Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Richwales/Questions
Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.
Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.
General questions
[edit]- Skills and experience:
- a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
- Over seven years as a Wikipedian. Lots of experience with collaborative effort, especially during the several-months-long process of getting United States v. Wong Kim Ark to Featured Article status. Ability to read and comprehend lengthy pieces of prose.
- b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
- October/November 2012: Uninvolved statement in an amendment request regarding tagging of suspected sockpuppet accounts.
October 2012: Uninvolved statement in a clarification request regarding civility enforcement.
July 2012: Initiated a clarification request seeking a broadening of the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions to cover Cyprus.
August 2011: Named as involved, and participated in discussion, on a DRN complaint about alleged POV editing at Ralph Nader.
July 2011: Uninvolved statement in the Cirt and Jayen466 arbitration case.
May 2011: Initiated an RfC/U on an editor who was editing tendentiously and disruptively at Natural-born-citizen clause.
August 2010: Requested assistance on an ongoing content dispute at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences.
- October/November 2012: Uninvolved statement in an amendment request regarding tagging of suspected sockpuppet accounts.
- a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
- Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
- It would depend, in my view, on the attitude and cluefulness of the editor(s) involved. Sanctions against Wikipedia editors are intended to be preventative, not punitive (see WP:PUNITIVE) — and if someone understands the problem with his misbehaviour and makes an honest effort to change for the better, we should not lower the boom just for the sake of it. Of course, if a problem has lasted long enough and/or gone deep enough that ArbCom has to get involved, it's likely to be too late for a simple change of mind/heart, and more drastic steps will probably be necessary. And in some particularly serious situations, it may be necessary to sanction an editor even if he does understand the problem and resolves to change, in order to make sure he (and the community) really do realize the seriousness of the problem, and so that people do not get the wrong idea and think a lenient ArbCom ruling means the issue really wasn't that bad and that others can expect to get away with an "admonition" for doing the same thing.
- ArbCom Practices:
- a) ArbCom and policies:
- i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
- The Arbitration Committee's responsibility is not to make/change policy, but rather to resolve otherwise intractable disputes that have descended into the realm of alleged user misconduct. If ArbCom were to be presented with a situation in which policy was unclear or seemed to force an undesirable result, the only appropriate course of action would be for the Committee to rule on the situation as best it could within the bounds of existing policy; point out the problem (possibly suggesting solutions, possibly not); and then leave it to the community (or, in very restricted cases, the WMF) to decide what sort of policy modifications, if any, might be called for.
- ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
- The Five Pillars are a reasonable restatement of Wikipedia's guiding principles and the reasoning behind them. I don't see any real problem with citing something in the Five Pillars if that is the most effective way to get a point across regarding policy. If a case hinges on a precise interpretation of a policy, of course, then we should go directly to the policy itself, rather than use a secondary document.
- iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
- Biographical articles (or biographical references in articles in general) can easily give rise to disputes, in large part because the 3RR exemptions in the Edit Warring policy say that reverting material that violates the BLP policy is exempt from 3RR. At the same time, interpretation of this exemption can be controversial (a fact recognized both in the BLP policy and the 3RR exemptions), and it is largely because of this issue that editors are encouraged to report BLP problems to the relevant noticeboard rather than waging what could superficially appear to be an edit war.
When a dispute of this sort rises to a level requiring enforcement action (either by an admin or by ArbCom), there is always a danger that the true culprit(s) may escape notice and attention may instead be focussed on the editor who was trying to uphold policy. This is not unlike the classic school playground situation where a bully starts a fight with an innocent party, and a teacher turns around and happens to notice the kid being picked on swinging at the bully, and the victim ends up being punished and the bully gets away with it because no one was willing to take the extra effort to determine what led up to the incident. In any dispute, it's always important to look at the entire situation, not just at the tail end. This doesn't require changes to policy or imposing content decisions, but it does require a careful, non-superficial examination of what happened, why it happened, and what really needs to be done to prevent its happening again.
- Biographical articles (or biographical references in articles in general) can easily give rise to disputes, in large part because the 3RR exemptions in the Edit Warring policy say that reverting material that violates the BLP policy is exempt from 3RR. At the same time, interpretation of this exemption can be controversial (a fact recognized both in the BLP policy and the 3RR exemptions), and it is largely because of this issue that editors are encouraged to report BLP problems to the relevant noticeboard rather than waging what could superficially appear to be an edit war.
- i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
- b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
- There isn't an easy solution to this problem (or else it would have been resolved long ago). I do personally believe the community should seriously consider establishing a procedure for binding resolution of content disputes — but this needs to be done by the community, not imposed by ArbCom, because that's not what ArbCom has been set up to do. If the community were to decide that binding resolution of content disputes should be added to the current remit of ArbCom, then it would obviously be proper for ArbCom to get involved — but not otherwise.
- c) ArbCom and motions:
- i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
- A motion is a means for the Committee to reach a decision without going through the normal process of a full case. Per the introduction to the Clarification and Amendment page, a "clarification" request asks for further guidance or clarification about an existing, completed ArbCom decision, and an "amendment" request asks for an amendment, extension, or removal of previously imposed sanctions.
A straightforward amendment or clarification to a case may appropriately be handled by a motion, but anything complicated should really be dealt with via the normal case mechanism.
I should mention here that I asked ArbCom last July to pass a motion stating that the existing Balkans discretionary sanctions should be understood as including Cyprus; the Committee members were divided on this idea, and in the end they voted 7-4 not to make this "clarification" / "change" without a case.
One obstacle I see to asking ArbCom to open a case is that cases are supposed to be about serious user conduct problems — thus, I feel there is an underlying feeling on the part of the community that whenever ArbCom takes a case, at least one head will definitely roll — and as a result, some issues that ArbCom really ought to consider don't get brought up because the editor who might otherwise request a case doesn't want to risk being sanctioned. I'm not sure whether the best way to handle this problem (if, indeed, people agree that it is a problem) is to expand the use of motions, or expand the scope of cases to cover situations that probably aren't drastic enough to warrant significant sanctions but simply require a fine-tuning of people's expectations.
- A motion is a means for the Committee to reach a decision without going through the normal process of a full case. Per the introduction to the Clarification and Amendment page, a "clarification" request asks for further guidance or clarification about an existing, completed ArbCom decision, and an "amendment" request asks for an amendment, extension, or removal of previously imposed sanctions.
- ii) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
- It isn't ArbCom's place to establish policy or overrule the community. So, unless the Committee's remit is expanded, I would say the answer here would be "no".
- iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
- Appropriate:
- "The Troubles" (Northern Ireland conflict) clarification request (September 2012): Formalizing "Mandated External Review" as a form of discretionary sanction. This may prove to be a helpful way to deal with content disputes without having ArbCom itself try to settle such disputes.
- "WP:AC/DS" (Discretionary sanctions) clarification request (May 2012): Clarifying that warnings of the existence of discretionary sanctions (as opposed to blocks for violations) can be provided by any user, not solely by an uninvolved administrator.
