General questions[edit]
- What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
The ability to talk to all types of people and to arrive at a consensus.
- What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
Well, I was obviously involved in the Climate Change case and was sanctioned. Actually that was one of the best things that happened to me, because it forced me to look at myself and how I dealt with issues.
- Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
It is impossible to say. The whole purpose of ArbCom is to provide a way for the project to function. The first key is rehabilitation - can the individual be kept as a good editor? What action best supports that? In my case, it was about a 2-year forced hiatus from Wikipedia. Some (probably most) people don't need that drastic a wake-up call.
- Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
There are issues with several users where I would immediately recuse, not because I would be unfair, but because the appearance of fairness is essential to the ArbCom process. Those individuals are tied to what led to my sanctions, so it is better that I recuse if any of those came to ArbCom.
- Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
Not that I can think of.
- Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
I thought that the committee handled the ScientistApologist unblock request extremely well, by declining it and letting the community decide. I opposed the unblock, but it was better that the community make that decision (and thus far, I am pleasantly surprised at how well it has gone). I don't know that I can think of one that they did not handle well, which is distinguishable from coming to the same conclusion that I would have reached.
- The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
It depends. I see ArbCom as the SCOTUS of Wikipedia. It is ArbCom's role not to make policy, but to state what the policy is, and what it means. Cases should be accepted if it will benefit the community. Period.
- What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
I don't have a clue until I am working in the area.
- What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
I don't have a clue until I am working in the area.
- It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
For the most part, it has been true, and should be. There will always be exceptions.
- What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
Little to none. Admins should be able to handle this task.
- Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
I don't see a need for checkuser, I will request oversight rights. Oversight would only be used to protect an individuals information from becoming public. Others with the right can handle the other issues.
- Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
I've already been outed, so I don't see it as an issue.
- Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
I don't think so off the top of my head, but I'm not familiar with the process. I don't have a clue until I am working in the area.
- Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
I have difficulty with taking action based on secret evidence. Whether the community knows about it or not is a different issue. The first is one of due process and fairness, while the second could create potential issues.
Individual questions[edit]
Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.
The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.
- What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
Can you clarify your question? It looks to me that this took 2-1/2 months. It's a little longer than the case looked like it should have taken, but I don't have a clue what other issues they were working on at the same time.
- What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and WP:OWN? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
a) WikiProjects run the gamut from great to not so great. b) There should be no ownership of articles by any editor or group, including those of a wikiproject. c) The same thing as in other content disputes. It should be worked out and a consensus reached.
- 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?
I don't know. I haven't really paid all that much attention to discussions on this subject.
- 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) Usually, not always. b) Of course. Each individual and case must be evaluated on its own merits.
- zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
OMG - not as rapidly as I thought in the past (before my block). It varies. I'm less inclined to cut slack for wheel-warring or for pushing a POV (on either side of an issue) than I am for an apparent good faith mistake. Admins are human (well, maybe :D) and are to be expected to make a mistake. We don't need to crucify them when this happens. On conduct unbecoming, it just depends on the conduct. How bad is it? How did it affect the community and the project? Is it likely to recur?
- What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
- What is your definition of "outing"?
Releasing information on the identity of an editor.
- What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Wikipedia, and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
I don't have real crosswiki experience, so I'm not familiar with CU/OS anywhere else. The only experience here is where I've seen it used. I had an SPI run on me early on, and CU cleared me. How it did so, I don't have a clue. My experience is similar with OS. I've seen the results of oversighted comments (i.e., the struck through diff), but that's it. I don't intend to request or use CU, and limit use of OS to outing cases where it is needed immediately.
- Have you been in any content disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any content disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
Ah, yeah. Look at the Climate Change case. Not one of my best efforts. I've also worked out a number of content disputes by discussion, forming consensus, RFC, etc. It's much better the second way.
- Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
Sort of a supreme court for Wikipedia. ArbCom doesn't make policy, but it says what policy is, and means. In a perfect world, it would be an honorary body, with no real duties, but until we get there, we need people who will have the best interests of the community at heart.
- Have you read the WMF proposal at m:Access to nonpublic information policy (which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
Yes, and yes.
Thank you. Rschen7754 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions by Sven Manguard[edit]
- 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?
Simple matters can be handled more efficiently by motion than a full case.
- When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
Simple matters can be handled more efficiently by motion than a full case.
- Please identify a few motions from 2013 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did. Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
I believe that the Kevin motions (both of them) showed an appropriate use of the motion system.
- The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.
I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this matter, because I do not have the information that ArbCom had, nor was I part of the process. However, having said that, I have no sympathy for Phil. Whether the other editor had "outed" himself or not, posting information with the apparent desire to harm another editor over a content dispute is not acceptable. Period.
- In the aftermath of the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?
I believe that ArbCom members and admins are responsible to the community, and that except in very rare circumstances, be prepared to explain their actions.
- Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
I don't know, it depends on the nature of the other information.
- The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.
- - If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?
- - If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?
- - All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?
Question from Heim[edit]
- Could you tell us some more about your history? You mention being sanctioned and blocked in 2010, but you don't explain the grounds, whether you think they were legitimate etc. Since you're running for the most trusted position on Wikipedia, I would ask you to let us know more about this.
I don't have a problem with discussing any of it, with one proviso. The sanction was a topic ban from all Climate Change articles, broadly construed, from the Climate Change case. It was appropriate, given the battleground mentality which I exhibited at the time and it was one of the reasons that I have changed my style somewhat. I'm still not touchy-feely and can be blunt at times, but I also try a lot harder to use RfC and other tools to find consensus. The block was appropriate too, although I'm not sure how much detail I can go into on that issue. When I get more time later today, I'll email ArbCom for clarification on what I can say. ADDED - I was blocked in October 2010 for making a legal threat. I had been outed by a previously banned editor, defamed by a number of off-wiki individuals, and suffered consequences at work resulting in my termination. As a consequence, I filed a defamation lawsuit which included an active editor and was appropriately blocked for the duration of the case. Some time after the case ended, I appealed to ArbCom to lift the block, [1] which they did under restrictions. Later, after I had been back to editing for awhile, those restrictions were lifted. [2]
Questions by Gerda Arendt[edit]
Thank you, precious candidate, for volunteering.
- Question 1 of 3: Please describe what happens in this diff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information was transferred from a metadata infobox at the bottom of the page to a person infobox at the top of the page. The photo was not done correctly on this edit, but was corrected on the next edit. That's all I see, unless I'm missing something.
- I like the way you really looked and described factually. No. 2 (of 3): imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that diff, standing alone, as grounds for sanctions. If you are talking about something beyond that, such as the Infoboxes then the answer is more complicated. Had the editor been under any previous sanctions? Was there disagreement on the talkpage. Due to the nature of the wikiprojects involved, could the edit have been anticipated being contentious? It is hard to determine without looking at all of the evidence and comments.
- Do you think it would be a good idea to find out? I advise you to look at the history and talk of the article, not at what was presented as evidence, namely that the editor was banned twice.
Yes, it is a good idea to find out, if we are talking about a real case. First, I haven't been able to find an RfC for Infoboxes (I'm not saying it's not there, I just cannot find it). Second, the community needs to develop some form of standard. It is not productive to keep rehashing the issue. Finally, the idea of sanctioning someone for moving information from a metadata infobox to a regular infobox is, in my mind, ludicrous even with the other factors involved. The problem with the issue is that if the information is put in a hidden box to start with, only those that move it will suffer the brunt of the sanctions, which is neither fair nor equitable. Especially when you consider that the anti-infobox side has been complicit in pushing the issue.
- Let's assume that in a real case you would go and look if the edit was controversial or could be perceived as controversial, and perhaps talk to your colleague? - Let's now imagine that in a different case as many arbs vote for a ban as against it, it's your turn to ban or not. Would you?
