Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Worm That Turned

Worm That Turned

Hi, I'm Dave, known on Wikipedia as Worm That Turned. I've been on the encyclopedia since 2008, though I only really started editing in 2010. I've since become an administrator, an oversighter, written a few articles, helped out in a few areas but I've always come back to my niche - helping out newcomers, primarily through adoption. Indeed, I'm confident that I have adopted and mentored more editors than anyone else on the encyclopedia and the lessons and techniques from my adoption school have touched many more. I was also an Arbcom clerk for a short while, but resigned as I wasn't enjoying it, I'll be explaining more in my questions area.

I believe I would make a good arbitrator as I am a "listener" (although on Wikipedia, that makes me more of a "reader"), who can generally see every side of a debate. On top of that, I am an introspective person, which helps me to spot my own biases and remain objective. I'll be the first to admit that this skillset has meant that I'm not the most prolific administrator, as I spend time reviewing situations in depth before making any judgement and taking any action.

If you didn't notice, I ran last year, where I came 9th with only 8 spots available. I hold two alternative accounts on WP, User:WormTT which was created to ensure that there was no confusion over my signature and User:Wormbot, an account I've created to play around with statistical analysis and possibly for bot editing in the future. Finally, as an oversighting admin, I have already identified to the foundation. Worm^TT(talk)

• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions

1. Skills and experience:

   a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?

   I consider my greatest strengths to be diplomacy and people skills, which stem from a complaints handling job I had for a few years after leaving university. I also must thank my partner for helping me develop these skills, she's finished a degree this year which included a lot of soft skills and our debates at home have really helped me gain alternative perspectives.

   I spoke last year about "empathising with the customer" and the importance of "managing expectations". They are buzzwords that you'll hear in most large customer service departments, but the sentiment behind them is sound and Arbcom does not appear to be doing them. On Wikipedia, I've spent my much of my time working with users who have been recently introduced to the encyclopedia, especially ones who do not know the system. As such, I'm acutely aware of the journey a new user would take in Wikipedia and so I would be focussing on transparency in the committee. Worm^TT(talk)

   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.

   The vast majority of disputes I get involved come through helping new editors, so the disputes can be solved with a few choice words explaining the situation to both parties and focussing on de-escalation. I've followed most of the Arbcom cases this year, but only felt the urge to comment on the Civility Enforcement case (evidence, workshop and both clarification requests [1], [2]). I've also commented on a couple of case requests ([3], [4]). I've participated in a few of RfC/Us (1, 2, 3, 4) though I no longer have much faith in that process and a case on the dispute resolution noticeboard. On top of these, I teach dispute resolution to my adoptees and do my best to help out at the administrators noticeboards when I can.  Worm^TT(talk)

2. 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?

   I know I'm generally considered a soft-touch amongst admins, I've got a lot more patience for problematic editors than many other Wikipedians would. Although this is true, I don't believe this translates into being a lenient arbitrator. In the cases where I act as a "soft-touch", I investigate the user's history in depth, take into account how they handled their previous "chances" and listen to their side of the story. If I am genuinely persuaded that they are serious about improving, I take responsibility for that lenience, helping the editor out with dispute resolution, discussing their decisions, helping them to see situations from the other editors point of view. I often mentor them myself, but if I don't, I do keep tabs on them. As an arbitrator, I would be dealing with long term behavioural difficulties, with intractable debates. The time for second chances will have passed. Lenience and good faith have to run out somewhere, and ArbCom is where the buck stops. I expect I won't be the most strict arbitrator, but nor will I be the most lenient.  Worm^TT(talk)

3. 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.

   Policy on Wikipedia is and should be written by the community at large and certainly shouldn't be changed by a committee focussed on dispute resolution. In certain situations, the committee will need to interpret how policy applies to a particular situation and how the community currently currently views a policy, but that does not include taking a position on the appropriateness or effectiveness of a policy itself. It is plausible that an ArbCom decision could trigger a policy alteration, but ArbCom should not be making the changes to the policy, nor recommending changes.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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" is a simple summary of Wikipedia's main policies. It's excellent for helping newcomers to understand what Wikipedia is about. It should not, however, be used for committee findings as it is too simplistic. It describes policies in even less depth than the "page in a nutshell" explanations. I've often complained about editors using bluelinks on jargon so that they don't have to explain themselves, "Five Pillars" is even more problematic as you have to go through multiple clicks to try to work out what is being said. For example, if an arbitrator were to say, "Editor X does not conforming to the 4th pillar", you would need to go to "Five Pillars", which then links you through to a full civility policy or possibly WP:Etiquette, WP:No personal attacks or even WP:POINT...  Worm^TT(talk)

   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?

   People are naturally interested in people, so biographical articles are always popular articles to work on. The more well known a person is, the information is written about them and so there is more likely to be contentious information, perhaps gossip, criticism or simply incorrect information. For living people, there are real world consequences to what is written about them on Wikipedia and even non-living people have families who can have to live with the repercussions. Many factors therefore come into play when dealing with these conduct issues, from the intentions of the parties, to the community view of the behaviour, to how parties are adhering to the relevant policies. As long as the committee remain focussed on these factors, they need not formulate policy or get involved in the individual content issues.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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.

   Arbcom is meant to facilitate the collaborative atmosphere which ensures that the content meets the standards expected. The committee shouldn't rule on the content itself, but rather ensure that the policies of wikipedia are being adhered to, for example by promoting discussion, stopping those who are editing tendentiously and so on. The influence that Arbcom should have over content should be limited, because they cannot have sufficient knowledge about every topic that could possibly come up.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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.

   Not every situation needs a full case, if the facts are known, the circumstances are not under dispute and so on. Motions are a great shortcut, under those circumstances, and saves the community from having to go through an extensive case. The reduced amount of time required for a motion also allows them to be used in emergency situtions where time is a factor.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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?

   In circumstances other than those described above, a motion would be inappropriate. If there's doubt over what happened in a case, then that should be looked into and shortcutting the process is not something that should happen. The Arbitration Committee is elected to help the community, not rule over it - nor overrule it. If the community has decided something by consensus - the very foundation of a collaborative environment, no, Arbcom should certainly not overrule that. They should also not go looking for issues to make decisions over. If an individual arbitrator wants to get involved, then they should - as an editor.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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.

   The obvious motion to mention here was one which did not pass the ban request on Malleus Fatuorum. A clarfication request had been filed, asking about Malleus' topic ban, which had caused confusion on more than one occasion. The early comments from some of the arbitrators appeared to be "Oh look, it's Malleus again, I've had just about enough of him" without looking into the request. This was then reflected in a ban request, which was signed by the required majority of Arbitrators very quickly. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't consider myself one of Malleus' supporters, but I don't consider myself one of his opposers - I was the only person to enforce the Civility Enforcement topic ban and I could accept Malleus being site banned, if there was evidence provided, legitimate discussion of that evidence. This wasn't what happened. I had observered Malleus sticking to his topic ban and showing improvement on civility matters and he was discussing further solutions on his talk page. A ban by motion in those circumstances was completely wrong.