- Possibly inappropriate:
- "WP:ARBPIA" (Palestinian-Israeli conflict) 1RR clarification request (March 2012): I find this issue disturbing because of the suggestion that IP editors working on the affected articles are particularly suspicious and may have their edits reverted on sight, more or less as if they were vandalism.
- i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
- d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
- i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee? ii) If the answer to any part of (i) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
- I would certainly prefer not to keep that sort of information in my e-mail. I would prefer to see this kind of data kept in a safe central place (such as a secure wiki with limited access), be accessible only to arbitrators and those working with them who absolutely need to know, and to have the information expunged (oversighted) after a case is over, unless it's something that is clearly likely to be needed again later — similarly to what I understand is already done with CU data. I understand this idea was proposed last year, but that there were problems and it didn't get implemented. Without discounting the expertise of the people who saw difficulties, I'd like to see the issue reinvestigated.
- iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
- I would prefer to see as much discussion take place on-wiki as reasonably possible. However, I recognize that some discussions — especially those which involve (or could come to involve) sensitive info — may need to be handled in other ways.
- iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
- Virtually all of the current arbs who commented on this same question during last year's election agreed that not much different could have been done, and that hindsight in matters like this is 20/20. The only real thing to do is to have as good a security plan as you reasonably can, and always be careful.
- v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
- For better or worse, my identity is already reasonably well known.
- vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?
- I'd like to say (in the interests of transparency) that involved users, and the community, should always be able to see evidence that would affect them. While there may be instances (such as when CU data or real-world identities are involved) where this simply is not possible, I would prefer these sorts of things to be kept to an absolute minimum.
- i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee? ii) If the answer to any part of (i) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
- e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
- I believe this position ought to be reconsidered. While ArbCom decisions do not make, change, or override policy, they are a potentially valuable body of considered judgment as to how to interpret and apply the policies. To that end, I would like to see a comprehensive, up-to-date index of ArbCom decisions; cross-referencing from policies and guidelines to any ArbCom decisions that have applied them; and if a new ArbCom decision does discard a principle set forth in some earlier decision, this fact should be acknowledged and explained as appropriate.
- a) ArbCom and policies:
- Division of responsibilities:
- a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
- I'm not sure there is much room for either expanding or contracting the remit of the WMF. The WMF is, I believe, unlikely to be interested in taking on any of ArbCom's current job; and by its nature, the WMF must reserve to itself the ability to impose crucially necessary changes via Office Actions. It might be possible for ArbCom to be given an increased role, overlapping that of WMF, to police "defamation, privacy violations and copyright infringement" issues, but this would require agreement by the community.
- b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
- As I said earlier — see my answer to 3(b) — I believe Wikipedia would benefit from an entity which was tasked with issuing binding decisions on otherwise intractable content disputes. Whether that responsibility should be given to ArbCom or be vested in a new committee is, I would say, up to the community to decide.
- a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
- Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
- a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
- Indeed. I have known my share of editors who insistently promote one viewpoint, defy everyone who disagrees with them on the grounds that "consensus cannot override policy", and do it without ever uttering a cross word — but will be quick to report anyone else for incivility who gets frustrated at this manner of acting and lashes out. Indeed (as NuclearWarfare pointed out in an essay last year), this sort of problem illustrates the need for some mechanism for explicitly handling entrenched content disputes — whether via an expansion of ArbCom's responsibilities, or by forming a new, parallel committee.
- b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
- See subpoint (d) below.
- c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
- I believe we have a great need for good contributors. Some, however, get discouraged and leave (or never really join our ranks in the first place) — whether because they can't stand dealing with disruptive editing, or because our content policies seem too complicated and strange, or because they can't deal with the intricacies of wiki markup, or for a host of other reasons.
- d) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Ought the committee be concerned about any evidence of factionalism, or is the principle of WP:CONSENSUS sufficient for any article dispute, whether a "faction" is present or not? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, is the proper course of action elimination of such a faction, or ought the decision be aimed at reducing the size of such a faction on any given article or articles?
- "Factionalism" can take many guises — sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, a tag-team working together to monopolize an article, or even a completely unrelated set of editors who all happen to share a common POV (think WP:DUCK, but with multiple separate individuals from the same species of duck). If an article is being disrupted by the actions of a faction (or of multiple factions working against each other), a naïve application of WP:CONSENSUS is not going to be enough to fix the problem. Editors need to be reminded (possibly forcibly) that WP:NPOV on the English Wikipedia does not mean "majority rules", and that a majority can not insist on inserting or barring a viewpoint just because they like or don't like it. Even without expanding ArbCom's remit to allow handling of content disputes, it is still possible to accomplish a lot by requiring users to work together (or else banning them from the topic or from the site).
- a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
- Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
- More successfully handled:
- TimidGuy ban appeal (no one is above the rules regarding civil conduct, not even long-time valued contributors)
- Falun Gong 2 (opposing factions in a political dispute must cooperate to achieve a balanced and neutral result)
- GoodDay (edit warring is unacceptable even if an editor is convinced he is right and others are wrong)
- Less successfully handled:
- Civility enforcement (extremely divisive case involving a prolific contributor — probably a no-win situation for ArbCom)
- Muhammad images (heard only after situation became a conduct issue, since ArbCom can't consider content disputes)
- Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
- As I already stated, I would push for a project to index and cross-reference ArbCom cases with each other and with their associated policies / guidelines. I would seek to make ArbCom more approachable, so that users with intermediate-level concerns can feel more comfortable bringing these up without fear of getting bitten. I would push for a review of security for whatever private data must be available to ArbCom. And I would do whatever is reasonably possible to encourage a community initiative to address the issue of serious content disputes.
Individual questions
[edit]Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#Question:
#:A:
Questions from Rschen7754
[edit]I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.
The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.
- What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
- I really can't see why that case could possibly have taken over two months to wrap up. And after perusing the answers made to this same question last year by current arbitrators, I appear to be in good company as regards this opinion.
- What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
- It's a mechanism for editors who share an interest in a topic area (as opposed to a single individual article) to collaborate, setting goals and common standards. A successful WikiProject requires editors who are committed to keeping the project data up to date and encouraging people to work productively on articles. I've seen some very successful WikiProjects, and some totally useless WikiProjects.
- Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
- It's natural that when someone puts a lot of work into an article or subject area — especially if they have been an expert in that area since before they get involved here on Wikipedia — they are going to feel some natural sense of ownership of their work and will be suspicious of people who show up from out of nowhere and start
messing upcontributing to their masterpiece. The solution, in my view, needs to be a combination of experienced editors understanding that no one "owns" any article and that other editors wanting to contribute are entitled to respect, and users who are new to a topic area respecting the work that has already been done (especially if an article is a Featured Article and has therefore already been through an intensive vetting process) and making improvements in a way that won't just leave the original article in tatters. This is not to say that a main contributor to an article can't keep an eye on it, and even revert changes made by others, but he needs to justify his actions with clear reasons (and not simply try to shoo the bothersome interlopers away).