I do not see myself supporting a ban in this case.
Thank you, passed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.
- An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
No.
- Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?
Yes, there needs to be a factual basis for each individual sanction. Despite the protestations of Amalric, somehow I don't think the community will be impressed with a "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." response. Thanks for the quote on this, it's been one of my favorites for years, merely because most people don't have a clue that it comes from a Papal legate during the persecution of a minority sect in southern France.
- Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?
No, ignoring evidence can never result in a proper decision. My personal opinion is that if a committee member is unwilling to look at evidence and workshop pages, they should recuse. If they don't want to do it in all cases, they should resign. I will commit to weighing the evidence.
- Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
I don't know that a strict stare decisis should be used. I think that the Louisiana system of jurisprudence constante is more appropriate for ArbCom.
- 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?
Yes, it should be used, and it is of considerable direct importance.
- 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?
I don't understand what your question is getting at.
- "Factionalism" (specifically not "tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
Yes, factionalism is a problem. Yes, ArbCom should consider the effect of factionalism. There are a number of ways to deal with factionalism, ranging from harsh to mild. An ArbCom response may be to provide for a warning against participating in a faction, followed by a measured, increasing system of punishment for violations.
Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Hawkeye7[edit]
- You've been blocked for BLP violations and making legal threats, and sanctioned for disruptive behaviour, including edit warring and inappropriate use of sources. In what way do these experiences inform and affect the way that you will perform your duties on ArbCom?
In 2010, I was blocked for a BLP violation for creating an ill-advised article about admin abuse (since deleted, thankfully) and identified an active editor. This led me into the Climate Change fiasco where I was in fact disruptive. During the ArbCom case, I was found to have a battleground mentality and I used a source inappropriately (I cherry-picked language from it to discredit the Wiki editor who authored the journal article). I was appropriately sanctioned for all of this with a topic ban. All of the preceding was appropriate on the part of ArbCom. I did those things and I deserved to be topic banned. My actions were not appropriate and the type of thing that I was doing was damaging to the project. I was blocked in October 2010 for making a legal threat. I had been outed by a previously banned editor, defamed by a number of off-wiki individuals, and suffered consequences at work resulting in my termination. As a consequence, I filed a defamation lawsuit which included an active editor and was appropriately blocked for the duration of the case. Some time after the case ended, I appealed to ArbCom to lift the block, [1] which they did under restrictions. Later, after I had been back to editing for awhile, those restrictions were lifted. [2] Being outed has made me very sensitive to privacy concerns. Additionally, I learned that the battleground mentality and the resulting actions were not consistent with the goals of the project, nor were they conducive to good editing. My best work has been since my return, primarily because I learned from the experience. It also changed my view of the role of blocks and bans. Before my block, I viewed them as punishment, a form of retribution. After my return, I see the preventive nature of the blocking policy, and agree with it.
- What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?
I'm of mixed views on this. First, the committee needs to be accountable to the community, especially the normal editor. Transparency is one of the best ways to accomplish this. However, having been part of the dump of emails on to whatever anti-Wikipedia site it was (sorry, can't remember), I'm very sensitive to some of the information and discussions being kept private. Anyway, I'm not sure that a simple majority vote should be sufficient to release information, and I would be concerned over the redaction procedures for sensitive private information. It doesn't take much for some to put two and two together and then out someone, or to use that type of information against them or to harm them. Some have brought up the Sandifer motion. This is an example of exactly what kind of actions cannot be tolerated, and I'm speaking of what Philip did, not ArbCom. If the material in email isn't redacted properly, it can harm real people. I did note that Risker had posted what appeared to be a step in the right direction.
- Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in Sexology, the massive embarrassment of the Manning dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Wikipedia's reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?