   On the other hand, motions such as Racepacket's ban and EncycloPetey's desysop are a shame, but appropriate based on the evidence presented from both sides.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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?

   We'd be naive to assume that every ArbCom ruling will be the end of the dispute, so information needs to be kept - including the non-public information mentioned. I don't see a way around doing so.  Worm^TT(talk)

   ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?

   Whilst the first part of the question is obvious to me, this is less so. I remember from some training I took on the Data Protection Act 1998 in the UK, that companies should not keep information for longer than is "necessary", but that there was a lot of flexibility on what "necessary" meant (perhaps a matter or months or for financial institutions something like 6 years). I wouldn't like to say how long is necessary for us to keep non-public information, as many ArbCom bans are for over a year, we'd have to be looking at periods longer than that. More important to me is the question of access and security - information should be securely managed offline (probably by the Foundation) and only made available to the committee when it necessary, by request. New committee members shouldn't be able to browse through old records, any more than old members should be able to browse through new records.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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?

   Wherever possible, discussions should be taking place openly - the decision is only part of the puzzle, people should be able to clearly understand how and why that decision was made. Transparency is essential.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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?

   Allowing too many people access to the information at the time was problematic - sensitive information should only be available to the people who need to see it. I think that the committee could have reacted faster when the leak was discovered, issuing a statement that the leak had happened and had been plugged (by shutting down access for everyone, then giving it back bit by bit). Besides the speed issue, I think they did the best they could in a bad situation.  Worm^TT(talk)

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

   My identity isn't "widely known", as I'm nobody important, but after a small mix up at OTRS this year, I publicly identified myself on my user page. Worm^TT(talk)

   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?

   If private information is being used as evidence, the user in question should be allowed to know what that evidence is, otherwise they cannot dispute it. I can imagine situations of long term abuse where we may not want to show our hand, but unless there is a very good reason, the information should be disclosed. On the other hand, the community does not automatically have a right to see private information, though if the information is not private, it should in general be disclosed to the community. Worm^TT(talk)

   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?

   Quite simply, consensus can change, so previous decisions should not be binding. Previous cases may well be considered for possible solutions, but so should current community opinion and most importantly the facts of the case. Worm^TT(talk)

4. 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?

   As I understand it, the foundation defers to the community on pretty much all matters of content and behaviour (with the exception of the odd office action or legal matter). I think relying on the foundation, a group of non-elected individuals, to speak for the community would be severely problematic in the model that Wikipedia currently uses. I don't know of anything that ArbCom is handling that the WMF should be, or vice versa.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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?

   The community has done very well in resolving issues earlier so they no longer reach ArbCom - which means that fewer cases are reaching the committee. If the community can take on a task, I think it should - even if it needs ArbCom to make it binding. So, I don't think there is anything that the community does that ArbCom should. The other way around however, something I'd like to see the community take over a bit more is a proper procedure for removing the sysop bit. It's something that ArbCom deals with at the moment, but the amount of work that is needed to bring a case is prohibitive.  Worm^TT(talk)

5. 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?

   Certainly it does happen, and POV pushing is simply not acceptable. Modifying the term "civility" just serves to point out that POV pushing is worse than incivility and detracts from actually handling either POV pushing or civility as we're busy deciding which is worse. ArbCom should be focussing on the behaviours of individuals and if they are acting in an unacceptable manner, there should be repercussions.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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?

   I think that Wikipedia lends itself to factionalism, with it's open anonymous atmosphere. However, I think we deal it fairly well, ArbCom has shown itself to be relatively effective with it restrictions that it has dealt out on nationalist issues. I'll go into more depth in part d).  Worm^TT(talk)

   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?

   Editor retention is a huge problem for Wikipedia. I've said before new users find it difficult to break in to wikipedia and old ones do leave through natural turnover. Looking at the stats, they've been going downwards for years, and I know the Foundation is looking at ways to improve the situation. Unfortunately, their early efforts centred around making Wikipedia a more pleasant place for newcomers (like WikiLove and the Teahouse). I support these efforts, but I don't think they will make much of a difference in the long run.

   Wikipedia does have a shortage of editors. Articles can go for weeks with subtle vandalism, the backlog in cleanup is insane, the number of editors signing up to be administrators is about a tenth of the amount from 5 years ago. On top of that, important areas such as WP:AfC and WP:NPP are often in backlog.  Worm^TT(talk)

   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 is an interesting one, because covers a broad spectrum of behaviours and motives. It can be subtle and any co-ordination can be hard to spot, especially if it happens off-wiki. A group of editors holding the same view need not be inherently problematic, people are likely to find each other if they hold similar viewpoints and we encourage editors these types of editors to work together in WikiProjects. The problem comes when the faction works together to an end which does not match the standards we require on Wikipedia. For example, if a faction is being used to push a point of view, it falls simply under my answer to part a) POV pushing is not acceptable.

   The committee should take note of when evidence is provided of a faction who is working together towards a common goal, such as subverting consensus, and should be concerned with that behaviour. Whilst WP:CONSENSUS should in theory be sufficient to make decisions, where the weight of argument is the most important thing, in practise this is not necessarily so, as the weight of numbers can stifle discussion.

   As for a solution, there's no hard and fast rules and would have to depend on the situation. Once the individual behavioral issues had been taken care of, the remaining solution is to highlight the area and give uninvolved administrators the power to use discretionary sanction to be able to deal with specific problems as they occur.  Worm^TT(talk)

6. 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.

   Successful

   Cases:

   Article titles and capitalisation looked like a well handled case, though it took longer than I would have liked

   Refusals:

   Protection reversion was well handled, the arbs looked at the evidence and told the filer that a case was not appropriate.

   Unsuccessful

   Cases:

   Civility enforcement was a shambles. One remedy in particular caused more problems than it solved, and trying to fix that ended up with the mess I mentioned above in 3)c)iii)

   Refusals:

   I do think Featured article process should have been a case. There was an admin using his tools where he was involved and an editor who had been previously sanctioned by ArbCom. Since then, one's gone on an indefinite wikibreak and the other's been banned - and the project has suffered for both their losses. The committee should have looked heard a case and looked for a real solution.

    Worm^TT(talk)

7. 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?