- It's natural that when someone puts a lot of work into an article or subject area — especially if they have been an expert in that area since before they get involved here on Wikipedia — they are going to feel some natural sense of ownership of their work and will be suspicious of people who show up from out of nowhere and start
- Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
- If unforeseen real-life circumstances demanded so much of my time that I realized I could no longer function on the Committee and hold up my share of the load. Or if some serious incident took place which made it clear that I had lost the trust and confidence of the rest of ArbCom, and/or of the user community. I don't currently expect either of these things to happen, of course, or else I wouldn't be here now.
- a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
- Sometimes, though not always. It's possible for one user to be goaded and worked up to frustrated outbursts by the actions of another. It's possible for two firebrands to shoot their figurative flame throwers at each other without much provocation. And it's also possible for one disruptive, tendentious user to make life miserable for others who are trying to work within the policies, remain calm, and accomplish constructive things. Each case is different. In the first case, I hope I can see the complete picture, lay the primary blame where it rightly belongs, and not come down too hard on the victim of the bullying (see my comment above about how a schoolyard bully sometimes escapes punishment, while his victim is blamed because his violent reaction was all anyone in authority noticed).
- ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
- There are always (or, at least, usually) grey areas. It's necessary to look at the whole situation, determine who is on which side (and in the case of an admin, whether he is truly uninvolved), and deal with it appropriately. As far as ArbCom's acting on a admin abuse case on its own initiative, without waiting for someone else to lay an accusation, I'm not comfortable with that approach because it suggests that ArbCom should be actively monitoring the project looking for ne'er-do-wells — something which is not the Committee's job. Of course, if I were chosen for ArbCom and happened to notice a case of admin abuse, I would presumably report it (though I would then have to recuse myself if and when the matter reached arbitration).
- What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically,
- a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp?
- ArbCom has jurisdiction only over the English Wikipedia — not other wikis. Rare situations could possibly arise where something happening on another wiki has an impact here — e.g., if a foreign-language counterpart of an article here were so egregiously libellous as to raise a question of whether we could still interwiki-link to it without violating WP:BLP — and in such cases, it's slightly possible that ArbCom might feel a need to get involved in some way — though even then, probably all ArbCom could really do would be to politely advise admins on the other wiki of our concerns and leave it to them to do, or not do, whatever they felt was appropriate. Certainly, any attempt by our ArbCom to "censor" another wiki, apply undue pressure on another wiki to ban a user who has been banned here, etc., is extremely likely to be perceived as censorship by "ugly Big Brother", and very unlikely to end well.
For what it may be worth, I was involved in just this sort of situation recently (with one of the Barack Obama articles and its counterpart on the French Wikipedia), and the upshot was that there just isn't any community consensus for us at en.wiki to examine the content of a foreign-language counterpart article for compliance with NPOV, BLP, or anything else, and that we should just go ahead and interwiki-link to it regardless.
- ArbCom has jurisdiction only over the English Wikipedia — not other wikis. Rare situations could possibly arise where something happening on another wiki has an impact here — e.g., if a foreign-language counterpart of an article here were so egregiously libellous as to raise a question of whether we could still interwiki-link to it without violating WP:BLP — and in such cases, it's slightly possible that ArbCom might feel a need to get involved in some way — though even then, probably all ArbCom could really do would be to politely advise admins on the other wiki of our concerns and leave it to them to do, or not do, whatever they felt was appropriate. Certainly, any attempt by our ArbCom to "censor" another wiki, apply undue pressure on another wiki to ban a user who has been banned here, etc., is extremely likely to be perceived as censorship by "ugly Big Brother", and very unlikely to end well.
- b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
- I would say no, since the general rule (as I understand it) is that ArbCom is supposed to consider only evidence presented on-wiki (meaning on the English Wikipedia).
- a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp?
- What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
- This article did, admittedly, give me pause. I've already had some measure of fame/notoriety on USENET and the Internet, and there are probably more than a few disgruntled types who wouldn't mind hacking me if they could. In the end, I decided long ago that I couldn't live in fear of what others might do. I will say, though, that this article gave me some more insights on personal networking security, and without going into specifics, I will be improving my act in some ways.
- If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
- Definitely yes.
Thank you. Rschen7754 06:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is a pretty simple question, but why do you wish to serve on the committee?
- A: I want to help this project grow and succeed in whatever way I reasonably can, and I believe I can make a valuable contribution by helping resolve disputes so that editors will be free to work constructively on hard topics.
- First off, thank you for running. My question is: How familiar are you with the Committee's existing policies and procedures, and what suggestions would you have for improving them for smoother operation? SirFozzie (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- A: I believe I'm reasonably familiar with the externally visible aspects of ArbCom's operation. I don't know very much at this time about the Committee's internal procedures, so I can't say much about these yet. One thing I would want to encourage (don't know how easy this would be) is that people offering statements or evidence in a case should provide a workable summary of their main point(s) in the first sentence or two of whatever they write.
- In your own words, please define a Wikipedian. Leaky Caldron 13:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- A: Any user who is making a genuine attempt to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Per WP:AGF, we should assume anyone editing here deserves the "Wikipedian" label until and unless their conduct conclusively proves otherwise. It should normally be possible to deal with user conduct disputes without any need for in-depth discussion of whether a given individual is, or is not, truly a "Wikipedian".
Questions from The Devil's Advocate
[edit]- How would you define "civil POV-pushing" and what would you examine to determine if there has been civil POV-pushing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- The "Civil POV pushing" essay (WP:PUSH) defines this sort of misbehaviour as involving single-purpose account users who push incessantly for material giving undue weight to fringe theories, supported by questionable sources, and arguing with anyone who disagrees with them, but without crossing the line into uncivil activity.
In my own opinion, the WP:PUSH essay makes some useful points, but some of its proposed remedies (such as appointing "lead editors" for problematic topic areas, and splitting the NPOV policy into separate "sourcing" and "proportional weighting" policies) are problematic. The "civil POV pushing" problem has been around for a long time, and many people have tried to tackle it without success, so it isn't really surprising to me that it remains unresolved.
- The "Civil POV pushing" essay (WP:PUSH) defines this sort of misbehaviour as involving single-purpose account users who push incessantly for material giving undue weight to fringe theories, supported by questionable sources, and arguing with anyone who disagrees with them, but without crossing the line into uncivil activity.
- Do you believe that you have been sufficiently responsive when your use of the tools has been challenged?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you're talking about cases where someone has accused me of abusing admin powers — such as blocking or protecting over an issue where I am involved in order to get my own way in a dispute, or simply using my admin abilities in a thoughtless and irresponsible manner — I honestly can't identify any specific example of this having happened. If you're aware of a situation where you feel this has happened, please give me the specifics and I'll try to address the matter.