First, all readers are important to Wikipedia, whether they be LGBT or straight, mainstream or fringe, lay or expert. Wikipedia should first focus on its mission. You're not going to like the answer, but it is not Wikipedia's role to lead the way for the transgender community. It's just not. We are not here to push a POV or an agenda, we are here to publish an encyclopedia. OK, in order. I assume from your comments in the evidence section that you view Cantor as the fringe POV pusher, and Jokestress as not. Having looked at the evidence and the workshop pages, I don't see that Cantor is fringe. Further, this was explained to you at that location. I concur with the decision in the Sexology case. Second, the Manning case. The initial move of the article to "Chelsea Manning" was premature, to the point that Wikipedia was making news. We should not be making the news, our articles should be reflecting what reliable sources say. The move was too soon. It was properly moved when the sources indicated that it should be. Third, I have not seen a diff showing that ArbCom instructed admins to undelete potential liable. In any event, WP:BLP applies, and the material appears to be appropriately removed. You also have to remember that I can't see the contents of the diffs after Jimbo deleted them -- I'm not an admin. I don't know what else to say on that case. To answer your last question, the way to repair the reputation is to be above board, say why we are doing something, and move forward by creating an encyclopedia.
- First off, thank you for volunteering. The issues previously with your account have been discussed above, but I wanted to approach it from a different angle. Many arbitrators have been outed against their will and/or harassed because of their position. Do you feel like your previous issues in this area will be a problem should it happen again? (I'm not trying to be a scaremonger, this is a serious question on how you'd handle it if something like that happened)
Hi SirFozzie. I don't see how it could be a problem should it happen again. I'm no longer in the same career field, and I don't see how it can affect me now. It's also pretty clear who I am. In any event, the previous case was unique, in that a group of off-wiki individuals were the main protagonists who were harassing me at my job, as I noted above. If it were going to have the potential to do the same type of harm, I would not have come back to Wikipedia, nor run for ArbCom.
Question from Piotrus[edit]
(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.
- when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?
When the problem is primarily tied to one area (such as Climate Change in my case), a topic ban is more appropriate. When I came back from my NLT block, I was still topic banned from Climate Change but was able to contribute quality material to the SCOTUS and Law areas. A full ban or block is appropriate when the risk is to the entire project, such as a block for legal threats or disruption across all areas.
- wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find this of interest in framing your reply)
First, thanks for the link, but I think that it focuses on the wrong issue. Blocks and site bans should never be issued as punishment, but only as a preventative measure to protect the project. Blocking editors who promise to behave is problematic. If it is the first time or problem, there are other measures which should be tried first. These include warnings, 3/1/0RR restrictions, use of talkpage requirement, mentors, article bans, topic bans, etc. Only when it is necessary to protect the entire project should a site ban or block be issued.
- to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to...?)
A topic ban would be equivalent to a trespass warning for a store in a mall (i.e., don't return or you'll go to jail) and a full ban is equivalent to a trespass warning for the entire mall.
- The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). Is something to applaud or criticize?
This has nothing to do with ArbCom and is not really an appropriate question. I will address it however, with the proviso that I was a police officer for over 20-years. The incarceration rate is primarily due to two issues. First, the 40-year failed war on drugs which has resulted in incarceration for offenses which should be receiving medical treatment. Second, the United States has a "puritan", no forgiveness mindset, which encourages the criminalization of insignificant or minor misdeeds. Until both of these issues are addressed (and the second inhibits the first being addressed), that incarceration rate will not change.
- 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?
I agree with it. Blocks and site bans should not be punitive and we should try everything possible prior to banning someone.
- I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy (safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.
Yes. It's somewhat easier for me since I've already been outed. I do not believe that it should be a requirement for other Arbs, it should be voluntary but encouraged.
Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.
Hmm, that's tough. Ex parte Crow Dog was the first that I took to featured article status, and for which I received a Four Award for creating, a DYK, to GA, and to FA. That's probably the most significant, but my favorite has to be Menominee Tribe v. United States, which just attained FA status.
|
