Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/AGK/Questions for the candidate

As the general questions facility is now closed, please add new questions under "Individual questions". For my candidate statement, see here. For my extended platform, see here.

• Still to be answered:

  None. I have now answered all questions. AGK 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators.

   A: To be in touch with the community. The committee exists to serve the community, and not contrariwise. When the ArbCom's members lose touch with those whom it exists to serve, it loses all legitimacy and ceases to be of use to the project.

What were you thinking? Oh, well, I hope this doesn't come back to bite you... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. As an arbitrator, do you think that the process of desysopping of administrators should remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo) or would you prefer that a community based process is also put in place?

   A: Ideally, the community should be able to remove administrator status as easily as it grants it. But it sadly is more probable that such a process would be abused to neutralise administrators who work in difficult or highly-contested areas than that it would be used to . These administrators are a rare and special breed of editor, and we ought to do our best to make their job as easy as possible. On that basis, delegating the task of removing sysop status to the arbitrators seems to me like the best (if not ideal) approach—a necessary evil; and so I think that in the long run, creating a community-based desysopping process would be counterproductive. Perhaps some hybrid system (similar to the part-arbitrator, part-community format of the 2009 AUSC elections) would be a good compromise, but the logistics of that may be difficult and the incidence of abuse would probably be just as high: at least the committee can quickly say "This is bullshit" to a complaint over sysop abuse and throw it out. Oh, and I am uncomfortable with Jimbo's involvement in the desysopping process.

   Update: Having thought more on this, and having considered the eloquently phrased thoughts of another (non-candidate) user, I am more inclined than I was earlier to agree that a community system of desysopping would be a good thing—so long as it was set up such that it is not easily used to harass our administrators. Sorry for changing sides on you, LHvU, but the more I think about it, the more I disagree with my initial stance.

1. Is it appropriate for ArbCom to set up a subcommittee to deal with allegations by users that administrative actions have breached policy? Tony (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   A: Having never sat on the committee in the past, I can only speculate how effective I think an administrator conduct subcommittee would be. It is worth saying, though, that the two subcommittees currently in existence—the audit subcommittee (AUSC; for scrutinising the use of restricted permissions) and the ban appeals subcommitttee (BASC; for handling appeals of bans)—seem to work very well. I think that the subcommittee you suggest could be useful as a method of reducing the committee-wide workload: any reduction in the number of tasks that always require the arbitrators to sit en banc is usually a good thing. In this particular case, though, I don't think it would be appropriate. Administrator actions which breach site policy are a very serious topic, and the potential for damage to the project if they are mismanaged is high. I would be flexible on this topic, and would not settle conclusively in one school of thought or the other unless I was elected, as I think an "insider's view" is needed here. But as a preliminary statement of opinion, I would say it would not be appropriate.

1. Over the last year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom have (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why?

   A: More important than the number of desysoppings undertaken is the incidence of mistaken desysoppings. Ideally, the committee would have desysopped no editors, but sadly there are a few bad eggs in every basket. As none of the desysoppings made this year seem to have been flawed, I would say that my answer is (b). My answer would move further towards (a) for every administrator identified as not being fit for office; and further towards (c) for every desysopping that was wrong.

2. Over the last year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works?

   A: As I mentioned in my response to Tony1, I would not wish to commit strongly to a promise without being able to assess effectively how useful it would be. (For clarity, I think effective assessment of that kind can only be undertaken by an arbitrator.) At present I do not think I would make any drastic changes to the operations of the committee, although I have intentions to adjust the format of various pages (most crucially, the workshop) which I will reassess after settling into the committee.

3. In last years election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generall be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree, or disagree, and why? Davewild (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   A: This may not be an especially effective question, as I am of the same mind as Vassyana where many issues relating to dispute resolution are concerned, but yes, I do generally agree with that statement. The committee formulating or amending policy is equivalent to it instructing the community what it should do. That is both unlikely to be well-received and incompatible with the Wiki model of policy construction through consensus-building discussion.

1. As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions?

   A: I don't think there is much dissatisfaction in the community about the level of secrecy attached to most committee going-ons. It is quite unanimously accepted by the project that the committee exists in part because there are some things that are not appropriate for public discussion, and as a consequence that some of the committee's business must be conducted in private. But I think regular reports on what matters the committee has handled—even if they must be extensively redacted, and in some cases not even mentioned except in the format "One task, two days of discussion; resolved"—ought to be delivered. Such a thing would be easy to organise with arbcomwiki, and delivering them would not be a heavy burden for the co-ordinating arbitrator.