As for cases where someone has criticized something I did which did not involve the admin tools (but which they still felt was improper and might have reflected badly on the general role of an admin), I always try to explain my actions and to try to understand where the other person is coming from — e.g., the time I gave templated edit-warring warnings to everyone involved in a fracas, and one of them objected per the "Don't Template the Regulars" essay — or any of the several times when one of my reverts was challenged by someone who didn't understand or accept principles like NPOV or "no edit warring, even when you think you're right and the other guy is wrong". Many times, acting calmly and with a willingness to hear the other person's side of the matter can work wonders — though, admittedly and regrettably, sometimes it doesn't.
- If you're talking about cases where someone has accused me of abusing admin powers — such as blocking or protecting over an issue where I am involved in order to get my own way in a dispute, or simply using my admin abilities in a thoughtless and irresponsible manner — I honestly can't identify any specific example of this having happened. If you're aware of a situation where you feel this has happened, please give me the specifics and I'll try to address the matter.
- How strictly would you interpret administrative involvement?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- As an administrator, I am expected to avoid acting as an admin in any area where I have participated in a nontrivial way in discussion or editing. The Involved Admins policy does contain some exceptions where an admin may act without branding himself as "involved", but these exceptions need to be interpreted narrowly. There is definitely no excuse for using admin rights in order to get one's own way in a dispute.
- In respect to your comment about other projects, Wikimedia Commons is one site where content present there may also be used here. Do you believe the Committee should consider conduct on another project when content from that project is used here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've worked with Commons to some extent (as an ordinary user submitting material there), and I'm satisfied that Commons is being run responsibly. In general, if the consensus at Commons is that an image is acceptable, I believe that should be good enough for us here at Wikipedia. Of course, if we notice what seems to be a problem with material from Commons, we shouldn't hesitate to report it to the Commons people. For example, some months ago, I saw someone add portrait photos to a group of biographical articles; I was suspicious about the provenance of these pictures and posted a questioning note to the editor, but he insisted they must be OK because they were properly licensed at Commons. Then I reported it to Commons, and it wasn't long before the whole batch of photos were taken down on the grounds that they were really copyrighted and the original contributor had (unwittingly? uncaringly? maybe even maliciously?) specified an inappropriate licence when the photos were uploaded to Commons in the first place. The point is, though, that I would work with the Commons people (whom I consider to be conscientious and dependable).
Questions from AlexandrDmitri
[edit]- How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
- My first impression is that if a sitting arb needs to take a lengthy, possibly open-ended absence, he should probably offer to resign, and a replacement should be found. There are lots of issues here, though — is it really feasible to identify a replacement and get them appointed? — should the absent arb be offered a place on the Committee once he is able to return? — should we, perhaps, have two or three "alternate" or "reserve" arbitrators (in addition to the standard 15) who would come into play only when regular arbs are on leave or recuse themselves? — so the entire question should probably be studied and discussed at greater length.
- Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team? Why?
- Forgive me, but I don't understand what you are asking here — or if, perhaps, you are asking me to comment on several separate issues. Please clarify.
- Which of the internal teams do you feel is the best fit for you, and why? --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- After reviewing the description of the internal teams, I would say I probably have aptitude for the incoming mail team and the technical team. On the other hand, the responsibilities listed for these teams strike me as things that could be done by clerks and don't require the regular decision-making skills expected of arbitrators. I do note, of course, that "all arbitrators may participate equally in all aspects of the Committee's work". — Richwales 04:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Would you be keen on expanding the role of the clerks to include these duties, bearing in mind that currently we do not have access to the relevant discussions. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding so far is that the material involved is potentially of a sensitive, confidential nature — things which people in general must not be granted access to. That clearly makes the problem more complicated. Nevertheless, we do already have users (e.g., CUs) who are entrusted with confidential data despite not necessarily being arbs. If it's possible for a subset of sufficiently trustworthy clerks with the necessary technical skills to take care of the responsibilities of the above two teams, it seems to me that this would be worth exploring. Then again, I admit I might change my mind once I was in the middle of things and had a more complete understanding of the issues — or if other people who already have that understanding are satisfied that it's not feasible for non-arbs to handle the tasks in question.
Question from Reaper Eternal
[edit]- You say that you strongly believe in civility. What, exactly, do you mean? I understand that my question is probably as ambiguous as your statement, so I'll try to rephrase it in the form of several questions to try to carry the meaning acroos. Do you mean that civility is the lack of profanities and the use of "please"? Is civility simply the lack of personal attacks? If somebody violates civility, is it really enforceable if it doesn't rise to the level of personal attacks? Is long-term incivility/crudeness sanctionable?
- This is a really complex question, but I'll try to give you some idea here of where I'm coming from.
Civility is an all-encompassing state of mind. It's more than simply using "polite" language and avoiding overtly "offensive" language — it's certainly possible to appear perfectly civil on the surface, while at the same time harbouring an uncivil attitude (e.g., users engaging in so-called "civil POV pushing").
I believe both the surface behaviour and the indwelling attitude are crucial. An important part of a civil attitude is to try to understand and respect the way one's actions are perceived by others. If I were to use a style of language which many people consider to be insulting and crude, and if I were to insist on continuing to express myself in that way despite having a clear understanding of how others feel about it, I would be acting uncivilly — not simply because of my decision to use "banned" words/phrases, but also because of my conscious disregard for the views and feelings of those I'm trying to work with (and who are trying to work with me).
The reason we care about civility here is not so we can all learn how to be polished, cultured gentlemen and ladies — it's so we can work together toward a common goal and focus on making good use of high-quality source material, focussing on the project and the relevant issues — both respecting each other's strengths and ability to contribute, and also making sure others know that their efforts are being respected.
As for how we can or should enforce civility, it's admittedly hard to dig beneath the surface and determine someone's true underlying motivations — we all need to try to look past the obvious and get the big picture about someone — but users still need (IMO) to be strongly encouraged to present a "civil" face in addition to having an underlying desire to work with others in a constructive, uplifting way.
Referring specifically to MF, I realize the above will probably satisfy neither the crowd who want to rip out his tongue, chop off his fingers, and burn the lot before his eyes, nor the sizable group who insist his content work is so stellar that his curmudgeonly gadfly persona simply doesn't amount to a proverbial pile. FWIW, please note on my candidacy's talk page that I've said I will most likely recuse myself on any case or motion involving MF which might come up during my tenure.
- This is a really complex question, but I'll try to give you some idea here of where I'm coming from.
Questions from Boing! said Zebedee
[edit]- Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.
There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.
How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?
- I definitely see myself as being somewhere in the middle — partial to the "community" end, but at the same time acknowledging that the "rules" have been formulated for a good reason (namely, to allow the community to get its work done). In my view, WP:IAR means that we should not slavishly, mindlessly try to follow an overly narrow or twisted interpretation of the "rules" that would work to the detriment of the project. At the same time, though, any appeal to IAR may end up being counterproductive, because it will almost always spawn a lengthy (and probably time- and effort-wasting) metadiscussion on whether "ignoring" a given rule was justified in a given situation.
