in cracking some of the more difficult cases. I follow a fairly conservative personal code about how to use that information and I've asked the Committee to clarify the dividing line between fair and unfair practices, since the stakes are pretty high in Wikipedian terms (sitebanning on the one hand, and combatting long term vandalism on the other). They didn't pick up on that request at Barrett v. Rosenthal or at THF-DavidShankBone when I reintroduced it. It's one of the unresolved issues that's likely to arise again. Durova^Charge! 03:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

11

Please list the total number of alternate accounts you have used, and please list the usernames of as many as you feel comfortable making public.

May I claim the fifth? I won't say whether I have or haven't, but I will say that the Foundation and the Committee would be fully informed in advance. Durova^Charge! 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

12

Under what circumstances should a case be heard completely via email, as opposed to onwiki? Under what conditions should the committee block a user without making public the full extent of the reasoning (for example, this user)?

I was one of the sleuths on the Runcorn/Poetlister investigation. Anogther sysop invited me to check his research, and to put this in general terms he already had an intriguing and meticulously documented methodology. I found a second way of examining the evidence that complemented his approach and between the two of us I think we established a persuasive case. There were a few other teams on that investigation and I'm not privy to their methods or findings. Sockpuppet hunts are contests of wits: sockpuppeteer and sleuth each trying to anticipate the other's thinking. Most of the time if a sockpuppeteer gets away with it for a while it's only because nobody who's good at this is looking in their direction, but occasionally a sockpuppeteer is careful. I don't like to tell the careful ones where their mistakes are. I had no involvement in the Melsaran case, but I trust the Committee to be candid wherever it's feasible. Durova^Charge! 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

13

What do you think of Jimmy Wales desysop of Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) a few days ago? (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370‎)? What should he have done differently, if anything? What role should the committee have had in this?

I'll start by saying I had given Miltopia a block warning just a few hours before before Jimbo banned him. Miltopia had tried to undo my closure of a noticeboard thread that had long since outworn its usefulness and, although I didn't cite the second edit specifically in my warning, he had made a post to an arbitration workshop page that day which was arguably bannable. It takes some background knowledge to see how destructive those edits were, particularly the latter one, because Miltopia's specialty was the type of thing that looks harmless at a glance. I'd be willing to discuss the latter circumstances off-wiki with editors in good standing. If problems had continued I would have applied a monthlong block. Given the editor's block record that probably would have withstood appeal.

So I think Jimbo's ban was sound. And what makes a big difference to my opinion of what followed is that Miltopia hadn't even posted a request for unblock when Zscout370 reversed Jimbo. Zscout's explanation looks to me like saying he didn't understand the reasons for the block in the first place, in which case the sensible thing to do is discuss it. For these subtler cases, it's a big help to have a thorough report on the disruption published in advance of the indefinite block. Here's one I prepared a year ago that brought unanimous agreement (except, of course, from the vandal's own sockpuppet). That may be a lesson learned for future instances like this. Some of the opposition to Jimbo's handling of the matter is articulate and insightful, and I've held a few off-wiki conversations about it, yet on the whole this was a minor incident and it's on people's minds now because it's so recent. Zscout370 is a sysop in good standing again, Miltopia is banned, and most of us will probably need a moment to refresh our memories if this topic comes up a few months from now. Durova^Charge! 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

14

Under what circumstances should the committee implement an indefinite ban on a user? Under what conditions should probation/supervised editing be instituted instead of a ban of any duration?

There's an essay I wrote recently about that called WP:TURNIP. Basically we should follow existing precedents in cases where a disruptive editor shows no regret. If an editor owns up to some mistakes, seeks mentorship, and takes other steps to improve then I'm willing to find creative ways of keeping them on the project. Of course that assumes the editor hasn't issued any death threats (or similar slam-dunk reasons for banning) and the editor has positive mainspace work that's worth fostering. Durova^Charge! 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

15

What constitutes a wheel war? Was the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN situation a wheel war? How about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar? Thanks for your time, Picaroon (t) 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a difficult question to answer because I would certainly recuse myself from the Alkivar case, and probably from the Sadi Carnot case also. So that leaves one example which the Committee dismissed. My own practice has been to act once, and then seek consensus at an administrative noticeboard if someone reverses me and I think their decision is seriously mistaken. That's what I would urge any administrator to do. If I reapplied the same block unilaterally I would expect to end up on the wrong side of an arbitration case and probably lose the tools. Situations where a series of three or more administrators each act once in rapid succession are more subtle and need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Durova^Charge! 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions by Jaranda/Jbeach56

16

What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? Jbeach ^sup 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, acknowledged alternate accounts are better than unacknowledged ones. Those two instances aren't the best examples. The sort of thing I like to see would go more like this: an employee of a travel agency gets a direction from the boss to do some work on Wikipedia. So the employee registers an account, admits the conflict of interest, and uploads copyleft licensed images and makes suggested edits at talk pages. That employee decides to do some recreational editing from home, partly to get the hang of the site for work and partly because he finds Wikipedia intriguing. So he creates a second account, discloses it on the user pages, and shares his phenomenal knowledge of Gilligan's Island. If he also happens to own a good DVD collection of pornography and wants to add references to articles from the jacket notes, I'd understand completely why his third account would be undisclosed. Durova^Charge! 05:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

17

What do you think of Wikipedia Review? Jbeach ^sup 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

About the same as Wikipedia Review thinks of me. Durova^Charge! 05:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

18

What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

This overlaps with question 14 above. To elaborate on it, plenty of good editors have one hot button topic where they can't be objective. Mine's listed here and the best decision I ever made at Wikipedia was to leave it alone. So when someone falls into that kind of trap I understand. A whole range of responses are possible depending on the quality of their other work and how willing they are to adapt to site standards. Another factor to consider, sometimes, is how much trouble they create for other volunteers.

One of the toughest situations to resolve is an established editor who does good mainspace work, but consistently locks horns with other volunteers. The usual trajectory for that sort of person is that they gradually deteriorate over time. Loyal supporters depart as the difficult editor crosses different boundaries until eventually the problem lands in the Committee's hands. In most situations like that I'd prefer a graduated remedy, beginning with short blocks and culminating in a siteban if the behavior doesn't improve. An individual who becomes a net drain on volunteer time can't be tolerated forever so I'd like to create a limited window of opportunity in case they reform. Durova^Charge! 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

19

What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

I take a hard line on civility, although I'm quite reasonable toward editors who withdraw and/or strikethrough those mistakes. Humans aren't perfect. Occasionally an editor tries to game that leniency to make nasty comments and withdraw them after they've already had their effect. The good faith balloon floats a little longer in that situation, but once it pops it takes a rough fall. Durova^Charge! 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

20

When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

I would work from existing precedents regarding the conditions for desysopping. When balancing positives and negatives, it would depend more on the severity of the mistake(s) than on the administrator's useful work. Nearly everyone who has used the tools very much has had a couple of blocks overturned on appeal; that's not a cause for concern unless there's strong evidence that the administrator acted in bad faith. On the other hand, no amount of speedy deletion work would earn a free ticket to block five other people on the opposing side of a sysop's content dispute.

I'm generally of the opinion that resysopping is better left in the hands of the community than with arbcom. Exceptions and borderline cases may exist and I liked FloNight's reasoning on the proposed decision page of that case. Durova^Charge! 18:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

21

Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

If the community fails to reach consensus, if the particular ban has a flawed policy basis, or if larger principles are at stake such as policy interpretations. Those are the main situations that spring to mind, but there might be other possibilities. Those are the reasons I've referred actual or potential community bans to arbitration, particularly when no consensus forms. Durova^Charge! 07:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

22

Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current What should be done in such a case?

The way that scenario works out in practice is the voting phase lasts longer, with several competing proposals collecting votes until it becomes a numerical certainty which proposals will, or can't, pass. I've seen a few cases where consensus was very slow to form. Here's one, and this voting phase lasted from 27 July 2007 until 20 September 2007. My inclination would be to slice the Gordian knot if I could, either by taking a proactive role in decision writing or by doing supplemental research to clarify the disputed issues. I've been on the participant side of enough arbitrations and I'd like to give future participants the courtesy of a timely resolution. Durova^Charge! 07:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Gladly, and thanks for some challenging questions. Durova^Charge! 07:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss

23

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are occasional instances where a scientific point of view may be culturally biased. In a book called Medicine and Culture, for instance, Lynn Payer surveys differences in standard medical practices of several prosperous Western countries. This example might have changed in the years since her investigation, but she noted that low blood pressure was diagnosed as minor cardiac insufficiency in Germany and treated with prescription medicine, while the same blood pressure reading in the United States was regarded as a sign of superior health and sometimes rewarded with reduced insurance premiums. Both medical communities had a valid perspective. Low blood pressure can lead to occasional dizzy spells and fainting, so the German doctors were treating those symptoms. The American medical system regarded those as minor inconveniences and focused on the associated lower risk of heart attacks. NPOV means Wikipedia doesn't attempt an editorial validation of one large set of recognized experts over another, and that can be difficult when national and linguistic boundaries delineate different consensus opinions among the experts. Durova^Charge! 07:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Sean William

24

In your opinion, what is the best way to deal with revert-warriors brought before ArbCom?

Questions 14 and 18 overlap with this one. The community is pretty good at handling simple instances of revert warring. So the cases that come to arbitration have other factors to consider or have subtle disputes about what constitutes reversion. Some edit wars have complex activity such as an editor who adds five citations and two new paragraphs over three different posts, doing some general copyedit and cleanup while erasing little bits of another editor's contribution each time. The diffs look so cluttered that it's hard to even see what's happening. In those situations I look to see whether that editor is deleting citations, and if so whether those citations are topical references to reliable sources. If both of those things are happening, then has the editor been advised? There's some latitude for general newness to the project and unfamiliarity with site standards, but if that continues past reasonable good faith to the point where it's gaming the system, then I do take a hard line. People who employ that as a habitual tactic are very unlikely to reform.

In instances where straightforward revert warring comes in a larger case I'll weigh it as one factor. I'll run down other considerations in bullet list format:

• How extensive is the revert warring? Does it occur over every article where the editor makes significant contributions or is it focused on one particular trouble spot?
• How frequent is the revert warring? Did the editor have one or two bad days or is this habitual behavior?
• How prominent is revert warring in the editor's overall edit history? An editor who does little more than try to own one article or topic is a lot less valuable to Wikipedia than someone who gets into hot water at times, but has also been a major contributor to three or four good articles.
• Is revert warring the editor's only policy problem or does the editor habitually run afoul of site standards? Rude edit summaries, reliance on unreliable sources, and frivolous noticeboard complaints are some typical accompanying problems that occur among revert warriors who don't reform.
• Does the editor regret the mistakes? People who show enough maturity to step forward and say I goofed. Here's how it looked to me at the time, but in retrospect I realize I hadn't considered these other factors. That won't happen again. And here's what I'm doing to make sure it doesn't happen again. earn a lot more respect from me than those who blame everyone except themselves.

So I wouldn't apply a cookie cutter solution to revert warring in the same way that might work at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR board. Durova^Charge! 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

25

What is your opinion about revert parole (1RR limitations, etc.)?

It can be a very useful remedy and I'd like to find an effective way of expanding it at the community level. We might need fewer community sitebans if that were implemented in a fair and reasonable way, and on principle I prefer early and mild remedies to late and severe ones. Durova^Charge! 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

26

What is your opinion about civility parole (also known as personal attack parole)?