   ArbCom appears very detached from the rest of the community, in my opinion the communication from the committee leaves much to be desired. Whether true or not, the perception of ArbCom is that of hidden decisions and being separate from the community. I would work towards improving that perception. We all know that some discussions must take place in secret, as the information is not public. Whilst this is reasonable, the default attitude should be that the community should be aware of what's going on. In all honesty, I don't know exactly how I'd be bringing these about, but concepts like a "community liaison", who has regular office hours to discuss Arbcom decisions or perhaps a report or blog written by the arbs in the signpost would be a start. (I thank NYB for actually doing something like this with his blog)

   I also suggested last year that I would be looking at Community De-sysopping, but I found there to be much less appetite for it than I expected when I started a proof of concept. I know there are a couple of editors who are likely to push for a process and they will have my full support, but I'm not sure that the benefit outweighs the work required any more.  Worm^TT(talk)

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:

#Question:
#:A:

---

Questions from Rschen7754

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

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

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

   A: I accept that sometimes Arbcom cases will go on a bit, I take care over what I write on Wikipedia, and expect others to as well. However, since that was a narrowly focussed case, with a fairly simple outcome, I'd say that it took too long.  Worm^TT(talk)

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A: Well, the primary purpose is to improve collaboration on a specific topic. People work on things they are interested in and a WikiProject has the benefit of grouping all the articles which match that interest, highlighting the articles which need work. It's also a good place to meet editors with a similar interest, encouraging future collaboration. I also remember your WikiProject question last year, where my statements still stand - WikiProjects can create some standards on the articles under their remit, as long as the standards they use don't contradict wider community standards and they respect wider community input. It is important that WikiProjects don't attempt to "own" articles, especially since articles may be under multiple WikiProjects.  Worm^TT(talk)

3. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   A:Wikipedia does have "vested contributors" and it's hardly surprising. The only way I can see to completely remove vested contributors is to remove any pseudonymity, any personality from the discussion. That way, we would be unable to tell which editor made the simple grammer fix, which editor wrote the exceptional prose and which editor added the vandalism. That's not Wikipedia though, and we obviously want to keep those who work hard (not just in articles, in all sorts of other areas).

   So, things get ignored and it doesn't take long before some leeway is given to the hard working Wikipedian. Is it a problem? Only if the community believes that it is. ArbCom cannot cut through this attitude if the community is happy with it, as ArbCom should not overrule the community. What ArbCom can do is evaluate the entire situation and come up with a fair solution, remembering that no one is indispensable.  Worm^TT(talk)

4. Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?

   A: If I felt I could not continue and that a break would not improve matters, I would resign. I could imagine this happening in the face of significant real life issues, if I felt the committee was making unethical decisions which I could not affect, if the committee themselves no longer had confidence in my work and so on. I also find it difficult to imagine a situation where I would continue on the committee after a successful recall was initiated.  Worm^TT(talk)

5. a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

   A: I'd rather judge each situation on it's merits, rather than subscribing to general rules. That said, assuming there are two (or more) parties to a dispute doesn't mean they are equally at fault. Of course, each party must take responsibility for their own actions and sanctions should be imposed based on the level of responsibility. As an example, if an editor A is baiting editor B over a prolonged period and editor B snaps, editor A is clearly more at fault. There are situations where an editor can be wholly not at fault in a dispute, and other situations where all parties are equally at fault, which is why committee members should examine the situation as a whole, not just as a set of diffs on an evidence page. Worm^TT(talk)

6. ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?

   A:I believe that administrators use of the tools should be based on community consensus. Administrators are given some leeway on assessing what consensus would be to allow them to make decisions quickly, which does sometimes lead to a grey area, where an adminsitrator makes a good faith decision which is later overturned by the community (or indeed Arbcom). Having said that, I hold admins to a very high standard and do not generally approve of the idea of "cowboy" administrators taking rash actions. Actions taken in the heat of the moment are not a long way from abuses of the tools and create an "us and them" mentality between administrators and non-administrators. Having said that, it is not generally appropriate for ArbCom to act without the scenario being brought, the committee has enough to do without monitoring every dispute which happens throughout Wikipedia. There can be emergency situations ArbCom can act quickly, but generally if a member of ArbCom spots something, they should act as an editor first and foremost, talking to the admin in question and following normal dispute resolution, such as taking the matter to WP:AN. Worm^TT(talk)

7. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?

   A: ArbCom only has jurisdiction over the English Wikipedia, it does not extend into other Wikimedia sites. On the other hand, things that happen on other sites may well affect what happens in an ArbCom case, for example, cross-wiki harassment should be taken into account in an ArbCom case. Public evidence on other sites is certainly valid, assuming we are certain of the source. Private and admin-only evidence is also valid, though per the privacy question above, it should be made available to the person in question. Worm^TT(talk)

8. What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?

   A: The speed of everything happening is relatively surprising, but having worked in IT for a few years, I'm aware of how these things can happen. I'm happy with my personal security in general, I don't daisy-chain my accounts, use many different secure passwords and so on, but I should be elected an Arbitrator, I would beef this security up further. Worm^TT(talk)

9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?

   A: Certainly, I wouldn't apply if I didn't. Worm^TT(talk)

1. Additional non-scored individual question: Why did you resign from being a clerk, and does that affect your candidacy (depending on the answer)?

   A: Thanks for reminding me about my clerking, I had completely forgotten about it, and have updated my statement to mention it. I believe I was a relatively unusual clerk, because I was approached by a clerk, not vice versa. I resigned because I do not enjoy bureaucracy at the best of times and the role of the ArbCom clerk is just about the most bureaucratic role on Wikipedia. I tried it for a month, didn't enjoy it, couldn't see myself making a difference there and felt it better to resign outright than to go inactive and quiet. There were also other reasons, it didn't fit with the way I worked on Wikipedia, I was busy with some challenging adoptions and I was just getting involved with the WP:TEAHOUSE. I am glad I tried the role though, it gave me a valuable insight into the arbitration process and also into the mindsets of a few members of the committee.