With all possible respect to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's whimsical D&D abilities matrix on his voter guide page, I strongly disagree with his decision to classify me as "lawful neutral" — I consider myself to be "lawful good".
- I definitely see myself as being somewhere in the middle — partial to the "community" end, but at the same time acknowledging that the "rules" have been formulated for a good reason (namely, to allow the community to get its work done). In my view, WP:IAR means that we should not slavishly, mindlessly try to follow an overly narrow or twisted interpretation of the "rules" that would work to the detriment of the project. At the same time, though, any appeal to IAR may end up being counterproductive, because it will almost always spawn a lengthy (and probably time- and effort-wasting) metadiscussion on whether "ignoring" a given rule was justified in a given situation.
- What does "Civility" mean to you?
- See my response (above) to Reaper Eternal. In brief, I consider "civility" to be an all-encompassing state of mind, in which we respect others as people and as colleagues working together toward a common goal. External behaviour is a part of civility — speaking courteously, avoiding obviously offensive language or personal attacks, etc. — but civility is more than that (as illustrated by people who engage in so-called "civil POV pushing").
Questions from User:Casliber
[edit]I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I basically agree with you regarding content issues. As long as ArbCom can deal only with user conduct disputes, and neither ArbCom nor any other entity can make binding resolutions of content disputes, our ability to deal with users who edit disruptively while remaining superficially civil is greatly hampered. I've touched on this concern already in some of my responses to earlier questions (see above). More in-depth review of editors' adherence to core content-related policies seems very reasonable to me — though I'm not sure if this can be done effectively without having ArbCom actually make content-related decisions (as opposed to content-related user conduct decisions), and it might also be too complicated a thing for a group of non-experts in a specific field to do successfully. External review of proposed additions/changes to content — perhaps via a "Mandated External Review" discretionary sanction, or else by having ArbCom appoint or approve a group of specialists to review content issues for a given case and report back to the Committee to aid in its decision — might make this expansion of ArbCom's role feasible in practice.
I should have done this in the first post - so let's say this is three months' time, you're an arb, and there's one of these cases, and there are complaints by editor A about editor B on source misuse (choices below). Be mindful that asking for Community Review might be a loooooong time in coming. So, which of the following do you examine? --> (a) misrepresenting sources, (b) using synthesis to push a point of view, (c) reliability of sourcing, (d) undue weight? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- With no more information to go on than the above hypothetical sketch, my inclination would be to examine (a) — the alleged misrepresentation of sources. This is the one possibility of the four listed that is most likely to indicate bad-faith behaviour.
People can (and do) argue over whether a source is reliable for a given use; whether different views are being given too much (or too little) weight; or whether a point really is adequately substantiated via a single source. These sorts of arguments come up frequently in discussions that are unquestionably civil and sincere, and editors (myself included, on occasion) trip up on these things all the time without any real question that they are honestly working toward Wikipedia's goals but simply disagree on how to do it.
But if someone is misusing sources — citing something in support of claims that simply are not there, reading conclusions into a text that no consensus of fair-minded editors could possibly agree with, and persisting in doing these things despite numerous other users pointing out the problem — that is pretty unquestionably a matter of user misconduct. The issue still might not be cut and dried, but a question of misuse / misrepresentation of sources is (in my opinion) most likely to constitute something that is clearly within the remit of ArbCom as currently defined.
- With no more information to go on than the above hypothetical sketch, my inclination would be to examine (a) — the alleged misrepresentation of sources. This is the one possibility of the four listed that is most likely to indicate bad-faith behaviour.
Questions from Cunard
[edit]Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Owing to the length and complexity of these questions, I am highlighting my responses with a light yellow background to make my comments more readily identifiable.
- RfC closes
- Are you aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
- There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review regarding review of closes of requests for comment.
Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure."
Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins.
Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
- The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?"
Deletion discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Wikipedia:Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5#Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#RFC on image inclusion, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#NAC, supervote and vote counting for several recent examples.
Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Move review, or something else.
- I was not familiar with the "Requests for closure" noticeboard up till now, but I am now watching this page and will start paying attention to it.
- In general, I believe admins should retain the ability to review and (if appropriate) reverse a non-admin RfC closure. I would be opposed to a blanket removal of this ability. I also see nothing clearly wrong with reversal of an RfC closure by a consensus of administrators. However, as with any use of the admin tools, careful and thoughful behaviour is always in order. The Administrators policy states that administrators are expected "to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others"; also, that "unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools". Also, as you already pointed out, if the conditions for a valid non-admin closure are met, "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure" — a policy which I agree with. So, while I do believe this is an appropriate ability for admins to have, I also believe admins need to exercise the usual care and discretion in exercising it — not brusquely dismissing a non-admin closure without a good reason, or without taking the necessary time to become as familiar as possible with the RfC before intervening, and certainly not intervening in an RfC closure when the Involved Administrator policy might reasonably come into play.
- Transparency
- Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
- Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
- If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.
- I do, broadly speaking, agree with the above position. In response to one of the general questions (see above), I said that "I would prefer to see as much discussion take place on-wiki as reasonably possible. However, I recognize that some discussions — especially those which involve (or could come to involve) sensitive info — may need to be handled in other ways." I still hold to the above broad, qualified answer, and until I have had a chance to see for myself exactly what sorts of discussions are at issue, I believe it would be unwise for me to say more than this.
- Recusals
- In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties.
See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75#Agk regarding this case request.
See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8#Forgetting something?. Arbitrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them."
Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.
- Former arbitrator Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke#My biases. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.
- I believe the recusal question was handled appropriately in the Youreallycan case. In order to require recusal, I believe the situation should be such that a reasonable, uninvolved party would question the arbitrator's ability to be impartial. Arbs should not be overly eager to recuse themselves, because it's not good to set a precedent that anyone can force a given arb to recuse him/herself simply by making abusive comments to or about him/her. However, there is a grey area where even if an arb does not need to recuse, it may sometimes be better for him/her to do so anyway, just to avoid any possibility of criticism on this issue.
- I would most likely recuse myself in any case involving alleged editor misconduct in connection with an article I have worked on heavily, or where I have/had a personal connection to the subject (I maintain a list of such articles; see my "My Work" user page). I would also expect to recuse myself in a case involving an editor with whom I've worked closely in the past, or about whom I've made comments that could cause people to question my impartiality. For example, I filed an RfC/U about a year and a half ago involving an allegedly disruptive editor who "went missing" during the course of the RfC/U; if that person were to return and act disruptively to the point that he ended up in an arbitration case, I would most likely recuse myself because of my past interactions with him.
- Consensus
- How would you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley?
If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?
- After considering Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21#Jill Kelley?
- WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
- The policy Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Wikipedia:Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).
- (a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?
- (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?
- When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
- Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
- Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?
- I was not familiar with this article, its AfD, or its deletion review prior to your bringing it up. My initial impression, from reading the material, is that I think the current solution (making Jill Kelley a redirect to a section of the Petraeus scandal article) is a reasonable solution until/unless more material causes the section to grow significantly. I would most likely have !voted to merge/redirect on this basis, and I think BLP1E may reasonably apply here.