Same as revert parole. To explain by analogy, New York City's crime rate made significant improvements during the David Dinkins and Rudolph Giuliani administrations because of a new approach to law enforcement. Before their era, in the 1970s when the city nearly declared bankruptcy, a call to the police for a noise complaint or a stolen purse would get the response we're too busy dealing with murderers and rapists. About twenty years later the police force tried a different approach: they'd walk up to a kid who was playing a radio too loud and ask the kid to turn it down and they'd hand out citations for graffiti. And when they did that, the rapes and murders did decline because the city was addressing the boundary-testing behavior before it escalated. Administrators aren't cops and arbitrators aren't judges, of course, but I find the principle very intriguing and I think some adaptation would do a lot of good for this site. Durova^Charge! 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean William @ 16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for the thought-provoking questions. Durova^Charge! 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from xaosflux

27

As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)

Considerable trust goes along with these permissions and the circle of people who have it should be no larger than the need. If the need expands, or if people resign from it, then I'd look for seasoned Wikipedians who are absolutely trustworthy. I'd be particularly interested in people who have a track record of acting counter to their own interests on principle. As an example, the other day two editors alerted me of a possible spoofing attack on someone who is on the opposite side of them in a current arbitration case. That particular situation resolved itself rather quickly and it was good to see how, regardless of the ongoing dispute, these two people were watching the other fellow's back. I don't think any of the parties to that incident are ready for Checkuser or Oversight, but that's the kind of behavior I like to see, preferably in multiple instances over a long time. Naturally, general good judgement and levelheadedness are also essential. Durova^Charge! 19:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

28

A perennial issue with ArbCom is the increasing caseload. What do you personally think of the idea of splitting the caseload somehow so that not all active arbitrators participate in every case? Possible ways are self selected per case, split the arbcom into two parts semi permanently and assign randomly or round robin or by current case load (some cases are more work than others), split cases by jurisdiction (subject area or nature of case, perhaps) or other ways (which did I miss?). Please discuss the technical issues, pros and cons of this idea as a way to gain insight into your thinking about the Arbitration Committee in general. Thank you! ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)(Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)

The problem with that solution is ArbCom's role in interpreting policy and establishing precedents. What happens in some cases is that two sides cite differing policies in support of their actions. Bear with me through a long reply. At some risk of oversimplification, the Daniel Brandt arbitrations dealt with the intersection of the verifiability policy and the biographies of living persons policy. These are important questions because Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia of the digital era to really expand to the point where it challenges traditional notions of who is and who isn't a public figure. The economics of paper publishing used to exert limitations on that. Now, as a group, Wikipedians are rethinking those questions. We don't all agree on how to balance them. I wasn't involved in those arbitrations, but I did initiate the fourteenth and final deletion proposal for Wikipedia's biography of Daniel Brandt.[1] That took some hard thinking. Brandt wanted an expansive BLP interpretation that would let any biography subject obtain a courtesy deletion. So I asked myself who might want one. Specifically I had in mind Lynndie England, Scott Lee Peterson, and Donald Rumsfeld. It would be pretty hard for an encyclopedia to cover the early years of the twenty-first century without ever mentioning Donald Rumsfeld so I didn't think I could accept Brandt's extreme BLP interpretion. I really wanted to keep the Lynndie England and Scott Lee Peterson biographies also, but the reason - to be perfectly honest with myself - was because of a moral judgement. That nearly stopped me from intervening because as a Wikipedian I'm supposed to be neutral. If I were cousin to either of those people I'd probably wish the page were gone. So is there a dividing line somewhere or are we on a slippery slope? WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT aren't supposed to carry weight in these situations. The solution I settled on was something I called the dead trees standard - if a person is notable enough that they are (or reasonably would be) the subject of a biography in some paper-and-ink encyclopedia, then they're too notable for courtesy deletion. Otherwise let's be gracious if they request it. That produces a few odd results because nearly every actor who's ever had a speaking role in the Star Trek universe is probably profiled in a specialty encyclopedia, but the principle avoids the slippery slope and mostly gets it right. That idea swayed some people and the discussion came as close to consensus as anything in that two year ordeal, but considerable numbers of people concurred with the proposal while opposing the dead trees standard. So if we split the arbitration committee or created a second arbcom, difficult issues like this one would arise and inevitably lead to conflicting principles. That would undermine one of ArbCom's central functions, which is to clarify situations where reasonable people fail to reach consensus.

A Wikipedian who has my utmost respect suggested to me privately that something like an "arbcom lite" might be a better alternative. It would handle the simpler cases according to existing precedents and use pretty much the same range of remedies as the arbitration committee but it wouldn't establish principles. Because its function would be more limited its cases would resolve somewhat faster. Its decisions could be appealed to the arbitration committee. I'm not saying I specifically endorse this solution but I find it very intriguing. And among the lessons learned I've taken from the community sanctions noticeboard experience is that few Wikipedians make a long term commitment to resolving the messy situations. People tend to drop in they have a specific problem to solve or when it's convenient. That includes experienced Wikipedians and most administrators, and the greatest danger to community-based sanctions is when respected people who are light on experience in this particular area make changes at the guideline and policy level because their ideas are perfectly compatible with the situations they've encountered firsthand...and sometimes, as with opposing parties in arbitration, those solutions cause much greater problems in other areas. The damage isn't apparent to the community at large because those people don't stick around to deal with the fallout. The transfer of sanctions discussions to higher traffic noticeboards is a partial counteraction to that, but it comes at the price of consistency: sanctions discussions at WP:ANI tend to get decided by whoever has the most time that week. So on the one hand there's a greater likelihood that one of 1300 sysops will take a superficial look at a situation and undo an indefinite block that was justified for subtle reasons, and on the other hand there's a greater likelihood that a sitebanned editor will examine the precedents, see that someone else was allowed to continue editing with mentorship for similar behavior, and resort to offsite venues to rail against the injustice. In my opinion the solution this situation needs to be more comprehensive than questioning ArbCom's processes or Jimbo's authority. It's time to hold serious discussions about a fair, scalable, and durable supplement to existing structures. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

29

"WP is not a democracy", "WP is not an experiment in governance or social justice", "WP is not fair", "There is an inherent right to edit WP by all", "Some people may act in good faith but are nevertheless not suited to working on this project, despite best intent". Which of these statements do you agree or disagree with? Why or why not? Thank you! ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)(Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages, thanks for the idea Xaosflux!)

A picture is worth a thousand words.

• "WP is not a democracy" - See the image to the right.
• "WP is not an experiment in governance or social justice" - People have many different views about what constitutes social justice so - although I sometimes find this painful to say - activism belongs elsewhere.
• "WP is not fair" - All things human are flawed. We try to be fair, and Wikipedia is more open to input and correction than nearly other organization. People take it for granted that Jimbo replies to e-mails and user talk posts and they complain that he doesn't more often. He makes himself far more available and responsive than, for example, Bill Gates.
• "There is an inherent right to edit WP by all" - Unless an individual demonstrates unwillingness to abide by site standards, yes.
• "Some people may act in good faith but are nevertheless not suited to working on this project, despite best intent". - Certainly. And the social justice expression in the second question is a good example of this. Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia does not allow the same latitude as MySpace or Facebook, and the "Web 2.0" buzzword often confuses the public about that distinction. This site's high Google page rank makes it incredibly attractive to people who have an agenda to advance. Sometimes when an editor participates from the highest motives, some other motive than it's an encyclopedia takes priority. I agree there are higher goals in the world than contributing to a nonprofit encyclopedia, but that's what we are. I ask people to accommodate that. Sometimes, when someone consistently fails to operate within those paramaters, that editor has to be shown the door.

Durova^Charge! 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from CO

30

Is consensus really possible with over 200 people commenting on different processes?

Getting consensus from Wikipedians is like herding cats, yet it happens. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

31

Does Wikipedia need some sort of governing body? If no, isn't ArbCom a governing body? If yes, what would you propose?

If I understand the question correctly, the governing body of Wikipedia is the WikiMedia Foundation, specifically its board of directors. They generally give the projects a wide berth. Feel welcome to follow up if that's not what you had in mind. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll reword it... Does Wikipedia need a group to guide it's processes and policy making? If it doesn't, isn't ArbCom that group? If it does, what group should be made? Does Wikipedia need a balancing of powers? Do any groups exist to prevent abuse from ArbCom? CO 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The community establishes policies. I view ArbCom's role as clarifying policy where appropriate, but not writing it. Sometimes that means defining the intersection where two different policies meet, such as the Daniel Brandt example from question 28. ArbCom is directly answerable to Jimbo Wales. On an individual basis, the arbitrators are as accountable to policy as any other Wikipedian.[2] Durova^Charge! 00:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57

32

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of actually resolving a dispute I'd recommend article content requests for comment over user conduct requests whenever possible. A good content-based request shifts the focus from personalities to the subject at hand and often brings in enough unbiased opinions to break a deadlock without putting any individual on the defensive. Conduct-based RFCs have the opposite tendency; that's the nature of the beast. Sometimes they're useful in terms of demonstrating that a large number of people agree about a conduct issue and sometimes that results in improved behavior when the obvious next step would be arbitration or a community sanction. A greater number are little more than grudge fests. The success rate is low. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Daniel

33

The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:- a) Do you believe that IRC conversations in Wikipedia channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand? b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it? c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?

a) The principal issue I would want to address is whether the log is reliable and non-doctored. If that gets established with reasonable confidence then yes I would consider it under those circumstances.

b) The arbitration committee has already decided that the IRC channels themselves are beyond Wikipedia's jurisdiction. If collusion occurs there that leads to onsite policy violations, though, I would treat it the same as collusion at any other offsite venue.

c) Although I never use IRC on principle, I would not oppose a logging account for that purpose.

Durova^Charge! 05:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

34

Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?

There's a Catch-22 in that question: an e-mail that doesn't contain a full header could be spoofed, but one that does could constitute a bannable privacy violation. Likewise, there are perennial questions about which IRC logs are genuine. In terms of general courtesy it's best to get the concerned parties' permission before making private communication public. If the information is relevant and verifiable the committee can accept it privately. Durova^Charge! 05:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

35

Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?

The Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction pertains to the English language edition of Wikipedia. If a Wikipedian joins a website, or for that matter a political party, then what they do there is their own business unless they use it as a means to violate Wikipedia site policies. Most of the time the kind of offsite activity that comes to the Committee's attention is canvassing for supporters at a Wikipedia discussion, or occasionally harassment of another editor. Conceivably, I might dislike a website so much that I'd vote against an editor's RFA candidacy because they participated there, but I wouldn't invoke the Committee's intervention merely because of that. That's not ArbCom's purpose. I would regard it as a matter for the Committee's attention if an administrator published sysop-privileged information at another website, just as I would if they distributed printouts of the same material at a political party office. People who are active at certain sites should be aware that actions which are not in themselves sanctionable may weigh in decisions that allow latitude for action. As an administrator I've published the standards by which I'd support a community banned editor's reinstatement and one of those factors is a request that the person refrain from bashing Wikipedia offsite. Durova^Charge! 06:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

36

Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.

The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?

Very good question. Estimates such as semi-credible are beyond my expertise; I'm not a lawyer. So I would regard the threat as credible by default until counsel advises otherwise. I would incline toward leniency for the OTRS volunteer who was acting to protect the WikiMedia Foundation from possible legal action. I'd be very interested in what steps that volunteer took to communicate and resolve the problem before repeating the deletion and protection. If that administrator attempted polite dialog and got rebuffed then I'd vote to restore the tools. At the other extreme, if the same person's only communication were profane summaries in the log notes, then I'd endorse the desysopping for poor judgement. The second administrator would remain desysopped and I'd be curious what led them to such a serious lapse. The sequence of this scenario describes intervening action before the third administrator acted in accordance with OTRS, so I'd support that person's decision. Durova^Charge! 06:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

37

What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?

Wheel war is a charged term that means different things to different people. All such terms are divisive and distracting so I avoid them when I can. The preceding scenario, for instance, could be described as a wheel war and - since people often make hasty judgements when they encounter a hot button phrase - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the situation got discussed somewhere and several passionate but completely mistaken individuals overlooked the OTRS ticket. I prefer to think in terms of appropriate and inappropriate use of the tools. Administrative disagreements should not be resolved on the basis of whoever hits the "delete" button most aggressively. If there's a reason for action other than wanting to have one's own way then I'd consider the merits of that reason and decide accordingly. In most instances I would scrutinize every action after the second according to the question Why didn't you go to WP:AN and seek broader input? So to provide a crude definition for a term I dislike, if there's no good answer to the question then, yes, the individual has wheel warred and should expect to be desysopped accordingly. Durova^Charge! 06:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I composed the above reply a content request for comment has been opened on the definition of a wheel war and policy might change. Per answer 45 below, I will respect whatever consensus the community establishes. Durova^Charge! 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Krimpet

38

I noticed that you occasionally write for the site searchengineland.com, where you write columns on using Wikipedia for search engine optimization purposes and "untapped SEO opportunities." Do you consider this to be a conflict of interest for an arbitrator, considering that the use of Wikipedia for commercial and advertising purposes and allegations of such are common cases in our dispute resolution channels, including ArbCom (such as the ongoing Sadi Carnot case)? --krimpet⟲ 06:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the tradeoffs when writing for a reliable and vetted source is that a few of the words that appear with my byline are my editor's rather than my own. The particular phrase you quote is the editor's, intended to pique the interest of the publication's readers. He rewrites most of my column titles and sometimes part of the opening paragraph, but little else. The content is entirely compliant with site standards. That piece quotes Cary Bass and two Commons administrators and was written with their approval.

