Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/David Gerard/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

2. What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?

   I've been an arbitrator, in 2005, and a functionary 2006-2010. I've been on Wikipedia since 2004 and created quite a bit of what is now accepted as basic structure here, including co-writing WP:BLP (with SlimVirgin). I've been a press volunteer for Wikipedia, WMF and WMUK since 2005. I'm the last active listmod on the wikimediauk-l and wikien-l mailing lists. Used to have a pile of others, actively divested myself of most.

Basically, I've been around, think I reasonably have the feel for the place, have done quite a lot of the jobs, know what is involved in this one.

2. What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.

   I was an arbitrator in 2005, a functionary 2006-2010. I'll go through the archives and put the list in in a while.

4. Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?

   Case by case.

6. Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).

   I have a day job, which I'm not naming here because I actually have crazy stalkers who would love to mess up my life (see Outing question below). I can't see that coming to a case though.

8. Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?

   Not that spring to mind.

10. Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.

    FIXME

I thought the Manning case resolution was an unmitigated disaster, but of course I would say that. The Tea Party case is an example of a case where the arbcom stopped the noise, but by a process of completely abandoning even the illusion of bothering with justice, and blanket-topic-banning everyone within range. This has created considerable community rancour, and made the arbcom look even more capricious and dangerous to go within a mile of than it did before. That the arbcom seemed to get away with it led to the ridiculously kangaroo Manning case, which has actually damaged Wikipedia and Wikimedia's public reputation.

Those two terrible, terrible cases, and the paucity of candidates when I nominated, are basically why I'm running - we really can't continue having the arbcom be the cobalt bomb of dispute resolution.

2. The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?

   The community mechanisms have evolved as Wikipedia collectively gets a better idea of what it's doing. In 2004 it took an arbitration case to ban a disruptive IP, for example. I see this as a good thing. Unfortunately, it leaves only the worst, most rancorous and tangled cases for the arbcom, and trying to sort those out is definitely the worst part of the job.

4. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?

   * The Workshop pages are a poisonous swamp. Many arbitrators don't even read them, the clerks don't police them. I suggest they be eliminated as a serious net negative.

• The arbcom is capricious as hell. This is not workable and promotes fear in the community. Even the functionaries have said the 2013 arbcom has been unusually unpredictable and induces fear in them. This is due to literally no supervision, per next question.
• More generally, it's time the arbcom gave justice consideration, rather than mere expediency. Shooting the hostage does solve the noise problem in a manner of speaking, but I think it's proving a terrible general approach. I fully realise just how much work this will involve - nobody really wants the cleanup bill to land on their desk - but I also feel it's time.

2. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?

   The biggest problem with the arbcom is that it runs entirely without supervision. There is literally nobody watching the watchmen. This leads to capricious and abusive behaviour. It is not helped by the arbcom's functional role, which is as the closest en:wp has to a governing body; so anything that resembles a governing function lands on them, so the visible capricious behaviour is only a small part of the activity beneath the surface.

4. It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?

   The arbcom has historically been terrible at content decisions, and I haven't seen anything to suggest to me that this will change.

There is so much policy and guideline on Wikipedia that it's highly susceptible to reading what you were first thinking of into it. So there's little need to create fresh text to argue over. In practice, it has to set policy and interpretation of policy.

2. What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?

   They should actually enforce it. Their recent neutering of it has been a concern in various Wikimedia movement bodies, who actually get the calls from people with bad bios. The most frequent question I get doing press, after the microphones are off, is "About my article, it's terrible ..." I used to be able to tell them "don't worry, we take living bios very seriously, contact us and it will be dealt with", etc. I can't honestly say that any more, and that's an extremely serious problem for Wikipedia - I don't think people appreciate the degree to which we are tolerated by those with platforms or in power, and how much it relies on us being able to assure them that we will do the right thing and demonstrably do so. I would hope it can be repaired without actually having another Seigenthaler incident.

4. Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?

   I'd expect to use oversight if something clearly oversightable came to my personal attention - speed being of the essence. Checkuser I'd generally farm off to a functionary with checkuser, it's way less urgent in general and arbcom is quite enough work. I doubt I'd want to keep either after my term was up.

6. Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?

   Been there, done that. See above re: outing. We have some nasty banned users, and I've happily served the role of lightning rod before so others don't have to.

8. Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?

   Anything discussed by email or in IRC should be assumed to be in the archives of anyone who's seen it (as the many public dumps of arbcom-l traffic show) - so it's unclear the extent to which a ban on retention could be enforced. That said, any formal repository of such should be purged regularly.

10. Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?

    We do actually have stalkers, paedophiles attempting to edit, etc; there are extreme cases where the arbcom needs to be able to act quietly. This does, however, require a formal supervisory body to report such cases to. In the general case, however, accusations and evidence should be as public as is reasonably feasible.

Individual questions

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

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

---

Question from Mark Arsten

2. What do you think is the most striking difference between this current Arbcom and the ones we've had in the past? Please be as specific as possible.

   I was particularly struck in the recent Phil Sandifer banning how Beeblebrox stated that the functionaries were in actual fear of the arbcom. That's one I hadn't seen before.

The systemic problem is that arbcom is frequently a horrible and depressing job. So it selects for politicians, who feel the job entails holding on to power. The 2013 arbcom's capriciousness appears to be at an all-time high; and blithe unconcern for even the semblance of justice saves a lot of time, but is poisoning the entire process and the legitimacy of arbcom.

Questions from Collect

I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.

2. An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

   No, that's expediency over justice. The arbcom is at the stage where it does actually have to start thinking about justice, as much work as that will be.

4. Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?

   The "cut the Gordian knot" approach saves a lot of time, but is poisonous to the community and to trust in the legitimacy of the arbcom at all..

6. Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?

   Evidence, no. Workshop, as stated above I think that page has outlived its usefulness and is now a net negative to the project.

8. 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?

   It's the same problem as working to policy and guidelines - there's so much of it that you could construct any precedent you felt like. However, breaking expectations is bad, so some attention to past findings, or reasons for deciding otherwise, would be an improvement.

10. 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?

    This is a question about the degree to which this is the set of principles underlying policy; analogous to a constitution. I remember when it came along, and am slightly surprised at the degree to which it's treated as a constitutional document these days. I would certainly feel that using its wording for principles in cases would be entirely appropriate.

12. 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?

    Not neutering WP:BLP would be a good start, per above. Non-living bios are much like any non-bio article; do you have any particular examples in mind?

14. Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?

    The problem here is that every functioning anarchy has an old-boy network at the core, and that people who aren't in a given group are shocked, shocked to find that other editors know each other. It's an irregular verb:

I work with colleagues I trust;

You are in a faction;

They are in a TAG-TEAMING CONSPIRACY.

I've met a lot of other editors in my nearly ten years on Wikipedia. In my experience, getting to know other editors as people is an unmitigated good - because it reminds you that they are humans worthy of human consideration, not just non-player characters in the Wikipedia MMORPG, and by extension that people you haven't met are also humans worthy of human consideration.

I realise the troll sites' contributors frequently hold that any editors who know each other to any degree online or offline should be assumed to be in a malicious conspiracy unless and until proven otherwise ... but I'd hope sensible people could assume slightly better faith than that.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions by Gerda Arendt

Thank you for volunteering! I didn't have the pleasure of meeting you so far. For fairness, the same three questions as for the others:

2. Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

   It appears the infobox is being shifted to top-right, where it conventionally goes. It was a cited example to sanction Pigsonthewing, and I think it was bad evidence for a bad decision.

What were the other two questions?

Questions by Sven Manguard

The first seven I'm giving to everyone. The last two are just for you.

2. 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?