- However, as best I can tell right now, I would not have imposed this decision as being mandated by policy in defiance of a strong consensus to keep the separate article. While "consensus cannot override policy" does sometimes have a valid application, anyone who is tempted to act on this basis needs to take a deep breath and ask themselves if the existence of a broad consensus going the other way just might mean that the policy is not that clear cut. There certainly are situations where consensus cannot override policy — for example, an overwhelming !vote in favour of inserting obviously libellous fringe accusations in a BLP cannot override the BLP policy — but we need to be very careful in dealing with identifying and dealing with such cases.
- For the time being, I'm going to hold off on answering the remainder of this question. I may come back to it later.
- I just finished reading the BLP deletions case request. Regarding the core issues — the importance of the BLP policy, the proper role (if any) of consensus in the interpretation and implementation of that policy, and the question of whether policy overrides consensus — I am disturbed by the way the events and discussions went, and I do not believe I would have supported the motion in the form that was passed by ArbCom at the time.
- As I read the BLP policy, it mandates aggressive deletion of contentious material about living (or recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced. This was mandated by the WMF, as I understand, and following WMF directives is pretty much the only aspect of Wikipedia that is not subject to community consensus.
- Much of the material in dispute was not clearly contentious, but simply unsourced. As I understand the BLP policy, such material should be reliably sourced as quickly as possible, and deleted if it cannot be properly sourced, but this is not the same sort of imperative as the one that applies to contentious material. I note Roger Davies's suggestion that any unsourced material could potentially be contentious (and thus that all unsourced material must be immediately deleted on the assumption that it is all contentious), but I believe this view is extreme, and I don't agree with it.
- The Wheel Warring policy says that an administrative action which another admin opposes (and has reversed) must not (with "very few exceptions") be reinstated without discussion. An attitude of "I don't care what anyone else thinks because I know I'm right" doesn't belong here (any more than it belongs in a run-of-the-mill edit war). In the case of a policy, it is still possible that others may disagree with what the policy means and how it should apply to a given situation. And even if something seems crystal clear and admitting of no legitimate alternative view, that still isn't an excuse for "I know my actions are mandated by policy, so consensus be damned" — if others don't see the cut-and-dried issue the way you do, don't automatically assume they're all a bunch of idiots, take it to a suitable forum for discussion. In the specific situation that happened back in 2010, I'm not even convinced that the aggressive deletionists had policy on their side anyway (per the "contentious" qualifier) — so the fact that others were in disagreement was a highly visible red flag suggesting that the policy might not in fact have been so obvious.
- Desysopping
-
EncycloPetey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee on 8 September 2012. His last edit was four hours after the arbitration case was filed 29 August 2012. At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey, arbitrators Hersfold (talk · contribs) and Courcelles (talk · contribs) said they would have supported an admonishment and not a desysop had EncycloPetey acknowledged his errors and pledged not to make those mistakes in the future. But because he was non-responsive for a week, the Arbitration Committee opted to desysop him.
- Would you have supported or opposed this motion to desysop? Would you have proposed a different motion?
- In his statement, former arbitrator Carcharoth (talk · contribs) mentioned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision#History of the case as a similar case where an admin left in the middle of a case. He wrote, "ArbCom is not a court, but being able to build in delays for single-party arbitration cases should not be impossible (this would not apply to multi-party arbitrations about a volatile and current issue)."
Do you agree with his position on building in delays for single-party arbitration cases? If yes, describe how would you have built in a delay for EncycloPetey.
- A general question about desysopping and resysopping: The Arbitration Committee desysops an administrator for misconduct after an arbitration case. After one year of active, unproblematic editing, the former administrator requests the tools back at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Do you grant this request, or do you decline it and direct the former admin to file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship?
- I see nothing wrong with the way the EncycloPetey case was handled. I'm particularly unimpressed at the way EncycloPetey responded (criticizing the process rather than making any attempt to respond to the concerns raised — then abandoning the ArbCom investigation while continuing to be active on other Wikimedia projects, thus showing his failure to reconnect was not due to any pressing real-world problem). If EncycloPetey had put forth any plausible reason why a delay was necessary, I (if I had been a sitting arb at the time) would certainly have been willing to consider it, but that really doesn't seem to be what happened here; on the contrary, this seems to me like a classic example of going AWOL while "under a cloud".
- When ArbCom desysops an admin for misconduct, I believe the standard remedy generally says that the user may only regain admin tools via a new, successful RfA. So in a case like what you've described, the appropriate thing to do would be to tell the user to apply all over again for adminship. If you're asking if I believe this sort of standard remedy is appropriate in desysopping-for-misconduct cases, I would say yes, I do support this remedy in general (though, of course, there might conceivably be a case where something else makes more sense).
- Civility case clarification request
- A request for clarification was filed for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement in October 2012. See this permanent link before the discussion was archived by a clerk.
- At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, one arbitrator called Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) "a net negative". Do you agree or disagree that Malleus Fatuorum is a net negative?
- A second arbitrator wrote that "Malleus has himself chosen to join those other groups in his self-selected banning; all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian, no matter how many otherwise constructive edits he has made." (He later revised the comment.)
- (a) One view is that this comment is an honest and justified—though perhaps overly frank and poorly worded—assessment of the situation that was mischaracterized by some members of the community. An opposing view is that this comment is a hurtful, inappropriate comment that kicked an editor when he was down and inflamed the situation. Please share your thoughts about this comment.
- (b) Does this comment violate Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?
- (c) Was the block of this arbitrator for "personal attacks" justified or unjustified under Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?
- (d) Describe your thoughts about what it means to be a Wikipedian. Include discussion about indefinitely blocked editors and banned editors, both those who have contributed positively to the encyclopedia and those who have only vandalized the encyclopedia.
- Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum? You wrote above that you will likely recuse from any arbitration related to Malleus Fatuorum. If you don't want to say support or oppose to this question, feel free to answer "recuse".
- The motion to ban Malleus Fatuorum and the comments made by some arbitrators sparked much dissent in the community. Some editors considered leaving Wikipedia: Sitush, Black Kite, Floquenbeam, John, Pablo X, RegentsPark, Boing! said Zebedee, Drmies, SpacemanSpiff, ThatPeskyCommoner, Beetstra, and Nortonius.
- (a) When there is such a backlash to a proposed decision, how does the backlash factor into your decision?
- (b) SilkTork (talk · contribs) withdrew his support vote to ban Malleus Fatuorum the same day he wrote, "The Committee's role is to uphold community consensus, and the consensus on applying sanctions for incivility is blurred when it comes to valued contributors. However, the consensus in this incident appears fairly clear as regards this valued contributor - those who have spoken want him to remain productive. It is difficult to work on hidden consensus, and on making assumptions about what the silent majority want."
Do you agree or disagree with his opinion?