Here's an example of the kind of information I communicate. Start with this picture - her name is Michele Merkin, a successful model who's hosted a couple of television shows. Not a household name, but she released several professional portraits under GDFL license. Now look at a Google search for the word beauty. Wikipedia is the top result. And there she is on the middle of the page. She's also in two other high level Wikipedia articles. And what she's doing is completely legitimate: some heterosexual male volunteers kindly decided to rate the portrait a featured picture and place it at those articles. This is one very smart lady.

The Foundation understands that a lot of quality images are proprietary. That's one reason they've approved CC-by-sa licenses, which permit the uploader to require an outgoing link to the owner's website at every downstream use. Michele could also be generating traffic to her website if she had licensed CC-by-sa instead of GDFL. I would much rather see the business community providing copyleft images than inserting linkspam. The site's volunteers who deal with copyright violations and spam would probably agree. Many of the people who create these problems for our community simply don't understand what our site standards are or where the actual synergies are. They'd comply with our policies if only they knew how.

I began writing the column because most of the people who were writing about Wikipedia for the mainstream press had a flawed understanding of our site. 85% of what they said was true; the other 15% could backfire into newsworthy scandals and a lot of wasted effort for everyone. Experienced Wikipedians rarely publish about Wikipedia outside Wikipedia so I've filled a gap. The aim is to reduce the workload at dispute resolution, articles for deletion, and related areas. No, this is not a conflict of interest and in the unlikely event that it developed into one I would take the initiative to offer my own resignation. This is unpaid outreach. It makes fundamental sense to communicate proactively. Durova^Charge! 08:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc

39

Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Per this statement I would recuse myself from cases that related directly to 9/11 or the World Trade Center. There could be others, but it's difficult to foresee until particular instances arise. A more likely scenario for recusal would be the disputes I had attempted to resolve at the community level. Durova^Charge! 14:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz

40

Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question. Many years ago I worked at the admissions office of the Cornell University medical school. The institution only had the capacity to accept about 3% of the people who applied. Our office screened for academic qualifications before deciding who to interview. I was not one of the people who conducted interviews, but I knew them. Sometimes a nervous applicant would strike up a conversation with me in the lobby and ask what to expect. The subtext behind every interview, in my opinion, was a simple question that never got posed directly: If my mother were ill would I want you as her doctor? It's about trust.

If you were going into arbitration, who would you want to decide the outcome? Any Wikipedian who earns that trust and keeps it is doing a pretty good job. Arbitrating is hard work, often unpleasant, and occasionally confidential. When an announcement appears at WP:ANI that the Committee has desysopped and sitebanned someone without explanaining why, do you count on them to have had good reason? All the community has to go on in that situation is trust, and in order to be effective the arbitrators have to deserve it. Durova^Charge! 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Bloodpack

41

How would you described the present condition/status of the Wikipedia community in general from your own POV? †Bloodpack† 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the things I like to do is run Google News searches on Wikipedia. The results yield some interesting perspectives. When I find a particularly bitter editorial that bemoans the site's declining standards and predicts Wikipedia's imminent demise I open a second window and run a Wikipedia search on the author's name. More often than one might think, the deleted page files turn up a biography entry that lasted 5 to 7 days and was created by a username that distinctly resembles the author name and had a very low edit count. This tidbit never seems to get mentioned in the editorial. Perhaps the author forgot? I have a taste for dry humor, but after the first reaction I decide this isn't funny.

We create a lot of work for ourselves because we don't communicate better. Most of the world has virtually no idea how this website operates or why it became the 800 pound gorilla that sits on top of the search rankings. And when they try to understand us they get overwhelmed and we don't seem to make any sense. Where else is an administrator not a big deal? And a bureaucrat something people trust and respect? Where else is ignore all rules formal policy? Wikipedians are an insular bunch. Outsiders call us aloof. Although we are one of the most transparent organizations on earth, that transparency is hidden behind a maze of funhouse mirrors. We publish our site standards but most people don't know where to find them.

And meanwhile, people who've had bad experiences at this site are doing outreach through other venues to communicate about Wikipedia to the public. That isn't healthy because as everybody who's done enough editing knows, verifiable information from reliable sources isn't always true. The people who don't know Wikipedia already are not reading our userspace essays. They're reading the editorial by the fellow who tried to write a biography about himself and couldn't get it to stick. Those readers don't chuckle along with me because they can't access deleted pages and don't what a deletion discussion is. That's why I stop laughing. That's why I started publishing offsite. It's not so hard to do, and more of the people with five digit edit counts could follow suit because we are the experts about the most popular dot-org in the world. This volunteer website would be easier to operate if more of the public understood us. Durova^Charge! 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wikidudeman

42

In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This relates to questions 5, 7, and 28. To supplement those answers, the workshops aren't necessarily fountains of wisdom. Look at Attack sites: 45 would-be principles with titles that include "Free as in beer" and proposed remedies called "Everybody involved is sent to their room with no dessert", "No mention of the word 'Rutabaga' is to be permitted anywhere on Wikipedia under any circumstances", and "Redirect to Clown". That case got seriously out of hand. Another example is Gundagai editors in which a single individual tried to make a madhouse out of the proceeding. It looked far worse before the clerk dethreaded the posts and cleaned it up. SlimVirgin had a bold idea during Barrett v. Rosenthal: when an editor does something really blockable during arbitration, block them. A year ago I might have thought that was draconian, not anymore. WP:POINT does not go into suspended animation when arbitration begins. When an editor is obviously creating a sideshow instead of a defense, pull the plug on the performance and get back to business.

Parallel to clearing away the distractions, a critical look at the serious proposals is equally important. My graduate school training was in writing. One of the things I learned there was that when people make suggestions an unworkable solution can still be useful if I trace it back to a problem. Most people are better at spotting where things went wrong than how to make them right. That's the arbitrators' (often thankless) responsibility. I'm halfway to a solution when I identify what raises people's concerns and I'm three quarters of the way there if I locate a flawed proposal that can be improved. Once in a while a perfect idea arrives gift wrapped at the workshop page. I'm grateful when that happens, but most people take a few cases before they get skilled at proposal writing. That's not a set of experiences I would really wish on anyone. Durova^Charge! 01:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Geogre

43

Several times over the past twelve months, ArbCom and the Administrators noticeboards have come face to face with the practice and consequences of "back channel communications" between users (communication by private means or non-Wikipedia means). In particular, you have been implicated in these discussions more than the other candidates, so I would like to offer this opportunity to clarify your positions.

Do you believe that administrators and users "need" to have private conversations? If they do not need them, do you think that media that cannot be transported over to Wikipedia (IRC, instant messageners) have a proper use? Do you think that media that should not be ported over to Wikipedia (e-mail) because of the expectation of privacy inherent in them have a proper use for non-Arbitration purposes? Geogre 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Implicated? I've freely declared it. Good and prudent reasons sometimes demand privacy. I was very reluctant to reach that conclusion. Here's an early exchange from my user talk page when I refused to enable e-mail at FloNight's request for the Agapetos angel arbitration case.[3][4][5] Even during my RFA I didn't actually enable e-mail it until Thatcher131 insisted. Sysops are supposed to be available by e-mail for sensitive communication, so I am. As stated in answer 33 above, I never go to IRC. Questions about what should or shouldn't be ported there would really have to be answered by another candidate: I'd be happy if the admin channel withered by attrition. As the founder of Category:Eguor admins, I pledge maximum accountability.

What happened during the last year is I also gained a reputation for sleuthing. Maximum openness really can't be absolute because the sockpuppeteers I've foiled would be very interested to learn how I do this so they could refine their techniques and get better at exploiting the site. Some of them keep sneaking back and we've been playing cat and mouse for a long time. People come to me with requests for investigation, sometimes privately because of sensitive real world issues involved. WP:BEANS and WP:DFTT, as well as respect for the people who have trusted me, constrain this response. Whatever I can feasibly discuss onsite, I do. Durova^Charge! 23:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

43A

A follow up question from Irpen: 43a: A follow up, if I may. You said, above, “Good and prudent reasons sometimes demand privacy.” In that connection, you say that beating sock puppets is a reason to avoid spilling the beans on techniques. That’s fair enough, and few would disagree. Are there reasons other than those, or similar issues of identity, when the benefits of off-Wikipedia communication justify the costs of lost transparency and community trust?

Because I've specialized in some of the site's most difficult disputes I've seen situations where extreme events have happened. Some people have trusted me enough to confide in me when offsite harassment occurred. Obviously that's a confidence I respect, and just as obviously I don't want to do anything that could inadvertently encourage harassing behavior. Also, as mentioned in question 34, there are difficulties about posting e-mails and IRC logs. As of this writing I've had a hand in 22 arbitration cases, with two more due to open shortly, and those are the only situations I've encountered where that loss of transparency was necessary. Durova^Charge! 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Coren

44

Part of the Wikipedia philosophy is that, in theory, even the worse vandals can be coaxed and tutored into becoming valuable editors. Is there a point at which you will judge someone to be "beyond redemption"? That is, where it no longer appears reasonable to expend further efforts towards reform and exclusion becomes unavoidable? — Coren ^(talk) 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz#Redemption the Committee has stated, All banned editors are theoretically redeemable. The canonical example is Michael, who was hard-banned as a persistent vandal but has since reformed and become a good editor. That passed 10-0 in February 2005. Michael himself was later blocked indefinitely as the original name of another account with this lengthy block history, all of whose entries occurred after the Committee had certified that principle of redemption.

In a few very specific situations I wouldn't want an editor to return at all. These rarely occur, but they run along the lines of behavior that most real world jurisdictions outlaw. We want a safe environment here. Outside of these extremes I think it's a good thing to leave the door open a crack and even provide clear incentives for reform. As explained in my initial candidate statement, I offer two awards for editors who make a productive return from an arbitration sanction or a lifted siteban. If a banned editor cooperates and takes enough time off without evading the ban on sockpuppets or bashing Wikipedia offsite, and pledges to stop the behavior that led to the ban in the first place, then yes I'd consider bringing them back. As a sysop I've opened noticeboard threads to propose those returns unless the block were my own action (in which case I'll simply undo my own block). Most of the people who get banned indefinitely don't do those things for the six months I normally ask, but there have also been some happy moments when I've awarded one of them a barnstar. Durova^Charge! 05:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

45

The principal mandate of the Arbitration committee is to interpret the policies, guidelines and community consensus. There are cases, however, when individuals or the community will turn to the arbitrators to make policy, or draw the line in the sand in gray areas. How do you feel about those cases, and where do you feel the responsibilities and authority of the committee fall? — Coren ^(talk) 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Defining gray areas, yes; writing policy; no. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Andries

46

Do you agree with topic banning an editor whose edits on that topic was described by the arbcom as generally responsible and with no diffs of activist or disruptive edits on the topic? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Editing_by_Andries Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editing

See wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned

If no, then what should be done with topics where there are endless disputes and dispute resolution does not help or hardly helps?

If yes, then do you admit that arbcom members should take decisions that are very unfair to individual editors?

Andries 13:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This relates to questions 5, 7, and 26. It is also worth noting that the arbitration case mentioned above was the second of two on the same subject that the Committee heard in rapid succession. The original Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba had many such diffs. Neither of these cases involved me in any way.

It would be inappropriate for me, as a candidate in this election, to comment upon this particular instance in so specific a manner as the questioner asks. As an arbitrator I would examine motions in past cases with diligence and impartiality. I have supported topic bans as an alternative to more serious remedies. I have also supported article paroles for contentious subjects and I would very much like to develop an easier route to article parole than this site currently has. It would be less burdensome on the participants, and on the Committee, if this site had an effective means of intervening sooner for topics where real world opinions are polarized and those offsite disputes carry over into Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that this case has a lot to with work load of arbitrators and arbitrators losing patience? I tried to get a more extensive explanation from the arbitrators why I was topic banned but did not receive it Andries (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68

47

I notice from your userpage that you were the primary editor on the Joan of Arc featured article and the featured lists List of brain tumor patients and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc although your userpage doesn't mention that the latter appears to have been delisted as a featured list. Joan of Arc is an excellent article and appears to have taken a lot of work to keep it a featured article because of edits that introduced POV into the article from other editors. Are there any other featured content or Good Articles in which you've been the primary editor? Cla68 13:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I've changed my contributions page to reflect that list. Thanks for bringing this to my attention; the page could use an update. I went through enormous headaches keeping Joan of Arc up to par, as noted at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. I haven't written any other good articles or featured content. I have contributed 11 did you know entries, most recently Sarah Barrett Moulton: "Pinkie". Administration has cut down on a lot on my mainspace work. I've been doing some work for Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts and contributed a lot of images to Commons from the recent California wildfires. I have some more from the disaster zone I shot yesterday, but the smell was overpowering. I'll see how they turned out today and upload the best among them. Durova^Charge! 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded a batch. These appear to be the first Commons images of actual damage from the blazes. Durova^Charge! 16:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Veesicle

48

In a recent video on youtube, here, in response to the question "one thing that people really aren't aware of... is that there is actually a vital community of people who actually care about categorising the wealth of information. Tell us about the community features of Wikipedia."