   As to whether my resignation affected my candidacy, indeed it did, it made me wary of the role. I've spent a lot of time reading what arbitrators past and present have said about the job, emailing a few to talk about it. I know what I'm getting myself into, I understand the bureaucracy is necessary for smooth running of the role and I am eternally grateful to those Wikipedians who are willing to clerk, to make the lives of people like me easier.  Worm^TT(talk)

Thank you. Rschen7754 22:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from SirFozzie

Hi. First off, thank you for putting your name in again this year. Like you, the first time I ran for the Committee, I was one spot outside those that were appointed. I'm curious to get your thoughts on how that affected you last year, what areas it suggested you improve to be a better candidate this year, and what you've done to keep familiar with the Committee's workings since last year. SirFozzie (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

1. A: Well, the arbcom elections are quite an arduous process and due to the poor timing of a house purchase, I felt a combination of exhaustion, disappointment and relief. One thing that I did discover from the process was quite how deep a feud I was in with User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, and so early this year we took the first step towards burying the hatchet. Since then we've got along quite well, which has certainly increased my enjoyment of working here. Otherwise, the largest criticism last year was lack of experience; a perfectly valid criticism, which I have attempted to rectify. When I was asked to be a clerk, I accepted and learnt an awful lot about ArbCom processes, despite not particularly enjoying the role.I've had the Arbitration request page and the Arbitration clarification page on my watchlist since I started as a clerk and left them on there when I quit. I've followed all the requests, despite not contributing to more than half a dozen. I've taken on the role of an oversighter, carried on with my adoptions, overhauled ADOPT, helped a bit at OTRS, joined the TEAHOUSE, commented a lot more at AN and ANI and just generally tried to get involved. Whether or not I have enough experience now, I'll let the community decide, I certainly feel I've gained valuable insights into many different areas.  Worm^TT(talk)

Question from Leaky

For follow-up comments and questions, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Worm_That_Turned/Questions § Moved comment from #Question from Leaky.

1. In your own words, please define a Wikipedian. Leaky Caldron 13:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

   A: Any person who contributes in good faith to improve Wikipedia. I'm happy to go into more depth about social constructs and self-identification, along with my opinions about the decisions and statements I disagree with from the recent Civility Enforcement clarification if you like.  Worm^TT(talk)

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

1. How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?

   A: There's a few factors at play here. A long term absence (or indeed a resignation) should really require a replacement - however, with the amount of work the community puts in towards the end of the year to elect arbitrators, it's not really feasable for replacing a single arbitrator. This is part of the reason we have a slightly over large committee. In my opinion, the committee should be at 13 arbs and that allows 2 arbitrators to resign or go absent. Worm^TT(talk)

2. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee. Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?

   A: I'm strongest at "front end" work, talking to people, managing their expectations and so on, so I believe my strongest area would be one like incoming mail. It's a skillset which will work well in most areas of the committee. Other than that, the main reason I'm running is that I've watched the most visible part of the committee, Case management and dispute resolution, and I feel I would be able to make a real difference there. Worm^TT(talk)

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

1. Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.

   There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.

   How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?

   A: On Wikipedia, I see the "rules" as descriptive of expected behaviour, rather than perscriptive. This is enshrined in our "consensus can change" rule and our "ignore all rules" rule. So in general, I lean very much towards the "community" end of your spectrum. There are of course, areas where external forces mean that "authority" helps speed up matters and that's good for situations where there is plausible real world harm (for example biographies or copyright violations). In general though, I'd much rather people looked at the situation beyond the rules and tried to solve that problem, rather than just invoking a sanction based on the rules.

   Arbitrators should look at the community view of the rules, as well as the rules themselves. Taking this more holistic approach ensures that the committee doesn't rule on things that the community cannot decide upon. In the vast majority of situations, the community is absolutely clear about what it wants and what believes - and it's just a case of applying that. What I don't want to see is arbitrators applying their view of a policy, for example, their specific view of what counts as civility, when the community cannot decide on the matter.  Worm^TT(talk)

2. What does "Civility" mean to you?

   A: A nice little link there. I've tried a number of times to write essays on my view of civility but I just can't complete them as civility is such a difficult concept. Wikipedia is chronically uncivil - full of contradictions. As for what civility means to me, it all boils down to one quite simple rule - treat people like people. Worm^TT(talk)

Question from User:Casliber

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)

Misuse of sources is problematic behaviour. Editors are required to work within content policies, and if they aren't, then they are behaving in a manner that needs looking at. In general, the sort of issues you are looking at in your notes, content behavioural issues such as undue weight, synthesis, original research and so on are handled well by the community. It's cases where there is a lot of noise due to strong polarisation of opinions that means the issue has to get to ArbCom, and that's where ArbCom should cut through that noise to the underlying issues. The behaviour and content might be closely linked, but they are seperate issues and ArbCom should be focussing on the former. Worm^TT(talk)

I'd actually contend that a significant proportion of the time they are not (well, really obvious ones are but it's the subtler and more complex ones that frequently pass by AN/I and the oft-inconclusive RfC). As arbs we've been hit with cases with big question marks over content issues, with each side accusing the other of various infractions. And looking at the editing there are often factions of people pushing a point of view. If we don't have someone doing even a modicum of investigation and you limit yourself to issues such as incivility, edit-warring and socking (when we can catch them), you're leaving wikipedia wide open to all sorts of shenanigans. Seriously. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do agree with that point of view - there will be a time where behaviour and content do merge, especially in complex disputes. I do however believe that ArbCom should be able to take a view on the behaviour without taking a view on the content. Admittedly, it's easier on some - misuse of sources is much easier to spot as a behavioural issue than say, undue weight, especially when there are sources to back up what they're saying. No one said the job was easy though, and arbs need to do the investigation. I'm not keen on the idea of washing one's hands of an issue with an editor who refuses to follow our policies just because the policies are regarding content. Worm^TT(talk)

Questions from Cunard

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) 04:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC closes

1. 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?

   I've advocated equal status for admins and non-admins many times. I don't believe there is anything special in being an administrator, besides the extra abilities, it means more responsibility and setting an example, but that's about it. Closures of RfCs, where many editors have opined, should have a decent closure explaining how and why the decision was made. If a non-admin closes an RfC with a good rationale, I don't think it should be summarily overturned just because the editor is not an admin. Worm^TT(talk)

2. 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.

   Non-admin closures aside, I do like the idea of a place to "review" RfC closures. If there is a closure which one side believes poor, the closure is often reverted a few times and ends up at before AN, ANI or even Arbcom. A specific area defined for RfC reviews would be a positive step, but I do not hold an opinion on exactly what the format should be.  Worm^TT(talk)

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.
  1. Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.

     I do agree, and stated so earlier Worm^TT(talk)

  2. 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 don't have a fast solution to this. I will initially be passively promoting it, by not encouraging off-wiki discussions and not furthering them. Where possible, I will be actively suggesting that conversations take place on Wiki. Otherwise, I'd be interested in hearing thinking-outside-the-box solutions.  Worm^TT(talk)

Recusals

1. 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.

   I've interacted with a lot of editors over the years, yet there's only a handful I can think of that would lead to an automatic recuse. I think SilkTork has it right, that time since an action and whether the action lead to disputes. Effectively it should be a matter of common sense.  Worm^TT(talk)

2. 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.

   The obvious area in which I have spent a significant amount of my time is Adoption. I would certainly recuse if any editor I personally adopted was up Arbcom.  Worm^TT(talk)

Consensus

1. 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?