- Suppose you were an active, unrecused arbitrator in October 2012. Would you have supported or opposed the motion to further restrict Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)'s participation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Motion on Malleus Fatuorum (2)? As per above, if you don't want to say support or oppose to this question, feel free to answer "recuse".
- If you would have opposed the above two motions, or if you believe a better decision could have been made, what action would you have suggested? Feel free to say recuse on this question as well.
- Courcelles (talk · contribs) wrote on his talk page, "As a general matter, it might have been worth voting on removing Malleus from RFA all-together, but I just can't support that option, as like-it-or-not, the community has to live with the admins it picks, and there is, in my mind, an insanely high bar for saying 'you get the admins you get, no opinions from you' but still having them be a member of the community."
Do you agree or disagree with his need to have "an insanely high bar" to ban users from RfA?
- Describe your criteria for site-banning a user. Would you vote to site-ban a user who you believe is not a net-negative, but a net-positive?
- I am not going to make any comments specifically about Malleus Fatuorum (except to repeat something I have already said — see below). I said I would likely recuse myself in any future case involving MF, and for me to state opinions about him would be inconsistent with recusal.
- In the "civility enforcement" clarification request, I made comments regarding MF in particular and civility in general, and I said that "Whatever some people (maybe including myself) may think of MF's coarser side, it seems clear to me that there is not a true consensus for lowering the boom on him." I am still not totally comfortable with the idea that rulings should be based more on popular opinion than on principle, but if a proposed sanction is widely and vocally opposed, that may sometimes be a reasonable indication that the sanction may not have been well thought out and should perhaps be reconsidered.
- As I said earlier (in response to another user's question), I consider "any user who is making a genuine attempt to contribute constructively to Wikipedia" to be a "Wikipedian", and I believe "it should normally be possible to deal with user conduct disputes without any need for in-depth discussion of whether a given individual is, or is not, truly a 'Wikipedian'". I think the same principle should also apply to calling someone a "net positive" or a "net negative" — and I would not personally be inclined to use or endorse such terminology, but would prefer to focus instead on the editor's actions and (as best we can tell from their actions) their intentions vis-à-vis Wikipedia.
- If an editor is clearly not even trying to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but is instead obviously engaging only in vandalism, I have no qualms about indefinitely blocking them in a summary manner (and, indeed, I have summarily indeffed several "vandalism-only accounts" as an admin). Genuine content disputes are a different matter — the Vandalism policy clearly states that good-faith efforts to improve Wikipedia are not vandalism, even if misguided, wilfully against consensus, disruptive, or edit-warring — and this sort of behaviour should not be given short shrift via summary action except when other considerations (such as arbitration enforcement) come into play.
- Under the Banning policy, banned and indefinitely blocked editors are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. Even if their edits are arguably constructive, the community has concluded that the possible benefit of their good work (even taking into account their past good work) is outweighed by the disruptive behaviour that led to their being banned. Such an editor should not be tolerated on the site unless the ban/block is lifted through our standard procedures.
- As I understand the Banning policy, a site ban should be imposed only as a last resort when it is truly necessary in order to protect Wikipedia from damage (either directly through vandalism or grossly inappropriate editing, or to prevent harm to the overall process of editing and improving articles via collegial consensus), and when less restrictive sanctions will not work (e.g., if a topic ban or an interaction ban will clearly just be ignored by a disruptive editor who is determined to get his own way at any cost).
- As for what criteria should be used to ban someone from the RfA process, I believe users should be allowed to participate in this (or, for that matter, any) discussion as long as they are making a genuine, reasonably competent effort to contribute constructively. If someone is consistently, repeatedly acting in a disruptive manner and refuses to do anything about it — or if it becomes obvious that someone is practising "superficial civility" but is in fact trying to undermine the discussion through "POV pushing", "wikilawyering", or the like — then it may certainly be reasonable to consider a topic ban. Again, I am not going to comment any more about the MF case; my remarks here are intended to be general only.
- Note and thank you
I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to #RfC closes, #Transparency, and #Civility case clarification request, so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want.
Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Question(s) from Risker
[edit]With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.
How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?
I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I understand this concept — and yes, if ArbCom makes a decision, that decision needs to be accepted and supported by everyone on the Committee, regardless of whether I happen to have agreed with the majority or not.
- I suppose, speaking theoretically, that some decision could possibly occur that I simply could not support in any way — in which case I would presumably see no other option but to resign from the Committee rather than assent to something I felt was utterly unconscionable — but I really, really do not expect any such thing to happen.
Question from SilkTork
[edit]As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I live in California (already mentioned on one of my user subpages, so I'm not disclosing any more than I have done already). My local time zone is UTC-8 (UTC-7 in summer). I am generally "up" between around 15:00 and 07:00 UTC. — Richwales 16:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Question from Bazonka
[edit]Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am not currently involved in any off-wiki, Wikipedia-related projects. While I conduct most discussions on-wiki (in article and user talk pages), I do occasionally use e-mail for matters which appear to be particularly sensitive — such as revision deletion requests. I do not currently use IRC; I signed up for an account long ago but have used it only once or twice. As I have said in response to earlier questions, I would prefer as much ArbCom discussion to be on-wiki as is reasonably possible, but I recognize that some matters do require privacy, so I am not going to take any sort of hard-line stance on this issue prior to my actually becoming involved in ArbCom work (assuming I am elected, of course) and seeing the overall situation for myself. — Richwales 17:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz
[edit]You participated in the Civility Enforcement case or clarification request. Please supply diffs, or even one diff, where you address incivility or personal attacks against Malleus, and thereby show that you are concerned about even enforcement of civility. (If you cannot find one, please post some diffs where you were identifiable as a partisan of one group of users in a heated discussion, and where you tried to maintain civility by addressing behavior of like-minded editors. Recent diffs are preferable.) Thank! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Readers will probably want to look at the entire workshop page for the Civility Enforcement case (and read all my comments in context), but to make things easier for everyone, here are links to all my comments on that page (hopefully I didn't accidentally miss anything). All of these are from late December 2011 / early January 2012.
- Hawkeye7: Hawkeye7's choice of words vs. Malleus's
- Malleus Fatuorum topic banned: any sort of personal verbal abuse is inappropriate (1)
- Malleus Fatuorum topic banned: any sort of personal verbal abuse is inappropriate (2)
- Analysis of evidence: is "cunt" is not a fundamentally uncivil word: intent is what really matters; incivility is wrong no matter what words are used
- Civility is sometimes context-sensitive: user talk pages are not private
- Administrator decorum: what "admins are expected to lead by example" means may not be clear
- I additionally made a comment (read it here) on the followup "clarification and amendment" motion on October 23 of this year. The article talk page referred to in this comment is Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause; here is a permalink to a version of the page containing the overall discussion (which I would urge everyone to read, for context).
- Although the following is not about Malleus Fatuorum, readers trying to understand my overall position might also want to read this RfC/U which I submitted in May 2011, where civility was an important point.