You responded: "The community features exist to support the encyclopedia, and aspects of the community that don't serve a visible function of building an encyclopedia periodically get stripped away."

Do you really believe that the best description of the Wikipedia community is that undesirable elements get 'periodically stripped away'? Do you believe that this is a good way to present Wikipedia to the public? User:Veesicle 01:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The context of both the question and the response referred to structures and Wikipedia pages, and miscellany for deletion exists for the purpose of culling non-relevant material. Or to quote from what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a social network such as MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. A hot buzzword in the business world this year is "Web 2.0", which often lumps Wikipedia together with those two particular sites and fails to articulate the fundamental distinction. The primary audience for that interview are professionals whose job is to keep abreast of twelve to fifteen different sites at once. Often, their knowledge of some of those sites is quite superficial.

As a frequent volunteer at the conflict of interest noticeboard I often interact with these people when one of them makes mistakes. I know which types of good faith mistakes they're most prone to making and I wanted to save their time and ours. Wikipedia can look confusing to an outsider: we've got a separate article for every Pokemon character ever created, and our biography of Britney Spears is longer than our biography of Socrates. That does not mean it's a good idea to start up an article about one's client out of old press releases in order to "get a presence" here - although that same thinking might be a viable strategy at MySpace or Facebook. I wanted to convey that in language they'd understand, and yes, I think that's a good message to be sending out. As some other comments on the blogosphere show, that interview and the related speech I gave at that conference were well received. Durova^Charge! 01:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

49

What are your opinions of secret evidence being given privately to ArbCom? To what extent is this acceptable? User:Veesicle 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

See questions 43 and 43A. Durova^Charge! 00:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad, these pages get too long for me to read through them properly. User:Veesicle 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Would you like the question to stand or try a different one? Durova^Charge! 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe

A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.

50

Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?

That question has come up in past elections and the answer has generally been that a formal recall system would be prone to gaming by the same sort of people who wind up in arbitration. Arbitrators need to be free to make their decisions based upon the merits of each case without undue concern about frivolous action. Of course, since the most recent election we also had the Essjay scandal. The community handled that quite well using the existing request for comment venue and Essjay resigned within a couple of days. Also, Essjay was an appointment that hadn't gone through the regular election process. So the community is already very good at identifying good arbitrators and managing the rare problem. If a problem ever happens that the community fails to manage I think such a mechanism would come into being quite rapidly. I don't see a special need for it now.

51

ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?

To expand upon question 27, I haven't been privy to the Committee's deliberations and regard it as likely they've had discussions along those lines already. I'd be very interested in seeing what kind of consensus has been achieved, and why. In general I support keeping the most sensitive tools in the hands of the most active and trusted people. So at this juncture, with what I currently know, I'd have questions about whether someone needed those privileges if they hadn't used them in a long time. What constitutes a long time? Possibly by six months, certainly after a year. I also expect the Committee has encountered relevant circumstances that I'm not aware of at present. If they acted differently on either end of that spectrum and the decision looked sensible to me, then I'd defer to precedent.

52

Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?

This overlaps with questions 31, 37, and 45. To expand upon those answers, ArbCom frequently clarifies gray areas in policy - yet when a given policy has a serious flaw it shouldn't be necessary to invoke the authority of the Committee to fix it. Arbitrators are also members of the community. As with any other community member, when a policy itself needs to be changed an arbitrator can go to that policy talk page and participate in the formation of consensus. If my reasons and evidence are any good, they'll earn their own shelf space in the marketplace of ideas. Durova^Charge! 00:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Gladly, and thanks for asking some good questions. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Warlordjohncarter

53

One basic question. I noted in your responses to Lar above that you would oppose formally splitting the arbitration committee into multiple subcommittees, and agree with you on that. However, I wonder what your opinion of the idea of perhaps increasing the number of members of the committee, or possibly decreasing the required quorum, to the point that it would be more easily able to "break up" into smaller groups who would be able to take on a greater number of concurrent cases, and with luck speed some of the processes. These groups would not necessarily all have the same members every time, but would hopefully include those members of the committee who have a particular interest in or knowledge of the subject or point of contention. Would you favor or oppose such a development, and why? John Carter 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a very careful and insightful question. I'm not sure it would resolve either of two central challenges: time management and consistent precedents. With the COFS case, for example, I initiated the request for arbitration in part because Scientology is a contentious topic that seemed likely to benefit from article parole. The dispute bore several similarities to the previous Waldorf education case I'd worked on. Article parole was working for the Waldorf/Anthroposophy and if there had been any alternative to full arbitration that could have applied the same remedy to the Scientology dispute, I would have sought it. As things stood, another group of people had to go through a difficult months-long case that arrived at pretty much the same result. That's one reason I like the "ArbCom Lite" solution: it would maintain a clear distinction about which body actually establishes precedent while the cases that operate within existing precedents get swifter attention. We've had an arbitration committee long enough that not every case is groundbreaking. Durova^Charge! 00:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

A long time ago, I accidentally made an edit to a WP space page whilst logged out. You immediately accused me of sockpuppeting and added my IP to an RFCU which concluded that I was definitely not a sockpuppet. When I later realised that I had made the edit logged out, I came back to confirm that the edit was mine and was somewhat miffed to find that I'd been submitted to a checkuser. Whilst I don't hold this against you, I am a bit concerned that you are too quick to jump to conclusions about sockpuppetry against people who have differences of opinion. I realise that this is asked anonymously [if I asked via my usual account it would be pretty easy to figure out what my IP actually is; I can, however, say that I am a user in good standing], but I was wondering if you could allay my fears. Feel free to ignore this if you don't have anything to say - I'm wavering on supporting you anyhow, I'm just finding it difficult to reconcile my support for someone who got me checkusered :)

First I'd like to extend my apologies for any hurt feelings. Since this question is the only edit from this IP address and only generic details are supplied, I can't speak to that particular incident. To answer in general terms, filing a checkuser doesn't necessarily mean I believe a user is up to no good. Sometimes it's merely the result of some coincidences that line up a particular way: blood tests and sockpuppet investigations occasionally produce false positives, so rather than act on inconclusive evidence I seek means of confirming or disproving possibilities. Sometimes I file a checkuser request in the hope of clearing suspicions. Nobody bats .1000 and when I make a genuine mistake I want to be first to apologize. Not long ago I did a survey of my edit summaries and concluded I average about one apology a month. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So my questions are:

54

Do you forsee yourself asking for checkuser rights? Would you use them in your sockpuppet 'investigations', or only as a result of an RFCU? 86.140.15.201 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. Most people who have checkuser privileges do both. Where feasible, it can be more discreet to clear a suspicion without causing an innocent person embarrassment or offense. Usually when one of my sock investigations comes up negative I never publish it for that reason. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

55

What is your approach to finding sockpuppets? Most users seem to only do it when they come across it, but it seems you actively seek banned users. 86.140.15.201 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I started because I encountered a tremendous sockpuppeteering problem at the first article I edited. One experienced editor offered some basic guidance before he got fed up with that disruptive editing and quit Wikipedia. From there it was a matter of learning by the seat of the pants. That initial problem was so complex that it took me more than a year of editing, plus creating some featured content and getting sysopped, before anybody would give my report a serious read. I didn't want other people to go through an ordeal like that and I realized how much harm one or two individuals can do to the project. Also, after that initial problem finally led to a community siteban, I gained a reputation for this sort of thing and people started coming to me with requests for help. Every few investigations I look at a problem a new way, discover another method of analyzing it, and add a new item to my bag of sleuthing tricks. I'd like to spend more time in mainspace, actually, but it turns out I'm one of a limited number of people who has talent and experience at sleuthing and I'm not easily baited. When I compare how much good it does the project to write one featured article against how much harm it prevents to foil a persistent banned sockpuppeteer, I usually opt for the latter. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

56

Do you believe in giving banned users second chances? 86.140.15.201 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. When there's a clear path to returning legitimately, earning site awards, and regaining good standing as a Wikipedian then some of those people turn around. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

57

If you found an account that you believed was a banned user, but the account was editing quietly and non-disruptively, what would you do? 86.140.15.201 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The scenario you're describing is probably somewhat different from what I see in practice. To take a recent example, look at the Burntsauce account history. For the first month and several hundred edits it did mostly recent changes patrol. Then, with enough edits to pass for a productive editor, it began to game the biographies of living persons policy in a manner I recognized from a previous investigation. I applied an indefinite block on April 12, 2007, which Alkivar reversed. Half a year of disruption followed. Yesterday ArbCom closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar, desysopping that administrator and banning Burntsauce for proxy editing. A small but persistent group of banned users groom sockpuppets in similar ways and for similar purposes. It isn't hard for me to identify them, and usually I keep notes. Their comments indicate they think they're much better at avoiding scrutiny than they actually are. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. 86.140.15.201 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ali'i

58

My question is, What is your take on committee burnout? Why are they active for a month or two, then stop caring? Is it a flaw in the arbitrator, or in the process? Also, Why do so many arbitrators stop doing digging, and simply show up to vote on (mostly Kirill's or Fred's) proposed decisions? In what ways would you be different? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As of this writing I've had a hand in 23 arbitration cases. With the proposed Eyrian case scheduled to open later today that will bring the tally to 24. So I have no illusions about the time commitment. Most of those cases took place during the last year and I'm seeking a one year slot rather than a full term.

Regarding the broader part of your question, there's an important distinction that needs to be made between three levels of activity: writing decisions, voting at decisions, and not participating. Customarily one arbitrator writes most of the proposed decision. Others who vote deserve credit also - their brief comments and counterproposals often look like the result of much examination and consideration. There is a real problem with some arbitrators going inactive for long periods of time. This is guesswork on my part since I'm not privy to their discussions, but I suppose some of those reasons relate to unforeseen life changes and some are people who didn't anticipate the workload. When the situation is temporary I'd be understanding, but I'd also encourage people to let someone else fill the spot if they didn't foresee being able to resume the work. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

58(a)

Okay, we all saw the block and unblock of User:!!. Do you think that you are too eager to block suspected sockpuppets, or do you think that it may appear that you are too eager? What would you say to someone who thinks you might have an itchy trigger finger? Mahalo. --Ali'i (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'd circulated a report for two weeks before acting. Some arbitrators, checkusers, and even Foundation people had seen it. No objections had come in when I took action, so it seemed to be a pretty safe call. The incident points to a need for better internal checks and balances. I'll work on improving that. Durova^Charge! 18:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

58(b)

Sorry to be blunt about it, but you answered me above, "I'm seeking a one year slot rather than a full term." Okay, so what's the point of voting for you? Wouldn't that just mean that we know we'd be down an arbitrator in a year and/or have to vote again sooner than we would? Since "voting is evil", wouldn't we want to limit the number/frequency/need for voting? Mahalo. --Ali'i (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See question 62. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

59

Should ArbCom treat administrators differently from non-administrators? And if so, how?

Whenever I've gone before the Committee I've expected my evidence and actions to be scrutinized by exactly the same measure as any other Wikipedian. If there's any difference at all it's that I no longer deserve any leniency per WP:BITE: I've been around long enough to know what our policies are - and that applies equally toward every Wikipedian whose edit count is well into five figures, whether sysopped or not. As an arbitrator I'd apply the same expectations when I weigh cases. Durova^Charge! 06:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

60

If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, what would you choose? Why?

Last April a very damaging change got implemented in the disruptive editing guideline over my objections and I've had to open several arbitration requests as a direct result. When WP:DE was at proposal phase, a consideration that came under extensive discussion was how to implement community banning fairly and prevent situations where good editors who held minority views could get railroaded out of the project. That proposal became a guideline when the editors who were working on it agreed that a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians would decide who's disruptive and who isn't. People who were parties to a content dispute could provide reasoning and evidence, but impartial people would decide the outcome. For half a year that was in practice and it actually worked pretty well. Then a smaller group of editors, most of whom hadn't been involved when the guideline was originally drafted, came along and removed that clause.