   I've been vaguely avoiding this question because I know so little about the situation and I'm well aware that it has very wide reaching implications in American politics, as areas such as politics, religion and the military have a large bearing on each other. Scandals such as this just don't generally hold my interest. In any case, looking at the discussion, the keep !votes are generally less grounded in policy than the delete !votes, many of which point to other articles, rather than explaining why WP:BLP1E would not apply. Having said that, the level of publicity this person has received does counter the delete !votes. I would have closed as no consensus to delete. Having said that, if I'd !voted myself, I would have !voted to redirect the article, as her notability is so tied up into the affair that she does not require her own article. Worm^TT(talk)

2. 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?

   Despite thinking the article should be deleted, the arguments for overturning were stronger there, addressing the issues with the close. Relisting would not be helpful, just prolonging the discussion which would never be productive whilst the media was in a furore. I would probably agree with overturning, with the theory that it could be reviewed in a few months when the media frenzy had died down.  Worm^TT(talk)

3. 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.

   Low-profile is pretty difficult for a socialite, as she will likely carry on being noticed. As such, the 1E argument does weaken, but I still do believe it is the most relevant argument.  Worm^TT(talk)

4. 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?

   I understand the consensus policy to be referring to admin actions which are taken off their own back, a single administrator's opinion. However, XfD is based on weighing and is not down the administrator's discretion - so that's where the discrepency comes in. Deletion review looks at the decision and the deletion discussion as a whole and if there is no consensus, the status quo should remain.  Worm^TT(talk)

   (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?

   If a single administrator has blocked an editor and there is no consensus for the block at AN, then of course it should be undone. Similarly with unblock discussions, though there is a difference, in general the community appears to be more lenient on unblocks, giving the blocked user a chance.  Worm^TT(talk)

5. 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.

   I go by strength of arguments, rather than mere numbers. This was one of the reasons that I closed the RfC on Verifiability's first sentence as no consensus. My thoughts could be found there.  Worm^TT(talk)

6. 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?

   There should certainly be a balance of the two. The policy based position is one that should be considered as supported by silent majority - and so the part of the community that does discuss the matter should be deciding how policy applies. The closing admin should then judge the consensus of that discussion.  Worm^TT(talk)

7. Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010?

   That's a difficult one. What the admins did there was plough ahead and cause a lot of drama by ignoring process. They did it for absolutely the right reasons but there was definitely better ways they could have handled things. I would probably not have supported that motion, simply because commending admins to act in that manner would likely cause further issues in the future. I feel SirFozzie's comments echo my thoughts exactly.  Worm^TT(talk)

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.
  1. Would you have supported or opposed this motion to desysop? Would you have proposed a different motion?

     I would have preferred a suspension until a case was heard, though because that alternative would effectively be kicking the can down the road, I would probably support the motion as a second choice. A case would have been better, as eight arbitrators felt a case should be accepted and the "evidence" was the opening statement by the admin who initiated the request, however, there is very little point to a case where the editor in question has walked away.  Worm^TT(talk)

  2. 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.

     Per above, I believe that a built in delay would have been the best solution, with suspension of admin rights. In fact, a delay fairly similar to the Aitias one would be ideal.  Worm^TT(talk)

  3. 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 think it would depend very much on the reason for desysop. I would generally expect RfA to be the main route back and would feel uncomfortable re-sysopping based solely on Arbcom's judgement. I can, however, see situations where desysopping should be used as a temporary measure. In those situations, if it is clear that sysop rights have been removed for a period of time, the editor should be able to come to Arbcom to request the bit back as an alternative.  Worm^TT(talk)

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.
  1. 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?

     It takes a lot for me to think someone is a net negative to a project - Malleus has done a lot of great work in areas that matter to me (not just article work, but helping new and existing users). He is the centre of a lot of drama, which makes for a less pleasant working environment. Is that enough to make him a net negative? No. If he were a causing more problems than he was adding, he wouldn't have got this far.  Worm^TT(talk)

  2. 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.

     The comment was wholly inappropriate, insulting and plain wrong. I understand the sentiment behind it, attempting to start discussion about a "social contract" that anyone who edits the encyclopedia must follow, but it was an inappropriate time to do it and very poorly worded. Inflamed the situation is an understatement. Whether Person X is a Wikipedian, like many social identies, is not something Person Y should be deciding - if Person X contributes to Wikipedia and especially to the back end which the public doesn't notice, they are a Wikipedian - it's that simple.  Worm^TT(talk)

     (b) Does this comment violate Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?

     Absolutely it's a personal attack. We wouldn't tolerate an equivalent comment on racial, political or religious grounds and they are all just social contracts on a much large scale. Summarily stating that someone has never been "one of us" is obviously a personal attack.  Worm^TT(talk)

     (c) Was the block of this arbitrator for "personal attacks" justified or unjustified under Wikipedia:Civility and/or Wikipedia:No personal attacks?

     I endorsed the block at the time. I even considered doing it myself, but Floq beat me. To make a personal attack, in the middle of a decision on a "civility enforcement" case... it's unbecoming of an arb, an admin, an editor or even a person. That he was unblocked so quickly just suggests that he is also vested contributor. Worm^TT(talk)

     (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.

     As I stated to Leaky, a Wikipedian is any person who contributes in good faith to improve Wikipedia. I'd accept an argument that those who did not know about the "back end" aren't really part of the community, but blocked and banned editors who contributed positively definitely were Wikipedians. They may not be current Wikipedians, but nor are the many editors who have burnt out and retired. Worm^TT(talk)

  3. 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?

     That motion? No, I would not have supported it - it was not appropriate to subvert a clarification request to ban, when no evidence had been presented on whether or not the previous outcome had worked.  Worm^TT(talk)

  4. 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?

     In the general case, I would look at my decision again, taking into account any arguments presented. Messages of straight disagreement such as Floquenbeams would unlikely affect any decision I made, but well thought out comments on talk pages would, as would 73 editors appearing with arguments against it. (73 is the number of editors who turned up after the motion was proposed) I wouldn't necessarily change my decision just because of vociferous complaints, but I would consider them. Arbcom is there for the community, and if the community stands up and says a decision is wrong, it should be listened to. If I believe the decision is right, I will stand by it and I will explain why. Worm^TT(talk)

     (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?

     I absolutely agree with that opinion.  Worm^TT(talk)

  5. 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)?

     I've watched Malleus at RfA, as RfA is an area I am interested in. Indeed, I offered evidence regarding Malleus and RfA in the intial case and I was the only editor to ban Malleus from an RfA, so I think I've got a unique opinion on the matter. From what I've seen, Malleus did not need to be further restricted from RfA, and I would have opposed the motion.  Worm^TT(talk)

  6. 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?

     As I stated in both civility enforcement clarfications, the remedy was poorly written and much of it could be removed. I would have suggested.

     Malleus Fatuorum is indefinitely topic banned from Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. Should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA.  Worm^TT(talk)

  7. 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?