- I believe reading the above (in context) will give people a reasonable idea of where I stand on civility, how I define incivility, how I feel incivility should be handled, etc. I said a lot about how I felt (and still feel) that a civil attitude and behaviour (i.e., not simply the avoidance of "naughty words") are important for all Wikipedia editors, but I'll concede that people won't find much of anything here where I called out specific individuals other than MF for incivility (except perhaps for the first comment about Hawkeye7). I imagine Kiefer.Wolfowitz
probably won'tmay not be satisfied by the above, and if that turns out to be the case, he and I will simply have to agree to disagree.
- I believe reading the above (in context) will give people a reasonable idea of where I stand on civility, how I define incivility, how I feel incivility should be handled, etc. I said a lot about how I felt (and still feel) that a civil attitude and behaviour (i.e., not simply the avoidance of "naughty words") are important for all Wikipedia editors, but I'll concede that people won't find much of anything here where I called out specific individuals other than MF for incivility (except perhaps for the first comment about Hawkeye7). I imagine Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Once again, please note that I've already stated that I intend to recuse myself on any case or motion specifically involving Malleus Fatuorum which might come up during my (still hypothetical) tenure as an arbitrator. I believe I would, in fact, be able to evaluate such a case or motion fairly, but after having commented on MF's case in the past, I would want to avoid any possible feelings that arbs dealing with MF might not be totally impartial. I might be convinced not to recuse myself in exceptional circumstances — such as if so many arbs proposed to recuse themselves that not enough might be left to hear the case — but I wouldn't be actively looking for an opportunity to weasel out of my stated intentions.
Questionnaire on civility enforcement
[edit]A questionnaire on civility enforcement was recently written. My responses to these questions can be found here.
I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.
Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?
- I read the motions, though I'm going to respectfully decline to comment specifically on them (or on the situation that gave rise to them).
- The current practical role of ArbCom has come about, in large part, as a natural outgrowth of its remit. ArbCom isn't authorized by the community to issue binding decisions on good-faith content disputes (the kind of thing you might normally expect an "arbitration" committee to do). In order for a case to be taken up by ArbCom, it generally has to involve a problem that has gotten so far out of hand that one or more participants have become unwilling (or never were willing in the first place) to participate in a calm, sincere discussion and abide by results which they might not agree with — so the only thing left to do in a case at that point is probably going to be to apply sanctions against uncooperative editors. We're always going to have disruptive editors, I fear, so even if ArbCom's role were to be expanded to directly cover disagreements over content (in hopes of resolving some of them sooner), cases involving significant disciplinary problems are sure to remain. Expanding ArbCom's role to include content disputes wouldn't be a simple matter, since it could potentially require arbs to be, or become, experts on a wide range of subjects if they had to make content decisions all by themselves. Perhaps finding some way around this conundrum might eventually steer the Committee to a less punitive, less dramatic role. I'm not sure of how this might look, and in any event, it would be up to the community (not ArbCom itself) to make such decisions. — Richwales 05:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Questions from GabeMc
[edit]- Do you think it's appropriate for an admin to close an RfC/RfM when said admin had previously participated in an AN/I report discussion, supporting the resulting indef-block for a highly vocal party to the mediation from which the RfC originated? 2) Assuming that a) this has in fact happened, and b) you indeed think it's inappropriate, what then would you suggest as a remedy? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given only the facts as stated above, I would have to say that this admin's actions — while arguably unwise — were not technically inappropriate. The policy on involved administrators says that an admin who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role is not considered to be "involved" (and is thus not prevented from subsequently acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area).
As I said, I think this admin's making the closure may have been unwise — and there are enough admins around that it would probably be better to let someone else do the closure, thus avoiding even the possibility of appearing involved. But (IMO) it isn't technically a violation of WP:INVOLVED or any other policy I'm aware of, so it would not be proper to impose any sanctions against the admin in this situation.
Again, I'm responding only to the facts you provided. If this question is based on a real scenario, it's possible that my reaction to the real situation might be different from the above.
- Given only the facts as stated above, I would have to say that this admin's actions — while arguably unwise — were not technically inappropriate. The policy on involved administrators says that an admin who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role is not considered to be "involved" (and is thus not prevented from subsequently acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area).
- To clarify, the admin did not interact with the editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, in fact during the AN/I report which blocked said editor, said admin asked for an uninvolved admin to step-in, implying that even they felt involved beyond the point where sanctions from them would remain appropriate. I wouldn't assume sanctions against said admin would be needed; however, IYO, would the closure remain valid with this in mind?
- Two separate questions here — is the closure valid? — and did the admin misuse his tools?
Clearly, if the closing admin was WP:INVOLVED, then the closure is suspect. Even if this appeared to be a borderline case, a review might be appropriate simply to clear the air.
Using admin tools as a means to gain an advantage in a dispute in which one has been involved is a very serious breach of our core values, so we can't nonchalantly dismiss this issue without looking into the facts. If the admin in question sought help from an uninvolved admin, then went ahead and did the close himself after a day or two because no one else could be bothered to do so, that may constitute poor judgment, but it's not as serious as if the closing admin seems to have made the close himself because he was afraid some other admin wouldn't see thing his way. Assuming you're asking (in a roundabout way) about a real scenario, it's quite possible it might end up thrown in the lap of ArbCom — for which reason I probably shouldn't speculate beyond what I've already said, just in case I end up being one of the sitting arbs who has to deal with the case.
- Two separate questions here — is the closure valid? — and did the admin misuse his tools?
Question from Piotrus
[edit]- when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
- on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
- to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
- do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
- do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate) is something to applaud or criticize?
Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- If a misbehaving editor can be reined in (and their energies channeled into productive contributions) by a limited sanction, that is certainly better than expelling them from the project via a site ban / block. But this doesn't always work — e.g., if the person is just going to go be disruptive in some other subject area, or if it is (or becomes) clear that they have no intention of abiding by any sanctions requiring any degree of voluntary compliance — and in such cases, there really isn't any alternative to a full site ban and block.
- Your essay raises some good points, but I'm uneasy with the idea that we should go easy on a misbehaving editor if they're a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Are you really saying that if someone is doing lots of good work, we should cut them more slack and allow them to be disruptive to a greater extent that we would tolerate in someone who is not such a stellar contributor? This sort of double standard, in my view, would lead to all sorts of problems that I really don't think we want to have to deal with. If someone truly is a productive editor who makes lots of valuable improvements to the project, it really shouldn't be that difficult to expect them to be courteous and respectful to others, refrain from POV pushing, etc.
- I don't really see much of a point in trying to draw comparisons between sanctions in Wikipedia and in the "real world", so I'm going to respectfully decline to address those questions.
Question from Martinevans123
[edit]- Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Read my earlier comments (above) regarding my views on coarse, profane, or vulgar language. Although I believe "civility" is an all-encompassing attitude and not just a matter of avoiding "naughty words", that doesn't mean I think people should just go ahead and gratuitously use language which others are reasonably likely to find offensive.
- Thanks, Rich, first to respond. Yes, I have read your comments above, and they seem very sensible. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)