Those people who changed the guideline acted from the highest motives and they did have a point: one of the ways that difficult editors try to evade blocks is by claiming that any administrator who takes an interest in their case is "involved" in it, and therefore can't act. That's actually something of a problem with the blocking policy, but it's far less of a concern with community ban discussions. No difficult editor gets away with that tactic more than once or twice, and the impact is minor on a consensus discussion. By altering the guideline to accommodate that minor concern, the change opened the door wide to exactly the kind of railroading that the guideline had originally been written to prevent. Those of us who made a long term commitment to community sanctions and who kept an eye on the situation to keep things fair had our hands full afterward. I've intervened to halt attempts to canvass and stack ban discussions. Opposing camps of edit warriors have stalled proposals and each time I carried one of those hopeless battles to arbitration one side or the other decided that I was their enemy. I've even been harassed offsite because of it (not that it stops me - I wear a Kevlar flameproof troll-b-gone suit 24/7). But yeah, I'd sure like to get that guideline fixed again. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

61

Do you feel that this method of selecting arbitrators is effective? productive? Should it be maintained for next year?

Yes, I think it's effective and productive and worth maintaining. Not perfect, but pretty darn good. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

62

And what's with this one year business? I mean, I understand your motivation (it makes sense to me!), but the community puts substantial effort into the task of filling the ArbCom seats. Is it really fair to ask us to put in such an effort for someone who's guaranteed in advance not to stick around? Jd2718 22:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't sugar coat the question: phrase it the way you really mean. ;)

ArbCom has a high burnout rate. About six months ago people started asking me about running for this. My first response was silence (who, me?) followed by I guess I've been through more cases than a lot of the folks who get elected, then What would I bring to the table? The one idea that wouldn't leave me alone was to put an arbitrator's experience to use at improving community level sanctions. I think in the long term that's even more important than arbitration at this growing website. If that priority isn't apparent to some of the people who read this answer, then please trust me as someone who's volunteered in the area for a long time. One year on the Committee should be enough time to learn the arbitrator's perspective and I think that's the right time frame for implementing improvements - three years would be waiting too long. When I made the decision to ask for a fill-in spot I anticipated some early resignations from arbitrators whose terms hadn't ended yet. That hasn't happened so far, but if it does I want it to be no secret about what I'm seeking and why. The community has voted for a lot of arbitrators who didn't serve a full three years. How many of those were candid about it and declared a plan to serve the community? That's what I'd like to do. Durova^Charge! 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear

63

In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On rare occasions I've already been the first point of contact for such issues. These matters are beyond my expertise and scope either as an administrator or an arbitrator. The thing to do is inform the WikiMedia Foundation promptly and await their decision. Unless the Foundation requested otherwise, I would also inform the rest of the Committee. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

64

Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?

Yes. Durova^Charge! 19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

65

If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?

Not necessarily. Due to the nature of ArbCom voting it wouldn't always be apparent who's been active, since the findings and remedies can pass before everyone who's been active makes their participation visible. I anticipate that my particpation would be more visible than the average arbitrator's. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

66

Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?

Four legs good, two legs bad.

On a more serious note, that's one of the toughest and most nuanced candidate questions. On principle I'd say good contributions don't generate a license to be rude. Editors who've been with the project a long time set the tone for newcomers. Yet some individuals game that principle and start multiple sockpuppet accounts (each of which lay claim to WP:AGF and WP:BITE) to bait particular people - then rush to invoke WP:CIVIL if the target ever loses patience. A similar dynamic happens among some edit warriors who engage in subtle provocation. So incivility by an established account needs to be examined in the context of these considerations and balanced against the editor's general responsiveness to feedback. Although good contributions don't generate a license to be rude, an editor's overall impact on the project does weigh into that consideration. It's much simpler to weigh civility and the personal attack policy for accounts that have a short edit history: determine whether the account behaves like a sock, and if it isn't a likely sock then see whether the person has been informed of our site standards and given a fair chance to adjust. In extreme cases no warning is necessary, but otherwise I'd extend a fair portion of good faith before intervening. Durova^Charge! 19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, newbie editors are easy to deal with. But what to do with older content-producing editors who nonetheless engage in incivility? Should we warn them - risking that they get offended and stop contributing - and ban them if they don't change, certainly losing their input for the duration of the ban - or should we let them be incivil, in turn loosing the contribution of those who cannot stand their behavior, with the caveat that of course it is much more difficult to calculate how much contribution is being lost due to tolerance of certain aggressive editors? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This relates to questions 5, 7, 18, 19, 24, 26, 28, and 53. Especially 26. To expand on those answers, Piotrus is probably referring in part to Wikipedia's ethnic disputes. A disproportionate percentage of arbitration cases have related to nationalist and ethnic disputes. Piotrus has been a named party in two of them: Piotrus-Ghirla and Piotrus. Other ethnic/nationalist arbitration cases where I've had a hand were Darwinek, Mudaliar-Venki123, Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, E104421-Tajik, and PalestineRemembered. It would be fair to say that the tone of these disputes is often less than genteel and Wikipedia ought to get better at addressing this type of situation. In my observation these ethnic/national disputes share some characteristics with other contentious issues where real world disputes carry over onto Wikipedia. Early, mild, and firm intervention would probably be more effective than the approach this site currently takes. When one of these cases does come before the Committee it tends to be messy and I'd look carefully at each named party: what positives do they bring to Wikipedia? How much of the claims against them are substantiated by good evidence? Is that evidence cherry picked or taken out of context? A lot of the same general principles I've articulated for dealing with revert warring and edit warring also apply to civility. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

67

How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This overlaps with questions 7, 18, 19 and 26. To expand on those answers, I wish civility issues could be resolved in as straightforward a manner as WP:3RR. In arbitration cases one good solution to ambiguous cases is scaled remedies. An editor can be placed on civility parole or assigned a graduated scale of blocks leading to a siteban. Those remedies can be lifted if the problem resolves itself. Durova^Charge! 19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the streamlining of CIV warnings the idea behind WP:PAIN (which for the record I strongly supported)? What was wrong with PAIN, and how - if at all - can we go about recreating it? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This overlaps with question 6 and refers to the personal attack intervention noticeboard, which is no longer active. Civility and personal attack complaints require investigation, so while I volunteered at that board I regarded it as redundant with the requests for investigation board (also defunct). These were excellent honeypots, but the main problem with both boards was a severe shortage of volunteers. It would be a very good idea to create a new investigations board on a more organized basis, with clerks and additional sleuths and at least one participant who had checkuser.Durova^Charge! 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Further questions from Cla68

68

In this [6] thread you state that you were paid to speak at a conference at least in part about your activities and experience on Wikipedia. Would you use your status as an arbitrator for presentations, speeches, or other self-promotional work off-wiki for which you would be paid for? If not, would you use your status as an arbitrator for any other efforts at self-promotion off-project? Cla68 00:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is a misread of this diff. Not only did I not get paid for the conference, it cost me money to attend. As a sponsored speaker my conference entry fee was waived and my plane fare was covered. All other expenses came out of my own pocket and I lost income from the days I took out for it. The trip was too short to do any sightseeing; I don't think one slice of cheap pizza from a joint at my old college neighborhood counts. I didn't even have time to set foot on campus. The trip was volunteer outreach on behalf of Wikipedia.

As explained in question 8, I have attempted no efforts at self-promotion. Quite the opposite: I published a column pseudonymously until some people who had been banned from Wikipedia disclosed my name at the column comments in posts that linked to attack sites. Now one of those same people who violated my privacy is attempting to spread the notion that I'm engaging in self-promotion or making money from this outreach. I'm sorry to see that getting any traction at all among legitimate Wikipedians and I will gladly provide evidence via e-mail to any editor who wishes to weigh this in considering my candidacy. It's amusing, actually: the fellow tried to run for ArbCom himself last year while he was evading a ban by Jimbo Wales. Then he came to a noticeboard, lodged a frivolous complaint against two editors in good standing who had removed his self-nomination, and he asked for an investigation. I obliged. :)

Perhaps the strongest compliment to my investigative work is the efforts some banned editors exert to try to undermine my credibility. If they were really thinking ahead they'd endorse this candidacy because the work of being on the Committee would reduce the time I devote to independent investigations, but I don't suppose they look at things that way. Durova^Charge! 02:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your detailed and measured response, but you didn't actually answer the question, but I'll rephrase it...Would you use or publicize your status as an arbitrator for any work, voluntary or otherwise, under your real name or one of your Wikipedia account names, that you might undertake off-project during the time that you were sitting as an arbitrator? Cla68 02:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you intended to ask then it's already covered in question 8. Yes, I probably would mention it while doing volunteer outreach, although I doubt the designation would mean very much to a non-Wikipedian. Would there be any reason not to do so? These questions carry the strong insinuation that I'm on the make. Assume good faith, please. Durova^Charge! 03:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

69

While serving as an arbitrator, would you plan to continue inviting companies and organizations to contact you privately for advice or consultation on how they can edit Wikipedia? Cla68 00:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have stopped beating my wife yet. No, I never beat my wife. ;)

I've volunteered at the conflict of interest noticeboard for a long time. As explained in the answer to question 1 arbitration will probably cut down on that commitment. For most of this year I've been admin coaching talented editors to help staff that board and the suspected sockpuppets board, both of which always need a hand. After arbitration duties, my second priority will be more of that coaching. One element of volunteering with conflict of interest issues is to provide guidance about appropriate options for participation. For instance, it works out better for a politician's staff to request attention at the biographies of living persons noticeboard than to try to edit the biography themselves. Most non-Wikipedians aren't aware that these options exist and most of the people who publish about this site in the mainstream press don't know this site well enough to provide that information either. This probably would be a valuable service but I don't get a dime for it. It remains to be seen how much time I'd have to continue that as an arbitrator since it's an adjunct to third or fourth priority work. Durova^Charge! 03:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Jehochman

70

What sort of evidence can establish a case of abusive sock puppetry? What do you think of Checkuser evidence versus behavioral evidence? - Jehochman ^Talk 23:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Both have their place and both are imperfect. Both can be gamed. Overall I'd say checkuser is better at resolving short term problems and behavioral evidence is better at resolving long term problems. Durova^Charge! 02:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?

71

When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--David Shankbone 18:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, 1 billion people worldwide speak English and only about one-third of them live in North America. I've traveled to 17 countries in three continents (four continents if the south side of the Panama Canal counts) and I'm not monolingual, so I'll do my best to weigh the neutral point of view policy from a global perspective. Wikipedia's rising popularity and open edit structure certainly does make it an attractive target to ideological partisans of all sorts. As expressed in questions 5, 7, 26, and 46, one of the main reasons I'm seeking a position on the Committee is to find a way of supplementing Wikipedia's existing dispute resolution options with a streamlined method to intervene early on contentious issues. So rather than let problems fester until long arbitrations and sitebans become necessary, we'd see more article paroles and revert paroles. That should go a long way toward stabilizing chronic problem areas. Durova^Charge! 00:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Videmus Omnia - conflict of interest issues

72

I know you've done a lot of work at WP:COIN (kudos for that!). What is your opinion regarding editing of articles by users who are regarded as experts on a particular subject, but who espouse a particular point of view in their work outside Wikipedia? I guess an example would be the perennial Lyndon LaRouche controversies regarding editing by the users Cberlet and Dking. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee's interest in content issues is limited to specific site policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V. When it comes to expert editors and the conflict of interest guideline, expertise in itself does not necessarily constitute conflict of interest. This site does welcome contributions by expert editors and some Wikipedians have been developing recommendations that would maintain an open door for expert editors while balancing potential conflict of interest concerns. As I've seen from field experience, that often comes down to whether the expert is making substantive contributions to the field of expertise or padding his or her own biography. Ideally, a genuine expert who works in the interests of the encyclopedia would cite a range of major publications by the leading names in the field and would accommodate this project's mission to be a neutral source of information. Durova^Charge! 04:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a thoughtful answer to a difficult question. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for one of the more challenging questions. Durova^Charge! 05:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from NathanLee

73

I haven't had any exposure to you and ended up here rather by random jump from the ANI page, but immediately I have some questions relating to your approach to outing sockpuppets. My apologies if this sounds rather direct in nature, but challenging questions are needed. You mention above about the founding of a group that "serve as Wikipedia's loyal opposition should any cabal inadvertently form."[7]. Yet (it appears) you have created a secret process (possibly largely off wiki) with no transparency and make decisions to block people based on that with nothing more than a massive leap of good faith from anyone other than the handful you choose to share your methods (which sounds rather cabal like). Your answer to number 11 is an example of something I would question. Do you think it might potentially damage the project by having these secret processes (which may be completely arbitrary for all we know)?