     I can certainly see that point of view. Whilst an editor is part of the community, they should have a say in who should be considered trustworthy or not. Worm^TT(talk)

  8. 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?

     Ah, now here's the crux of the matter. Yes, I would site ban a user who is a net positive. A user, who is disrupting Wikipedia and who has remained disruptive even after a reasonable good faith attempts to help them improve, should be banned. That's true of any user, no matter how much good they've done. If the disruption can be stopped with a topic ban, then a topic ban is appropriate, otherwise, a site ban is necessary.  Worm^TT(talk)

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) 04:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Question(s) from Risker

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

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

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly publicly and privately uphold the considered decision of the Committee, even if I do not agree with it. There is a point in every situation where no further good can come of discussing it and moving on is the right thing to do. If the discussion has happened, and I do not agree with the rest of the committee, I have the ability to accept that I am in the minority and uphold that decision. This is one of the situations where transparency is useful, as it shows the different points of view that the committee considered so the need for future disagreement is mitigated. Worm^TT(talk)

Question from SilkTork

As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm on UTC + 0 and am available by email for the majority of the day (7am - 10pm UTC), though I do try and maintain a real life so don't sit in front of the computer outside of office hours, unless I have a reason to. I also glance at my watchlist regularly throughout the day.  Worm^TT(talk)

Question from Bazonka

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I attend social meetups in Liverpool and Manchester when I can and I am always happy to meet any Wikipedians there. I also travelled down to Coventry to take part in a photo competition (and went on to win) and just a couple of days ago I helped out at a training event in Manchester. I'm currently looking into organising an event with my partner, similar to the Coventry competition - so I'd say I'm relatively involved in off-line activities. I do not see this changing if I was on the Arbitration committee, as I find these events to be some of the most enjoyable uses of my time.  Worm^TT(talk)

Question from Audacity

In the civility case mentioned by Cunard above, you suggested (see section directly above link) that an ArbCom member might be "trying to put forward a show of power, with the election looming." Without necessarily referencing that particular instance, do you think that such shows of power have been common on the part of arbitrators, and if so, would you avoid making them yourself? Λυδαcιτγ 02:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Audacity. I could have expressed myself better with that remark, I was infuriated with the decision made which did not match either the request or the situation. However, I do still see the motion as a "show of power" - perhaps to try and sort the civility issue. I don't think this is particularly common, though certain arbitrators have a predilection for doing so. As it is a specific manner of thinking and I do not see the benefits of doing that I don't think it likely I will do the same.  Worm^TT(talk)

Question from Giano

Hi Worm, I shall probably vote for you however you reply to this - I am desperately looking to vote for some new blood, but the rest of your colleagues seem as lack lustre as in previous years. So! If your elected, what's in it for people like me? will we feel happier here? will you attempt to make Wikipedia a more relaxed place for those of us who don't want to sing the Wikipedia Song and play nice patsy ball with a lot of irritating oiks from God knows where. Will you attempt to make Wikipedia a more encouraging place for people like Malleus who love to write, but don't gladly suffer fools. I don't suppose you will be able to change anything, but it would be nice to know that you intend to try. Giano (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Giano. Thanks for you comments, I'm glad to hear that I've impressed you a little bit! As to the question, I'd love to tell you that I will charge round like the proverbial bull in a china shop, ejecting the idiots who irritate you and standing like a Colossus to stop more fools getting in. Of course, if I did tell you that, I'd be doing something between offering empty promises and outright lying through my teeth.

What I can tell you is that I am dedicated to making Wikipedia a better place for everyone. I've been focussed on doing this for a while, from trying to stop editors suffering at RfA by creating a way to ask for a nomination to putting forward an RfC to see the community appetite for community de-adminship. My methods may be more subtle than admins who block first and then argue but I have a track record of calling people out when I see them behaving poorly, be they editor, administrator or arbitrator. I don't believe in making an example of single editors, I endeavour to speak in clear terms but with tact and I refuse to demean an editors hard work, even if their removal is necessary.

So will you feel happier if I'm on Arbcom? I don't know, I'm nothing special - just an editor who does what he thinks is right and tries to improve things. I will be looking at both sides of a case, working towards more transparency and will always explain my reasoning. I cannot promise any more.  Worm^TT(talk)

Question from Begoon

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

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

I do think ArbCom has become rather closer to GovCom over the years, especially since it seems to reject so many arbitration cases and has picked up so many additional responsibilities. I do take issue with the idea that it doesn't arbitrate at all - it does sit in judgement as an independent body on intractable disputes, something I'd consider a text-book definition of arbitration. However, that role has diminished as the community has started to handle disputes better and it does sometimes just seem to be there to hand down sanctions in cases where a hard decision is needed.

Is this where we want to be? I'm not too sure. I think there is a strong argument that ArbCom should have it's wings clipped with some separation of powers. iridescent came up with some good ideas and I'm seeing some very interesting suggestions coming from the community at the moment. Even if some of the more radical reforms don't come about, I'd like to see more transparency, as I've been saying for a long time now.  Worm^TT(talk)

Thank you. I've followed up with a number of other candidates because I realise the wording of my initial question was quite poor. I hope you don't mind if I quickly do the same with you. Your point about arbitration is well taken, although I did qualify it with "most of the time". What I singularly failed to do in my original question was to ask a direct question about the "political" aspect of arbcom, instead mentioning it only in passing. I apologise for that. I am interested whether you feel that the political aspect, with elections, campaigns etc. is problematic. Obviously I have the current "leak" controversy firmly in mind when asking that, but additional concerns too, such as the possibility that an arbcom member might vote differently on some occasions than he would have done absent the concern for votes at an election. Additionally, I wonder whether you feel that arbcom being tasked with governing itself, and ruling on the conduct of its own members is a satisfactory situation. My apologies for not asking all of this in a more concise fashion the first time around. Begoon ^talk 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind, you've brought up one of the largest issues with elections and politics in general, one which does not have a simple answer. I personally don't see the point in campaigning, I'd rather that people did their own research. I suppose, if I had been campaigning last year, I might have got in above Jclemens (Only 8 people needed to support me instead of him) and things may have looked very different this year.

I do believe that the political aspect of ArbCom is problematic, but not nearly as problematic as the alternatives. If the community did not have a say in which arbitrators they have, they would have a lot more difficulty trusting the committee. Imagine a situation where a few WMF staff were the final point of call for disputes - yes, it might well work, but it would go against the principle of having a community who makes decisions. So, we have to accept that those who are elected will have to appeal to the community and therefore they will act in a political manner.