   To show a decision is that of the arbcom, presumably. It would be the thing to use when a problem can't be handled elsewhere in the community.

4. 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 ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?

   It depends. The community can't legitimately strawpoll to violate core policies, for example. What examples are you thinking of?

6. Please identify a few motions from 2013 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. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.

8. The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.

10. In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?

    I think it was completely the right thing. The arbcom has, over the past few years, adopted the behaviour of "what happens on arbcom stays on arbcom". I believe this has worked out exceedingly badly in practice; it has led to capriciousness, unpredictability and fear. The arbcom is made of humans with debatable opinions, and in a decision that controversial talking about it was absolutely the right thing to do.

12. 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 certainly believe quite a lot more of them should, and that arbcom list email traffic should be summarised for public consumption to the degree that is feasible. I strongly believe the current procedures have led arbcom to a very bad place, and it will take some fairly radical transparency measures to get it back.

14. The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.

    - If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?

    - If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?

    - All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?

    I'll certainly be talking more about how arbcom actually decides things in public.

16. In your statement you indicate a close relationship with WMUK. Please describe your role in WMUK in greater detail, including any leadership positions (official or unofficial) that you have held there and any significant projects you have worked on on WMUK's behalf.

    I was one of the founders of WMUK version 1, which failed to achieve charity status (we failed even to achieve a bank account) and died. I'm a volunteer with WMUK version 2, which has been rather more successful, helping with press stuff, visiting them on occasion to chat about stuff and so on.

18. WMUK has been embroiled in a number of controversies over the past few years. What lessons, if any, can be taken from WMUK's controversies, and/or their handling of controversies, and applied to ArbCom?

    I can't think of anything from my own involvement that would be relevant.

Questions from Rschen7754

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. 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, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

2. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

   Three months seems a long time for a case (and would have felt like an eternity for the participants, waiting for the hammer to fall); ideally it should have been far quicker. That said, looking at it I can see exactly how it took that long.

4. What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?

   General encyclopedicness is a greater community issue; formatting is a greater community issue; expertise on content is something that should reasonably strongly consider the views of those with the knowledge, including what constitutes a good source, though the greater community may reasonably decide, with due procedure and consultation, "hell no". This can only be reasonably addressed case-by-case.

6. 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?

   Being around a long time isn't a licence to be a dick. OTOH, anyone in a conflict thinks the other guy's being a dick. A problem I have directly observed is when an arbcom won't act because of on-wiki political considerations; i.e., that they perceive someone to be a vested contributor.

This also ties into how functioning anarchies actually work, as noted above: I've seen arbitrators express their upset that someone's in an old-boy network they're not in, and need "taking down a peg". It's a knotty problem from both sides.

2. 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?

   Mitigating circumstances are what admonishments are for. The balance fallacy is real at arbcom, however - see the Tea Party case for an egregious example.

4. zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?

   Abuse of the tools is pretty decidable. "Conduct unbecoming" is really way too squishy to apply unless it's really clear there needs to be a rule. The case where the 2013 arbcom deadminned Ironholds on the completely novel charge of "conduct unbecoming a staff member" was particularly egregious - I'd think it's an abuse of the arbcom's platform to directly attempt to get a particular staff member fired.

6. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?

   A lot of the problem with arbcom in the past few years is that arbitrators actively participate on the troll sites - founded and run by justifiably-banned users - to the point of mistaking them for their constituency. I believe this is a gross error, and directly led to the recent ludicrous spectacle where a dedicated stalker and troll, who had written how-to guides on stalking and outing Wikipedians to get your way, got the arbcom to act for him crying "outing" when he'd been ridiculously public off-wiki, and trolling on-wiki, about his identity and affiliations. And the arbcom, unwilling to admit it had been trolled hard, doubled-down, refusing to admit error, even abusing oversight of a link to pretend it was dealing with a weighty problem. These people are not arbcom's constituency.