Thank you for asking these questions. Given the recent events on ANI, it's not surprising that some question marks exist among people whose volunteer work doesn't cross paths with my own very often. I appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns. I'll start with a demonstration of the kind of scrutiny my actions have withstood. My administratorship is open to recall and I voluntarily set the bar much lower than it needs to be for a recall vote. Compare the parameters at Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall to my declared offer. Yet no one has ever initiated the first step toward that: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova (who knows? - now that I mention it this might cease being a redlink). Here are the arbitration cases where I've been a named party. Not even the editors who got sitebanned ever proposed any finding against me.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

I could have been added as a named party in other arbitrations if anyone believed there was a case against me to be made:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop#Durova_added_to_list_of_involved_parties

I've exposed myself to the community's scrutiny in these ways because, I hope, it earns some clout for moments like now. Volunteer work at tough investigations and dispute resolutions inevitably leads to spurious claims of misconduct by the very people whose own actions manifestly did not hold up under scrutiny. Try this, where the background is this; and this, even after this, where the background is this. Some other examples at that ANI thread are executed with more subtlety, and among some serious queries - which I respect very much - a good number of half-truths and outright falsehoods have been advanced. So let me set the record straight.

A group of about 20 people, most of whom are very thoroughly and properly sitebanned, have banded together to disrupt Wikipedia. Some of them have been at it for years. They share tactics and operate as a team. Overall, foiling them has been a minor part of my volunteer work, but their efforts to discredit me are a testament to how good at it I am. Nobody bats .1000. Yesterday I made a good faith error and reversed myself with apologies after 75 minutes. I responded to legitimate feedback and pledged a couple of changes so that this mistake doesn't happen again. Over 90% of the information I use is already public and accessible to anyone on the planet who has an Internet connection and the smarts to find it. I know, for instance, that this group of about 20 people has a four point strategy for disruption. Sometimes they use throwaway sockpuppets like the ones in those diffs I supplied. They also build up some long term socks with padded edit histories that attempt to mimic the behavior of productive Wikipedians. More on that in a moment. Sometimes they persuade legitimate Wikipedians to compromise their integrity; that was Alkivar's mistake. The fourth tactic is offsite disruption.

If you Google my username it won't take long to find a page with a mostly fictitious biography of me. One of the few genuine things on that page is a photograph of my seventy-four-year-old uncle who was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center alive, along with a not very subtle threat to harass him in real life if I don't stop volunteering for Wikipedia. That's the kind of people they are. What they fail to appreciate is that I joined the armed forces and went to war because of 9/11. I ran to the standards of a twenty-four-year-old male, exceeded the push-up requirement for a seventeen to nineteen-year-old male, earned marksmanship ribbons in both pistol and rifle, and volunteered to stand double my normal rotation of armed watches when we got to the most dangerous part of deployment. That's the kind of person I am. I never needed to fire that weapon on an enemy; instead my command saved 113 civilian lives.

What I had been attempting to do, leading up to yesterday's mistaken block, was reverse engineer that disruptive group's playbook to get better at identifying their long term sockpuppets. Since I knew they share strategies, I had studied the Dannycali and Burntsauce accounts, plus some of their other suspected socks, and I assembled a seven point checklist for distinguishing their behavior from the behavior of regular Wikipedians. Naturally there would be positive contributions on this type of account - and a lot of them: that's how those people inoculate their socks against blocking and banning. They actually spend weeks or months doing hundreds of useful edits in order to seem legitimate. Look at the early histories of Burntsauce and Dannycali as examples. I had been studying the ways in which these disruptive users fail to cover their tracks. And I had a two page report with 28 diffs that I circulated for two weeks in advance of acting. When I realized that it was a false positive I regarded the string of coincidences as a freakish accident and was, of course, very sorry for it. Especially to the upstanding editor I had inconvenienced. I didn't anticipate all the angles well enough. Live and learn.

Now here's the dilemma of candor: I share as much as consider safe onsite, and I extend invitations to circulate evidence among any trusted Wikipedian who asks for it (on a basis decided purely by their reputation as trustworthy Wikipedians, whether or not they've ever agreed with me about much of anything). That invites two kinds of scrutiny: people who take up the offer, and people who don't take up the offer but still want to talk about it. Obviously if I shared everything I know onsite those disruptive editors would study every word. They can't quite figure out how I nail some of these investigations, and they haven't been able to bait me into losing my cool or intimidate me into leaving the site. So they latch onto whatever they can and try to spin it - try to tell you I'm incompetent, dangerous, and corrupt.

The community has an answer to that. It's right here. Durova^Charge! 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It worries me quite a lot to hear your response. The more involved with wikipedia I get the less faith in the project I seem to have. Now I hear about (more) secret process, accused unable to access evidence that results in conviction and a banishing from wikipedia. Refusal to disclose this process because it's top secret? You're not someone I would want upholding what wikipedia is all about I'm afraid. The last thing wikipedia needs is more backroom/offwiki/sweep-it-under-the-carpet types in the upper echelons.

Yesterday doesn't sound like it was your first mistake by the looks of comments on ANI. We'll never know for sure if you caught up a bunch of innocents who can no longer edit due to blocked users/IP addresses.

On your resonse:

• I couldn't care less what you did after 9/11, how fast you run and it isn't an answer to anything I asked. But nice story. :P
• Whether someone wants to risk your "investigation" by launching an RFC: one might think they're unlikely to want to suggest any action against you because you do what you do without review. (almost poetic?) For instance: I could wonder whether I'm now under scrutiny, after all you've hounded user !! off wikipedia for no reason due to your mistake. What's to stop you sending around one of your lengthy reports based on your (top secret) approach saying I'm bad: no one says anything because they don't have the time/don't care/fear a similar report going around on them or just don't check your process: you take that lack of response as implicit support and you ban me, block any IPs I've edited from as TOR or "sock puppet" IP addresses and what could I do? Use TOR to try and voice my concerns (which you might blank and block as you did on ANI)?
• "Live and learn" might suggest that just like anyone who supports the death penalty: you catch up innocent people thanks to bad reasoning and that alone makes the whole concept a BAD idea. You drove off a good editor who was doing nothing wrong (and it sounds like was doing everything right): that pretty much invalidates your whole approach wouldn't you think? So what if you catch some sock puppets: if their edits are bad they'll be corrected over time. Compared to driving away good editors who do a lot of good to the project.
• If you think barnstars indicate that you're doing things right: this isn't kindergarten. Stickers/stars given by sycophants/suckups don't justify your secret processes any more than giving decorations to war criminals validates their techniques. From what I've seen a large amount of barnstars means an editor pisses off about as many or more people as they impress. More barnstars means more divisive I think.
• The lack of RFC for you proves only apathy or fear of retributions (either option is a bad one) or excessive extension of good faith to you (also bad without review) it certainly isn't a validation of your technique.
• So where is the remaining 10% of the information from? If you're using admin functionalities via non standard channels: that's a problem. You don't have the right to run checkusers etc just because you've decided your role in wikipedia is not to edit but to sleuth and persecute offenders.
• Efforts to discredit you are also not any sort of validation of your technique (that's extremely worrying that you think that..). That appears to mean you think any criticism = validation. Any praise = validation.

It's quite disturbing that you think all these things invalidate a closed, un-justified, arbitrary, wrong numerous times process that really has no place on an open encyclopaedia.

I'd put it to you if you can't explain your process in a public and open way: I think you don't deserve to have that process taken for anything other than unjustified personal opinion. Aside from barnstars and lack of RFC on your actions: do you have a logical justification for why your process is anything other than a complicated rumour process? NathanLee (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made a mistake and pledged specific changes to close the gaps you continue to articulate. What non-public information do I use? E-mail correspondence, and sysop tools to view deleted pages - things like that. And my super-secret sockpuppet mole that infiltrated Wikipedia Review's inner circle and has been forwarding their private mailing list to ArbCom. We're picking off the members one by one. ;)

There are plenty of candidates in this election. If you've made up your mind, so be it. Choose the ones you think are best. Durova^Charge! 02:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit more like an answer! :) Thank you. Now I'm pretty sure viewing deleted pages in order to look at previously banned users or something would be justifiable. If someone chooses to send you emails from an emailing list: then that's no big deal (although using off wiki information might be a tad sketchy.. If it matched up with other evidence with enough surety.. Then maybe.) I'm a little concerned about the free and easy access some people seem to have with checkuser (e.g. I've seen editors out of the blue start asking people in debates "do you use another user" with absolutely no reason), but it sounds like your work can exist alongside formal requests for checkuser.

The big problem I think people have is that it sounds like the collection of evidence, the checking and use of system admin functionality is all potentially being abused. Being more open about it and having review/feedback and fairness to those accused until proven guilty type thing is what's needed to stop people fearing the worst.. NathanLee (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a tough dilemma, isn't it? When I first started doing this I was quite open about my methods. I was usually dealing with lone individuals. The first time I thought egad, a little better and the fellow would've gotten away with it was a spam investigation by a different Wikipedian. He wasn't even sysopped yet - is now, and with several barnstars to his credit. I've had enough experience since then to watch how exploitive editors progress on their learning curve. Yes, I'm worried about the potential for abusing the tools and for abusing trust. Have a look at this blog for a glimpse at the challenges. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

74

Do you consider these secret/closed or "back room" processes as consistent with the "open" Wikipedia project?

Is there an angle of this question that isn't adequately addressed by questions 43 and 43A? Durova^Charge! 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

More along the analogy of "is this within the constitution" and along the lines of "touchy feely" notions about what wikipedia is meant to be. It seems to me (if we go the real life equivalent) you're regressing from an open, justified, verifiable process into something along the lines of the old days of secret meetings, lack of accountability and a process open for abuse. There's nothing that separates your technique from the similar real world approaches we have come to frown upon these days (e.g. witch hunts, gestapo, secret police) if you look at it really. I for one do not have any faith or assurances that your technique is anything other than completely opinion based. AGF applies equally to your subjects of investigation/victims as it does to you and when you refuse to explain your process you lose any faith you might have had and quite frankly I don't think your process fits with the "constitution" or "principle" of wikipedia.. Unless you've got some explanation as to why it should be exempt from this underlying principle? NathanLee (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've pledged in future to handle similar cases of this type exactly the way the Runcorn/Poetlister case got handled. I could very easily not tell the community anything at all, forego the feedback of experienced editors who request and review such evidence by e-mail, and sidestep this type of criticism entirely. A likely unintended effect of hyperbolic queries such as this is to encourage other Wikipedians to take an entirely backdoor approach. I suggest the current wording is counterproductive and encourage you to refactor. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think one consequence of your situation will be that people will not take a back door approach because so many people have taken issue with it. History has shown that traditionally the outcome of closed/secretive processes is abuse of the system. I look forward to seeing your, more open, process in future (although I'd just as rather there wasn't the whole ugly process in the first place). I think there really needs to be an elimination of the current backdoor/cabal/whatever approach of getting free and easy access to spy tools, blocks and delete-all-traces functionality. There should be logs of every checkuser, every oversite etc and reasons available for viewing (I think). Anyhow: thanks for your answers and for withstanding a bit of fire thrown on your approach. :) Good luck with the rest of your questions and thanks for answering mine. NathanLee (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

75

You blanked a critical comment about your techniques [8] . Your reason was citing your deduction based on those very same techniques. Do you see a problem/impropriety with removing criticism about a private process using the "results" of that as the reason?