As for whether ArbCom should govern itself - It's not a great solution as it encourages corruption. However, we do have regular elections and Jimbo to help keep things in check. I think that there are larger issues which will minimise the need for self-regulation, transparency (which I keep harping on about, but it is a big issue) - allowing editors to know what's going on, stopping sending private information to individuals, reducing the battleground within the list - will help mitigate future problems. Worm^TT(talk)

Questions from GabeMc

1. Questions: 1) Would you close an RfC that was happening as part of a formal mediation but wasn't to be closed by the mediator/s when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that resulted in said RfM and RfC? 2) Assuming this has happened inappropriately, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

   A: It would depend very much on the level of participation in the AN/I and how tied in it was to the dispute. Just being part of an AN/I discussion regarding an editor and !voting to indef-block does not necessarily make me involved in the dispute itself. I would likely go on to write a very comprehensive summary of the RfC - explaining my reasons for the closure in a certain direction. As to the second part of your question, assuming it happened inappropriately - It depends on the level of inappropriateness. Assuming his comments at AN/I gave an impression of involvement, I would suggest a trout for the admin who can't tell if he was involved, and getting an uninvolved admin to look over the closure, either endorsing it or overturning it. If he was blatently involved, then a more harsh remedy than a trout might be required.  Worm^TT(talk)

Second round of questions from Cunard

1. Activity levels

   At User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 21#A small job for you, you wrote on 15 October 2012, "Indeed, attacked by terrible real-world junk. I'm back now though. Having said that, since I had far too many adoptees that I was neglecting, I thought it poor idea to take on more. I've archived my quiet adoptees, so hopefully I'm down to two - but even so, I think taking on more at present would be a poor idea."

   How do you anticipate your schedule for the next two years? Will you be able to devote enough time to both your adoptees and arbitration work?

   My schedule for the next two years? I expect it will be less busy than the last two years, where I had a number of major life events, but I would be naive to say that I won't have any periods of inactivity. My real life does come first - and back in October, I was working up to 50 hour weeks, which did not leave me much spare time. I don't expect this to happen again any time soon, but I can't rule it out. As for adoptees, I'm afraid I will be largely withdrawing from adoption should I take on the arbitration role. I may well take adoptees on again in the future, once I am settled in arbitration, but I am the first point of contact for dozens of editors and have struggled to take on anyone new for a while. Having said that, I do not doubt I will have time for my past adoptees. Worm^TT(talk)

2. Talk-page watchers

   As demonstrated at User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 22#Yes, you have a number of young, eager talk-page watchers (as well as some watchers who are not so young). This question concerns the younger, more impulsive watchers. One editor has written, "...Worm who [is] usually dead on with nominations and come to trust [him] to the point that I see no need to evaluate the candidate anymore." (link)

   They have at times overreacted when you have been criticized. See for example User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 21#Apparently you are not up with the times.. at 14:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC).

   In an earlier incident, an editor at User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 21#Sigma's RFA wrote to one of your adoptees, "Believe me, I felt hazed. I've just looked at it again, I still feel it was hazing. You did the usual thing that people do, joined in with the attack dogs when you felt you had easy prey."

   Suppose you receive a message like the opening post at a former arbitrator's talk page: User talk:Coren/Archives/2009/November#Your threats and incivility. Or suppose you receive a message from a disgruntled but well-meaning party to an arbitration case. How will you proactively prevent this "hazing" from your eager talk-page watchers happening to editors involved in cases you have been arbitrating? I refer particularly to times when you may be inactive for an extended period of time.

   I do have a number of talk page watchers, some of whom are rather protective of me. This is to be expect given the work I've done, helping some members of the community who have specific needs, especially Aspergers and autism. Should I become an arbitrator, I will be talking to each of the editors who might over react, warning them about the sorts of things that might happen on my talk page. I will always welcome their input, but will explain that I don't mind what people say to me and don't need to be defended excessively.

   I should point out though that I dealt with each situation you highlighted at the time, despite being inactive - which probably tells you more about what I mean by "inactive" than anything else. Not only am I always available by email, I also reply very quickly to important talk page messages.  Worm^TT(talk)

   Although you did deal with the two situations in the examples above, it's best to take preventative action against "hazing" behavior by your good faith but overly defensive talk-page watchers. Thank you for your reassuring answer. I hope none of these situations will be repeated. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

3. RfA

   At User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 21#Sigma's RFA, you wrote, "I've been vaguely following the RFA, but not enough to investigate the allegations. As such, my nomination stands."

   Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ failed primarily because of the candidate's admitted coordination of vandalism on another wiki and secondarily because of immaturity and uncommunicativeness. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QuiteUnusual failed because of plagiarism.

   (a) With the benefit of hindsight, would you have agreed to be an RfA nominator at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ?

   I would certainly have nominated Σ, despite only finding out about the co-ordination of vandalism after doing so. I believe Σ will make an excellent administrator one day and ~68% of editors agree. Indeed, when he's ready, I will nominate him again. With hindsight, I would have discussed the issues that were raised with him, and would have ensured that they would not be repeated. I do this with all RfAs. Worm^TT(talk)

   (b) With the benefit of hindsight, would you have agreed to be an RfA nominator at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QuiteUnusual?

   QuiteUnusual's RfA did fail due to plagiarism concerns, yet again I feel no regret for nominating him, and would do so again. I did find some minor close paraphrasing issues when I nominated him, but did not feel that they were sufficient to worry about. I discussed the matter with QU, and warned him that even the minor ones I found may well cause his RfA to fail. With hindsight, I would have been more thorough on the investigation and would have worked with him to address these concerns, but given QU's reaction to the issue (he fixed all violations before the end of the RfA and went through his entire contribution history looking for them) I still believe he will make an excellent admin. Worm^TT(talk)

   I did find some minor close paraphrasing issues when I nominated him, but did not feel that they were sufficient to worry about. I discussed the matter with QU, and warned him that even the minor ones I found may well cause his RfA to fail. – a review of the RfA indicates that you did not disclose these minor close paraphrasing issues to the community. Although they did not concern you, you should have revealed the "minor close paraphrasing issues" to see if the community shared your lack of concern and to prompt community members to check if the close paraphrasing was minor or more serious. Some editors no longer see the need to review candidates when you're the nominator. Their trust in you seems misplaced if you do not disclose relevant information like close paraphrasing issues. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ

   In a discussion with your conominator, a supporter (who later became neutral) believed my lengthy oppose vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ was disruptive. For related discussion, see also User talk:Cunard/Archive 9#RfA 2 and User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 11#RfA.

   (a) In your opinion, did my statements at the RfA make me "much more disruptive that some of our more 'famously disruptive' editors who were dragged to ANI and Arb"?