More generally, the arbcom behaves as if it has parliamentary privilege. I have had one (current) arbitrator seriously tell me that the arbcom had remit over my work on the 2009 National Portrait Gallery problem - which happened entirely on Commons - because en:wp includes images from Commons. This is ludicrous overreaching. It's not as if there isn't work to be getting on with.

2. What is your definition of "outing"?

   The English-language sense and the Wikipedia sense are not identical. To answer the question in Wikipedia terms is fraught - I could say "revealing personal information about an editor in an attempt to harass or to influence Wikipedia activity", but that's not quite detailed enough to form a rule, and attempts to do so have led to ludicrous circumstances as noted in the previous question.

I will note that I have experience of people attempting to make me the target of such for my on-wiki activities, including banned users phone me during dinner attempting to harass me, and trying to intimidate me by talking about family members. (My partner, Arkady Rose, used to teach self-defence in the Territorial Army, so in such a circumstance I'd sit back with popcorn.) I'm reasonably privileged in my own life and have happily acted as a lightning rod for these people before, but I'm fully cognisant that not everyone is in such safe circumstances and that vicious nutters targeting innocent users for innocent edits is a problem we have.

The trouble is that trolls see rules as playground equipment. The case described in the previous question is an example.

2. What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?

   I have no recent experience with which to address this question. I've spoken to Ombudsman Committee members, and have been greatly reassured as to the quality of the supervision process.

4. Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?

6. Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?

   It's the closest English Wikipedia has to a governing body, and needs to get better at it - it's somewhat comparable to a semi-competent charity board attempting to professionalise and increase its competence. The problem in arbcom's case is that it doesn't scale well, and that's led directly to recent performance problems. However, I'm not sure adding more process will actually help - or how much substantial change in its remit and functions will be accepted by the community.

8. Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?

   I'm already identified to the WMF, so I don't anticipate any problems. I wonder at the threat model they're attempting to address, and have asked several times over the years just what the threat model is and had no clear answer. I don't see the requirements as onerous, however.

Thank you. Rschen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Tryptofish

2. What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?

   I largely concur. In particular, I have no qualms about naming which arbitrator was responsible for pushing a particular decision or for a particular phrase or sentence. The present arbcom omerta is a bad thing.

I must note that arbcom-l emails leak regularly. Anyone who posts to arbcom-l assuming it will never be revealed is demonstrably misinformed. Previous leaks have been of email from arbitrators rather than from worried users emailing the arbcom, though of course this is no guarantee for the future, given a sufficiently rogue arbitrator.

Question from SirFozzie

2. You are one of not many people to have advanced permissions (that is CU/OS level permissions) removed involuntarily after a past incident. What is your view of that incident, and what have you learned from it?

   That the arbcom does not, in fact, have parliamentary privilege or anything resembling it, despite ongoing (and recent) careless

Question from Sceptre

2. Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in Sexology, the massive embarrassment of the Manning dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?

   That, of course, is a question I've had people asking me since the Manning case. Non-straight readers (not just trans ones) have been universally unimpressed that the WMF has not acted to rein in the arbcom (despite what we know of the internal political feasibility of such) and there have been credible threats of fundraiser boycotts (as the WMF takes credit for en:wp in its standard fundraiser text). Other Wikimedia organisations and their staff have been disgusted and horrified by the decision and wonder what the hell they can actually do. There is a WMF blog post about LGBT and Wikipedia coming up, which may or may not address the issue.

If I had a handy solution I'd have applied it. I do intend to push for the worst bits of the decision to be reversed. This case may also further progress towards adult supervision of the arbcom, which is something it sorely needs.

Question from Piotrus

(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

2. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?

   When an editor is clearly irredeemably terrible and will not be a net plus to the encyclopedia - a history of malice or irredeemably not getting it would be examples.

4. wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)

   This follows from the previous question on when an editor is irredeemably terrible. Limitations on editors have worked well in practice in recent years, whereas several years they would have just received a years' ban. This has helped in practice with the concern of denying ourselves their help. OTOH, sometimes we're just better off.

OTOOH, I think we're at the stage where the arbcom's blithe unconcern for even the illusion of supplying justice is becoming a problem - and I'm quite aware that the blithe unconcern for justice came about because the AC is very busy, and aware of how much work it would be to supply such a thing.

2. 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 to...?)

   It's not clear the concepts map very well. Wikipedia isn't a country. Formal expulsion from an organisation would be the closest match to my mind.

4. The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?

   It's entirely unclear to me that this is relevant to running for the Arbitration Committee. Please do clarify.

6. 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?

   The meat of that section appears to be "think about its effect on the encyclopedia process", which I concur with. I disagree that the math is mostly or always going to be simple.

8. I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.

   David Gerard, 46, several unfinished degrees, Australian citizen with British right of abode living in the UK (and all of that's already public knowledge). See above re: outing, though, for excellent reasons why we have arbitrators with undisclosed names - there are actual crazy people devoted to the task of messing with people's lives, and arbitrators have a great big target painted on them. I'm fine personally, but I think we do need arbitrators from demographics where they don't feel required to have their lives on display.

I do appreciate how and why this seems a reasonable thing to ask of arbitrators - the Essjay case got its own article - but I also have good reason to think it wouldn't work out well in practice if enforced. Arbitrators being who they are known to be by their on-wiki behaviour hasn't been a problem with the resulting decisions, I think.

Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question from User:MONGO

2. Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.

   I haven't done the FA circuit in several years. I pushed X Window System, Xenu, GNU/Linux naming controversy and Space opera in Scientology doctrine through FAC back in the day, though only Xenu remains one. I recently took OpenOffice.org to Peer Review (where it got a good and helpful review, and where I reviewed a few others), GA (where it went unreviewed for weeks; functionally, approximately nobody cares about GA, which has a several months backlog, and admittedly I didn't help the process by not revewing any other GAs myself) and FAC (where it got some very useful fixing-up, but the last review was sufficiently unhelpful that I just thought "this is ridiculous" and decided I had many other things to turn my attention to; FAC also suffers from such a degree of standards creep that it now has a severe lack of reviewers willing to jump through all the hoops, per recent talk page discussion).

I suspect there's a serious problem to be solved here, and it comes down to a question of what the FA/GA process is for and how to make it work for that. The GA process presently pretty much doesn't actually work at all.

Question from User:Worm That Turned

2. Firstly, please accept my apologies for adding to the list of questions! I'm one of the less controversial arbitrators but even I have had my writing twisted, my honesty questioned, my personality derided. I've been the target of unpleasant emails and real life actions. Other arbitrators have been subject to much worse. Have you thought about how being an arbitrator might affect you and what have you done to prepare?

   Been there, done that - remember I was on arbcom in 2005. I occasionally make the mistake of reading the troll sites, and always come away feeling dumber. They've written an entire Kremlinology of my history on Wikipedia which appears to have been constructed by a process of "make up nonsensical idea, if it can't be proven false assume it's true, extrapolate from it assuming bad faith" and bears no relationship to reality.

Question from User:Nobs01

2. Have you had Checkuser privileges before? If so, when and why were they revoked?

   I was the first Checkuser. It was revoked 2010 (though I hadn't used it for most of 2010, except for tracking one particulary nasty troll). The matter is the subject of an agreement to settle between myself and the 2010 arbcom brokered by Wikimedia legal at the time, which involved the arbcom agreeing to completely oversight its statements about me, so I can't actually go into detail myself. They didn't like something I wrote offsite. Sorry I can't be more specific.

4. Please provide a list of all current and past alternate accounts you avowed to use.

   I'm not sure on the construction "avowed to use", but the only registered alternate I have is User:Querulous, who's made one edit ever. I just edit as me.