Thank you for the opportunity to address that. The post begins with the words, Durova did the same thing to me the other day when she indefinitely blocked me for being a sockpuppet, so the editor admits to circumventing a block. That much is probably true, but nothing else it alleges is reliable. Notice how it fakes the originating IP signature: formatting the appearance of a four tilde sign by 24.19.33.82 on an edit that actually originates from 24.242.78.69.[9] The claimed address is a static IP, but the one actually in use is a TOR node.[10] We don't even know whether these two IP addresses have been used by the same person. If this was the same person, four different administrators had blocked in the space of two days[11] and nobody had been willing to unblock, so the IP was community banned. A fifth administrator had protected the IP's talk page due to disruption.[12] I was the last administrator to block, and when someone who claimed to be that individual e-mailed me I referred the person to ArbCom or the Foundation. The blanking I performed was compliant with WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. See also Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Open proxies. The person was obviously in violation of multiple policies, the blanking I performed was specifically allowed by policy, and facile claims under these circumstances are not to be taken seriously. Durova^Charge! 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So let's look at user !!: once you banned !! and maybe blocked IP addresses what means of protest or appeal are left open to someone you have banned on your "I really can't say, but just trust me" approach? If they get on TOR to raise the issue: you could blank it and ban them. If they log on as a different user and bring the matter up: you ban them. All on nothing more than your word and your (obviously) imperfect system. A problem no? NathanLee (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, let's not look at that person. I think he's been through enough. Durova^Charge! 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. NathanLee (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. These are challenging questions - exactly the kind of thing I'm glad when people come to me and pose when they have doubts. Thank you for keeping an open mind and asking for my side of things. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification to the above - are you stating that if an IP/User is blocked, and an unblock request is denied, the block then automatically becomes a community ban? Also, can you describe how you verified this person was MyWikiBiz? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when the banning policy statement on community bans was under discussion last spring I strongly opposed that wording. But I got overruled by consensus: when no administrator is willing to unblock then an editor is banned. That's the way the policy reads and I abide by it. And I don't believe I ever claimed the editor NathanLee wants to discuss had any relation to MyWikiBiz. Durova^Charge! 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the block log you cited above [13], you stated in the block summary that's who this was a sock of. I was just hoping you could explain how you determined that. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So you meant a different individual. That person's behavior resembled a Kohs proxy. The IP was so disruptive that five different administrators intervened in the space of two days. I was one of the five. Threaded discussion really isn't appropriate to a candidate question page, and this is tangential to the other editor's questions it follows. I'll move to talk if you wish to discuss it further. Durova^Charge! 03:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have now [unblocked the above IP. Thanks for correcting the error, though I still don't understand what led you to block it to begin with. Anyway, I consider my question answered, thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from JayHenry

76

I do not have time to review the lengthy discussions at ANI and diffs and scattered conversations other places regarding the block of [an established editor -JH]. I have worked with [this editor] since he arrived. And I must be bluntly honest — I have never before seen a block that has so shaken my faith in the project itself. I see in [this editor] many of the contours I see in myself. And Durova, I wonder: Could I wake up one morning, excited to go work on a featured article or a DYK that captured my imagination — and how to put into words the exuberance I often feel when I acquire some piece of knowledge that I want to share to the world? — and, having received not so much as a warning or a communique, find myself blocked indefinitely with no explanation?

I lack [this editor]'s skills. Would anyone even have come to my defense? Are my 4 featured articles and 30 dyks and never having been so much as warned for disruption enough to protect me? I provide this lengthy preamble so you understand where I am coming from, discouraged, newly-jaded, but above all, feeling like a worthless WikiPeasant. (And please understand that I am asking bluntly and honestly, Durova, precisely because I deeply respect you and hope you can, perhaps, comfort me and convince me that my concerns are overwrought, my posturing histrionic.) Or must I assume that all my contributions are meaningless in the face of proprietary software? And am I entitled to merely the most cryptic explanation that can be provided? Do WikiGods need to answer to WikiPeons? Right now, my mouse is hovering over the "Save page" button. You see, I'm truly, honestly, worried that I'll be blocked and reverted for even asking these questions and making this statement; that all my contributions mean nothing; truly wondering if I should accept a peasant destiny, meekly shut up, fall in line, get back to marching lockstep; or, like [him], leave.

As I said, I don't have time to read miles of ANI threads. Can you provide, in one place — here — as full an account of what happened as possible, explain why I need not feel the fear that I feel right now, and explain what will be done to a) correct this situation and b) prevent future situations of this nature from occurring? --JayHenry (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have an eloquent way of putting that and of course I appreciate the concern. Reasoned opposition and challenge is something I value very much: thank you. I would never block an editor in good standing for sharing a legitimate worry, nor for that matter would I exploit someone's spotty block history that way, nor would I manufacture a pretext for blocking in order to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Go ahead and rip into me, and as long as you don't litter the post with profanities you're quite safe. I hope you wouldn't suppose a question like this would ever affect my decisions as an arbitrator either (I've got a couple examples of impartiality if you need them), but you seem to be genuinely worried, so if you wish it I'd recuse myself from cases where you're a named party.

There's a short answer at 58A and a long answer at 73 - the latter I finished composing after you posted this question. Is there anything I can add to that for you? Durova^Charge! 03:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I struck my initial follow up post.[14] It's not that I'm happy, but I don't want to add to drama.

And tomorrow will be a new day. --JayHenry (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to address your remaining concerns. If this is the level where you'd prefer a less out-in-the-open format, then by all means follow up at my talk page, or via e-mail or chat. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 23:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Random832

77

Note: You rejected a question along similar lines, apparently due to the fact that the person who asked it also asked an unrelated question that crossed a line. However, I would like to see this in particular addressed: How do you determine whether a case in which your investigation of a user has led to a block has been a false positive? I don't doubt your intentions, but it seems like you would not have any incentive, or ability, to do so; and that the established user you blocked recently that led to this controversy, would not have ever been unblocked were he not quite so established.—Random832 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, how can anyone be sure that they won't be the next false positive? Without revealing anything specific about your methods, can you provide any assurance that they are (or, if they were not before, that you can change them to be) set up in such a way as to make it absolutely impossible for someone who is not associated with more than one account to accidentally trigger them?—Random832 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This question looks very sincere, and it's troublesome when unfounded criticisms gain traction among Wikipedians in good standing. Take, for example, the passing mention the established user you blocked recently that led to this controversy, would not have ever been unblocked were he not quite so established. Actually the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson case is a strong counterexample. I helped an editor who had a very spotty record, who was angry at me for having blocked him, and who had no one defending his actions. A few minutes after I applied a block on him, the other party to the case got harassed in his user space and someone opened an impersonation account. The timing and target certainly gave the appearance that this fellow had gone on the warpath, but he hadn't, and I was willing to follow the evidence wherever it led. I had already posted evidence to the case that I doubted the other named party was that user's first account, and I requested a checkuser after this incident. Now this editor had some problems of his own, but it turned out he had been the target of a joe job by a long term IP vandal and that other named party in the case was really the reincarnation of a community banned editor. So those two troublemakers got shown the door and the Committee substituted its proposed remedy on the one legitimate editor with a milder remedy. I was under no pressure at all to follow up with that much diligence, but he's got a much better chance of returning to good standing now than he would have if I hadn't intervened. If you want an example of the kind of research and evidence standards I use, have a look at this public example.

I've pledged certain specific changes to reduce the chance of another false positive. Can I make absolutely certain nothing like that will happen again? Of course not. But compare how I handled this to another recent false positive: the block on administrator Orderinchaos that happened because of a checkuser result.[15] Over four hours later the block was lifted by a different administrator. I reversed myself in 75 minutes, extended prompt apologies, and opened my actions to criticism. And believe me, plenty of criticism followed. Can you really ask for more? We're all human and perfection isn't possible. Durova^Charge! 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that rspeer's point below about the prosecutor's fallacy is what I was trying to get at with my suggestion of you possibly lacking the ability to be aware of your false positive rate, and I think I'm satisfied with your answers now.—Random832 16:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

78

I've long heard that no matter what the banning policy says, if Willy on wheels were to return under some other name and start making actual productive content edits (and, not to engage in any page-move vandalism), no-one would ever know or care. What's your opinion on this? If your "sleuthing" managed to uncover that some present-day non-disruptive user was Willy on wheels back in 2004 or whenever it was, what would you do?—Random832 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the questions where established editors often disagree. I prefer legitimate comebacks. One honest way for someone like him to earn clout is to go make a legitimate account at another Wikimedia project where he hasn't been banned, and after he'd established a good track record there ask for reinstatement here. That sort of turnaround doesn't happen very often, but when it does I applaud it. There's an editor at Wikipedia right now whom I'd banned and written up as a long term vandal, who I later brought back and who's editing legitimately on his original account right now. He's earning barnstars, too. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

79

Like JayHenry, I was also worried about unspecified negative consequences for asking questions, and I actually did discard an earlier version of #77. My question here is: Do you feel you are (even unintentionally) an "intimidating presence", and that there may therefore be a systemic bias against any hypothetical Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova? Now, to clarify, I don't think you would actually do anything retaliatory - but do you think the issue of people being unduly intimidated by your (or anyone's, whether you for doing somewhat mysterious investigations, any arbitrator for their status as an arbitrator, or Jimbo for being, well, Jimbo) presence in general is a bias that should be corrected for, and how do you think that can be done?—Random832 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

People are pretty bold about starting admin conduct WP:RFCs. There was even one on Jimbo recently. The best solution to your query I've been able to think of is to make myself open to recall and set the bar very low for a recall vote. If nothing else, it's a good reminder to keep myself honest. I often inform people of that option or invite them to submit arbitration evidence against me if they complain that they think I've acted wrongly. Maybe the reason no one has followed up on the offer is that people mistake candor for reverse psychology. Do you have any suggestions here? Durova^Charge! 00:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Rspeer

80

I understand you can't exactly quantify the rate of false positives in your sleuthing, but it's an important question. So let's get a bit hypothetical.

Suppose you were to thoroughly describe your method of sleuthing to a statistician friend, and he thought about it for a while and told you what he expects your rate of false positives to be. How low would this rate have to be for you to feel confident in recommending to ArbCom that people should be blocked based on your evidence?

Clearly, a .0001% rate of false positives would be a very good method of sleuthing, probably much more reliable than CheckUser, while a 10% rate of false positives would be unacceptable, but where would you draw the line? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If I gave a statistician friend full access to my analytical methods and track record, and asked what he thought, he'd probably tell me to go have a steak and a Guinness. If I explained Wikipedia's inner workings long enough for him to understand what this stuff meant, he'd probably head out to a bar (if any even remained open after the explanation was over) and order two Guinnesses for himself.

First we'd have to establish what constitutes a false positive. When I blocked the JohnEMcClure account as a suspected sockpuppet of JB196, was that a false positive? It was acting like JB196, and at the time I thought it was either him or a proxy. Turned out that account belonged to an administrator, Eyrian, whose behavior became erratic shortly afterward and who hasn't presented any evidence at the arbitration case that resulted. Maybe there's a legitimate explanation for what happened there, but the few statements he did make after the block were contradictory. If something develops in that case (it's open) I may have to append this answer. Here's a link to the evidence page. Make up your own mind. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Evidence

I know that some of the people who've been banned use proxy editing, TOR nodes, and role accounts. I also know that even when they're nailed with rock solid evidence, they often continue to make denials. Rather than engage in endless conjecture about which banned editor is responsible for some obviously disruptive sock, the best solution is to use common sense: if an editor's appeal seems credible, I give them a fair chance. Here's an example where I lifted a block after three other administrators had upheld it - the block itself wasn't mine and everyone acted in good faith. And here's the only other recent example I can think of where one of my blocks was completely unmerited. Normally this gets resolved swiftly with no drama.

I hope that's an adequate reply to your question? Durova^Charge! 01:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't. I need a quantifiable answer, and hand-waving it away with a few specific anecdotes isn't reassuring. But I probably won't get much more of an answer unless I explain why I'm asking.

I'm trying to see if you're taking the prosecutor's fallacy into account. I believe you may not be, because you apparently aren't thinking of your sleuthing in quantitative terms. If you just think about your evidence intuitively, you are almost certain to fall for the prosecutor's fallacy. Even medical doctors, who are often taught to be careful of this fallacy, tend to fall for it when diagnosing rare diseases.