   I'm afraid that, yes, I believe that your actions at Σ's RfA were some of the most disruptive I have seen at any RfA. You made almost as many edits to the RfA as the candidate, adding about 51kb to the page. It appeared to me to be a "throwing mud and hoping some sticks" strategy, excessive and given the irregularity of your voting at RfA it was possibly indicative of a personal vendetta.  Worm^TT(talk)

   That you as RfA nominator view my actions as disruptive like the other supporters is unsurprising. Your accusations of a possible "personal vendetta", however, are surprising and ungrounded. Was this "personal vendetta" accusation planted in your mind by other editors, or did you independently form this view? This is the first I've heard about a "personal vendetta", and I do not see any of this mentioned on-wiki. Did you discuss this with others off-wiki? Cunard (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

   (b) The former supporter wrote, "Had I not voted, I would have blocked him." Please explain whether you have supported or opposed this block based on its compliance or non-compliance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

   A block would not have been appropriate in this situation. Blocks should be preventative and there was nothing to prevent. Much more appropriate would be discussion at your talk page. I personally hope that Σ himself decides to have a chat with you prior to running for adminship in the future.  Worm^TT(talk)

   A block would have been appropriate in this situation. Blocks should be preventative and there was nothing to prevent. – I understand what you are trying to say, but would you reword this? You are stating two contradictory views. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

   Fixed, my mistake, sorry. Worm^TT(talk) 10:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

   (c) The former supporter wrote, "I'm working if an RfA topic ban is needed at WP:AN". Explain why you would have supported or opposed this proposed topic ban.

   Again, a topic ban on RfA is not appropriate. Given the infrequency of your comments at RfAs I do not believe that an RfA topic ban would be appropriate. The whole thing can be sorted with a conversation, and so a topic ban is an over-reaction  Worm^TT(talk)

   (d) Your conominator wrote, "arbcom has practically decreed that RfA is a safe haven for those who smugly pride themselves in their disruption and their success at deliberately bringing the RfA system to its knees". Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you agree, how will you curb the alleged disruption at RfA during your tenure on the Arbitration Committee?

   I've disagreed with the co-nominator on this matter in the past, many times. It's his opinion, and not one that I share. I see RfA as a difficult environment for those who are not used to criticism or who take the criticism too personally, and unfortunately it has a reputation which puts people off. I do not agree with most comments made about the RfA system. Furthermore, Arbcom is not there to regulate RfA - so I don't really see how the committee can actively curb such disruption. As an individual, I will remain involved in trying to make RfA a better place and will carry on nominated editors I feel are ready for the process and who stand a chance of getting through. Worm^TT(talk)

   (e) If I were part of an arbitration case, would my oppose vote at Σ's RfA make it reasonable for me to ask you to recuse? (For the record, I would not ask you to recuse. This is merely a hypothetical question to probe your thoughts on when recusal is necessary.)

   Well, you can always ask! Prior to this set of questions, I would have instictively declined (but would double check with committee members), as there was no dispute between us, just a difference of opinion. I'd actually forgotten about your !vote until you brought it up above. I have now opined on your behaviour above, but I would still suggest that there is no dispute between us and that there no need for me to decline. Having said that, it does depend on the reasons you give requesting my recusal and a reasonable request will always get my attention. There are more than enough arbitrators to handle cases, were I recused.  Worm^TT(talk)

   The accusations about my having a possible "personal vendetta" call into question whether you can be neutral if I were part of an RfA-related arbitration case. Although I rarely participate at RfA, I review open RfAs whenever I am active. I support only when I am very familiar with the candidate. I oppose only when I have concerns about a candidate and the RfA result is not a foregone conclusion. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123 in September 2012, where I filed a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations against the candidate after copyright violation concerns were raised. Your conominator's essay mentions my contribution to the RfA: "The most innocent copyright violations that you have added – even older ones – especially to Did You Know, good articles, and featured articles will almost certainly be detected, and will seriously compromise your RfA, and perhaps your future on Wikipedia."

   The copyright violations were not as unconcerning as this essay makes it out to be. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Rcsprinter123 required a review of about 600 article contributions. I don't understand why my contribution was singled out in this essay rather than the contribution of your other conominator, who first raised the copyright concerns. Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs)'s well-researched vote was the most-cited oppose. I did not oppose because the RfA had already reached a foregone conclusion. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I will likely support you in this election but have asked you more questions because you are one of the candidates I am more familiar with. I have not notified the editors involved in questions two and four that their statements have been mentioned in this question; I do not intend to post on their talk pages about these matters. I leave it at your discretion to notify them if you believe it's necessary. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've supported you in this election because you are one of the candidates who are most suited to the role. In your answer to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions#Civility case clarification request #6, you noted that "the remedy was poorly written and much of it could be removed". It is unlikely that any editor will raise another clarification or amendment request after Malleus Fatuorum was nearly banned by a clarification request. Fixing this poor remedy can only come from within the Committee. I trust you will make this fix after you are elected. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied at user talk page for those interested. Worm^TT(talk) 10:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Question from Piotrus

1. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:

   Generally a full site ban is required when a limited ban would not do the job. This might be because an editor is problematic in many different areas or refuses to work in other areas. It might be because they have consistently refused help or won't work under community norms.  Worm^TT(talk)

2. on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?

   In general I agree with it, it's certainly part of my editing philosophy, to only block when absolutely required, but it's also worth noting that administrators have very little power when it comes to alternative sanctions. Blocks come under their remit, though bans (be it full site ban, or an interaction ban, topic ban etc) do not. This means that if an adminstrator wants to deal with disruption and warnings/protection/rights removal does not cover it, they either have to put forward a full argument at a noticeboard or block the individual. Bring the argument up to a different level, such as AN discussion or Arbcom, and it makes a lot more sense.  Worm^TT(talk)

3. to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)

   Though the concepts are much less used in today's society, the full site banning is very much like banisment or exile, a type of ostracism where we do not care what happens to the user once they have been removed.  Worm^TT(talk)

4. do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?

   I know that the analogy has been used many times, but I do not agree with it. Incarceration implies seperation from society for a set period of time, which does match, but most incarceration systems have (at least in theory) a rehabilitation aspect to the punishment. There is nothing like that as part of a wikipedia blocking system.  Worm^TT(talk)

5. do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate) is something to applaud or criticize?

   I'm personally astounded by the US incarceration rate and it's definitely part of the American culture which I cannot relate to. I don't agree with these attitudes, but they are cultural and since I don't live there I am unable to judge the full picture.  Worm^TT(talk)

Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Question from Martinevans123

1. Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? (very sorry to leave you until last) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

   very last minute question! I'm on my phone, so I'll be brief. I have no issue with four letter words, but certainly don't encourage them. They rarely improve a conversation and are only likely to invoke an aggressive stance. Worm^TT(talk) 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A brief answer, but one of the best, I feel. Thanks. Have now voted, so Please don't feel obliged to add a response at my Talk Page, even if when you are elected. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)