So, I'll re-ask the question, and now you even know that I'm trying to make sure you correct for the prosecutor's fallacy. If you could find out for sure your rate of false positives -- I don't know, maybe God tells it to you, and God even cuts you some slack and considers you to be correct in borderline cases like an admin acting strangely -- what would be an acceptably low rate to you? And can you assure us that your sleuthing is at least that accurate? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the prosecutor's fallacy. Or in other words, given a sufficiently large sample, just about any darn thing can happen. Yes, a valid point well taken. Whenever possible I find actual smoking guns. You'd be surprised how often they exist. Usually it's just a matter at parsing the evidence closely enough. I recognize that circumstantial cases are open to that weakness so when I need to build one I'm as careful as possible, for precisely the reasons you mention. Durova^Charge! 07:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Bfigura

81

If elected to ArbCom, would you continue to use confidential evidence in order to seek out disruptive editors while serving? (I'm assuming arguendo that the community's concerns over confidential evidence have been already addressed by this point). If so (and I think you've stated somewhere in the !! thread that you would, please correct me if I'm wrong), how should an appeal resulting from such a block be handled? My worry is that it could be difficult for members of ArbCom to neutrally review a block that they had approved. How do you think such issues should be handled? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As explained in question 1, independent investigations will be neither my first nor my second priority as an arbitrator. I expect to do less of that work due to time constraints. The normal route of appeal to any ArbCom decision is the Wikimedia Foundation. That will be the same whether I'm an arbitrator or not because I've pledged to route all such investigations through the Committee formally in the future. Durova^Charge! 06:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did overlook #1. And I'm aware of the ability to go to Jimbo/foundation, my concern is simply that if another user is accidentally blocked, but on an ArbCom level, the likely response would be for that user to leave (given how intimidating such a block would be). But rather than continue a threaded discussion, let me ask another question (if this isn't getting too repetitive :). --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose every ArbCom action is equally open to that criticism. I've always been proactive about reversing my own decisions when significant new information comes to light. People who just approach me reasonably fare quite well; I don't bite. Durova^Charge! 07:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

82

You've mentioned that you don't think investigations would be your primary (or even secondary task) if elected, but that you would run them by other arbitrators. Would these findings be made public (to the extent possible) in keeping with transparency? Also, since these investigations would be effectively started and conducted solely within ArbCom, would you propose changes to ArbCom's scope to include investigation? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To the extent feasible I always favor openness. Arbitrators undertake all sorts of activity as regular Wikipedians, so I don't see a need for the body's scope to change. Good question. Durova^Charge! 07:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Lawrence Cohen

83

Given the ongoing heated debate over your incorrect block of User:!!, and the effect its having here on this page of question, would you be willing to disclose to what administrators you have shared private information about User:!!? Just the names. I ask as this question has been asked of you now by more than half a dozen individuals so far, and seems to be a major bone of contention. Allowing others to simply ask these administrators directly: "Was it good evidence, at first glance?" would go a long way to convince me to vote for you. If the given admins that confirm they saw the data and agreed that based on the evidence you mailed them (because apparently, other evidence came out after the fact) the block was good, I would support your run for ArbCom. I'm concerned though, as I'm sure others are, that without this 3rd party confirmation about the materials you sent, that myself and others are concerned about your actions.

If you are unwilling to disclose the names of who you mailed them to, I ask that you verify how many people saw the data. If its a situation where you are unable to disclose this info, for some other reason (Did the admins who saw the data ask to not be named? etc), please disclose that reason. I can't imagine that disclosing the names of the admins should be an issue, however, as admins are trusted, and would not disclose any private information hopefully about !!. Thanks, and keep up the good work. • Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your curiosity is understandable. Future investigations will be handled differently through better procedures, so I hope what follows is sufficient: roughly two dozen people received the report. Those included people from the Foundation, and some (not all) members of ArbCom, and some people who had checkuser privileges. I did not run this through the Committee formally and received no explicit assurance that any checkuser had been run. I discussed the investigation in depth with roughly five people, all sleuths like myself. The information was actually very simple to disprove with one key fact one fact. None of the people who responded had access to that key fact. The responses I did receive ranged from positive to enthusiastic. I'm certain we all would have changed our minds immediately if that key information had been available to us. I'd really rather not name these people, because that would just cause them hassle and ultimately the responsibility for the decision rests with me. The buck stops here. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to ask these people if they objected to being named? My last question. I can appreciate your wanting to take full responsibility, but I think all the heat from reading that discussion page is exactly because of the ongoing way in which people aren't getting to see what happened entirely. Thank you! • Lawrence Cohen 18:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If they offer, I will. I don't think it's right for me to pressure anybody just to take the heat off a bad call I made. Scanning the threads about that, I see a lot of usernames that probably made up their minds long before this happened. A few I've barely interacted with, and a few disapppointments. Or as Louis Armstrong once said, There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them. Durova^Charge! 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Giano

84

Who were these people who approved the block of !!? You can name them, they can hold their own hands up or I will do it for them. I think it is better comming from you or them. Giano (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See question 83. Durova^Charge! 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not number me, I am not in some army camp! Please do not refer me to some other number either. This is your opportunity to become a member of the Arbcom not design a government form to assess my suitability for state welfare. Oh and having fully read your evidence no I am not part of some plot co-ordinated on "Wikipedia Review" to overthrow Jimbo and take over the world or as your evidence states:- "Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range sarcasm and troublemaking": [16] Giano (talk 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'd rather see other candidates on the Committee, by all means vote for them. Durova^Charge! 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Snickersnee

85

Hello Durova, thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration. In a previous entry (#74) you were asked: "Do you consider these secret/closed or "back room" processes as consistent with the "open" Wikipedia project?" After asking for and receiving further clarification, you respond (in part): "I could very easily not tell the community anything at all, forego the feedback of experienced editors who request and review such evidence by e-mail, and sidestep this type of criticism entirely. A likely unintended effect of hyperbolic queries such as this is to encourage other Wikipedians to take an entirely backdoor approach. I suggest the current wording is counterproductive and encourage you to refactor."

1) Do you really assert that you could "very easily" avoid criticism in such a manner? If yes, do you feel that this indicates a healthy environment consistent with the goal of creating an encyclopedia?

2) I am unable to interpret your reponse as anything other than an attempt to rebuff a question concerning inadequate transparency with a transparent threat that asking such questions will result in even less accountability, and that you suffer impertinence solely at your discretion. Can you help me to reframe your answer in a manner more consistent with assuming good faith?

The reply was intended respectfully. Consider the Runcorn/Poetlister case.[17] If I hadn't stepped forward and said that I had been one of the investigators, then the community would not have been able to question me. I was under no obligation to speak up after the Committee made a decision. What I do mean by the statement you quote is it's very reasonable to suppose other Wikipedians get discouraged from stepping forward after they watch the hostile criticism I face for being as candid as possible. Is that really the kind of environment you want to foster? Durova^Charge! 05:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

86

In the AN/I subthread discussing your most recent (?) erroneous block, another contributor stated: "The fact that Durova is allowing discussion without blocking non-admins who comment earns her a barnstar." I responded that: "I find it impossible to convince myself that you're serious, yet I'm mesmerized by the possibility", and opined that such an award would be impossible to give away. Another user concurred that this would indeed be "a low bar for barnstars". Evidently I was wrong, and your barnstar page now proudly includes an award (placed there by you) proclaiming: "Awarded to Durova for her recognition of transparency and oversight. Rather than being a hothead admin and banning people based on whim, she opened herself to ridicule and attack by discussing a block on ANI on or around 17 November 2007. This selfless action improves the integrity and ethics of wikipedia as well as being a good reflection on her character."

1) Is this irony? Or do you honestly consider that refraining from whimsically banning legitimate criticism is indicative of integrity and ethics?

2) In a previous question (#73) considering this very topic, of which that AN/I is a part, you conclude your response by linking to that very barnstar page as a demonstration of the high esteem in which your efforts are held by the community. Given that the conflict itself originated from your apparently overzealous ban of an exemplary contributor, of which that thread was a discussion, what message do you intend your critics to infer from this?

Everyone makes mistakes. How do we handle them? I had acted in good faith, but I was wrong. So I corrected the mistake promptly, extended apologies, and shouldered full responsibility. I also pledged improvements. Do you think that's the right way to to make amends for a mistake? The person who awarded that barnstar thought so. In the spirit of WP:AGF, let's learn the lessons this can teach us and move on. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cryptic

87

As you are aware, your fellow candidates Giano II and Physchim62 both called for your recall as an administrator on the ANI subpage discussed by your last several questioners. In the event that both you and one (or both) of them are appointed to the committee, do you anticipate being able to work amicably and productively with them? —Cryptic 04:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

On my side, certainly. Here are examples:

• About three weeks ago I helped protect Physchim62 from a possible impersonation attack. See User_talk:Physchim62#Is_this_really_yours.3F. The other day when discussions onsite turned hot I extended this olive branch to him.
• Giano II and I have rarely interacted. When I saw that he was unhappy today I extended several overtures[18][19][20][21] and requested that a couple of editors who had been defending me make good faith strikethroughs of their comments. I hoped the gesture would help mend fences.[22][23]
• On other occasions I've settled differences with editors after we had been on different sides of the fence. Here's a barnstar I awarded to an editor after a hard journey through arbitration and here's a yeoman editor service badge I gave to an editor I had formerly banned and listed as a long term vandal. He returned a wikismile the other day.

We're all doing our best here. None of us are perfect. I'm not one to hold grudges. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Father Goose

88

If, as you said in your response to question 73, "[The sockpuppets] actually spend weeks or months doing hundreds of useful edits in order to seem legitimate," why is it so vital to track them down and ban them? Are they somehow causing more disruption than improvement? And is the disruption itself somehow difficult to identify and remedy? I have my fears that too much energy is being expended to address a problem that might have only limited actual negative impact on Wikipedia, and that this is drifting into the realm of personal crusade. Given the nastiness over at ED and elsewhere, I can understand why that might happen, and I sympathize -- but how much is Wikipedia benefitting from the pursuit of this fight?--Father Goose (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid concern and a good question. They are causing much more disruption than improvement. Lid's evidence about the Burntsauce account at the Alkivar case is a good example. Lid provides step-by-step demonstrations of how the long term Burntsauce sock tag teamed with throwaway sockpuppets of long term vandal JB196 and an administrator gone bad. What these people did in all six examples is delete material from articles through forceful and out-of-process means, and literally hundreds of articles were damaged by this particular team. The harm is not easy to reverse. Durova^Charge! 08:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate

89

Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 11:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Smoke from two of the California wildfires last month. When I shot this I had 40 liters of water and a week's worth of food in the car. Mandatory evacuations occurred just a few miles away.

After the blazes: a sign of support from friends in front of a home that burned to the foundation.

It isn't a pleasant topic, but I was in a position to upload a few dozen photographs from last month's California wildfires to commons. Most of the pics from emergency shelters were my work, as well as the first shots of actual damage. These were not easy events to document: I very nearly had to evacuate from my own home and spent several days volunteering in the relief. In the actual burn zones the smell was overwhelming and left me ill afterward. I thought it was important to have free licensed images that documented the disaster. Durova^Charge! 02:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional Question from jd2718

90

Your current RfC and likely-to-be-accepted Arbitration. Do you feel it would be unseemly for respected editors with an interest in the issues raised to withhold comment? Do you feel it would be unseemly for respected editors who are currently candidates for ArbCom to participate? Jd2718 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself: the RFAR opened mere hours after the RFC got certified. I had been planning to spend the holiday weekend on wikibreak. So I hadn't had much time to respond. I hope it is the Committee's wish to resolve the matter swiftly and with dignity. If that's the case I applaud their decision. I have always welcomed ArbCom's scrutiny. Other editors may respond as their conscience dictates. Durova^Charge! 02:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Marskell

91

Hello Durova. Two questions.

At your RfC I asked: if we accept that robust investigation of possible sockpuppets is necessary and that, sometimes, so is secrecy, why Durova? Who exactly approves "sleuths"? Why, if I'm on equal footing with you as an admin, should I accept a "sorry, I can't tell" regarding evidence for a block? Honestly, you speak with a strange sense of entitlement. From above, "I could very easily not tell the community anything at all..." Really? Why exactly? That comment only makes sense from Jimbo. Perhaps I'm being picky, but even "Your curiosity is understandable. Future investigations will be handled differently through better procedures..." sounds incredibly imperious to me. You're a Wikipedia editor, not the Secretary of State.

Relatedly, this candidacy is almost certainly going to fail, given recent events. We can accept that ArbCom has the right to sleuth, but it's not clear on what authority others can. Assuming you continue sleuthing as just another admin, what process would you suggest for approving admins blocking on confidential evidence? Marskell (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

One last question from Lawrence Cohen

92

Hi Durova, on your current pending recall RFC, the following was just highlighted, which I missed on reading this very page. You wrote:

"And my super-secret sockpuppet mole that infiltrated Wikipedia Review's inner circle and has been forwarding their private mailing list to ArbCom. We're picking off the members one by one. ;)"

You posted that here. Is this true? Is infiltrating outside websites, communities, and groups within the purview of Wikipedia...? • Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Farcical. I winked. Durova^Charge! 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, just wanted to make sure, given how odd this has all seemed. • Lawrence Cohen 06:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)