   In terms of formal decision-making, it is my belief that a vote must never be conducted entirely in secret. Voting tallies and rationales should never be kept secret, except where the subject being voted on is itself considered not appropriate for public discussion. In short, then, my answer is: I'd keep everything on-wiki, except where it is not appropriate for public discussion; and where confidential matters are concerned, the outcome should be publicly noted except where respect for privacy demands otherwise.

2. Do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid 'groupthink' among committee members, and if so, what steps would you take?

   A: I rarely have a problem questioning my fellow administrators, so I don't foresee this being much of a problem. If I disagree strongly with the views of my colleagues, then I would not have qualms about making that known (where both private and public matters are concerned). I don't think it would be possible to take any steps to avoid the stifling of innovation and independent thought without seriously damaging the ability of the committee to process its workload.

3. In writing arbitration opinions, where do you stand on the spectrum between pithiness and verbosity? Where would you prefer to stand? Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   A: My writing typically is in-depth, but it rarely rambles, and I take care to proof-read. I would anticipate that my writing would be especially succinct in proposed decisions, where one often has at least a week's proof-reading time (whilst the other committee members are voting and such). By way of illustration of my preferences as to document length: I have long admired the decisions of the ECHR, which are impressively condensed; whereas I find the judgements of most Courts in the British Isles are annoyingly prolix. "Omit needless words" is always good advice.

1. Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently?

   A: I think the decision was the best one to make. To not re-ban Law would be to send out the message that ban evasion in cases where the initial sanction was of questionable merit would be very unwise. To not sanction those who facilitated the ban evasion would have been equally as unwise. Bans may be withdrawn or amended only by appeal to the committee or to the community; and any attempt to undermine that should be disposed of without sympathy. (As an arbitrator, I would extend to all editors the standard offer.)

   From what I understand, the committee were previously negotiating with Law a return to editing, but that the discussion was allowed to end without conclusion. The cause of that was most probably poor management of committee workload. I would have handled the entire situation differently by not allowing the unban discussion to wither into nothingness (unlike most previous iterations of the committee, I maintain a basic "open tasks" list; I would have added the Law discussions to that, and not removed it until the matter was resolved satisfactorily). If by "situation" you mean the motion itself, then no, I would not have acted differently.

2. Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted?

   A: I admit that I am finding it difficult to discern precisely why the committee voted to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32, especially when most of the arbitrators found that the conduct of one was as questionable as that of the other. My answer to your first question is therefore that I don't know.

   To the second: I would have supported desysopping all three, and allowed them each to request back their permissions from the community when they felt they had regained its trust. For clarity: I don't buy the "but they'll never pass RFA" argument. The community has shown itself to be willing to forgive in the past. By way of example, take Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds 2, wherein the community approved at a tally of 197 to 16 to give back the sysop bit to an editor who allowed a non-administrator to use his account. (And if they don't pass RFA, then maybe there's a very good reason for that.)

3. Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publcally admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done?

   A: In the case of Iridescent, they ought to have made a ruling that disallowed him from being resysopped without community approval. This might be a moot question, though, as I would not think it appropriate for him to be resysopped by a bureaucrat with the issue of the Law affair remaining unresolved. In the case of MZMcBride, I do not think anything could have been done, unless it could be proven that he knew that the Law rfa was taking place or was being planned. It may be the case that action could have been taken on the grounds that MZMcBride was aware that the_undertow was editing Wikipedia whilst banned, but that is a separate question. Such action would be less serious: knowing that a banned user is editing and not stopping it is less serious than knowing that a banned user is seeking sysop status under an undisclosed alternative account and doing nothing about it.

1. I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   A: In short, yes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we ought to contribute directly as well as to the projectspace and the supporting processes therein. I would not presume to speak for other editors who are elected to the committee, but I myself do intend to set a couple of hours per week aside for article space contributions. My presence on the project is already primarily in our background processes, where I feel my talents can be of greater benefit, so I don't think that my election to the committee would affect greatly my mainspace editing. But I would certainly enjoy taking a break from arbitration work after a few month's of service to work on a featured article with a couple of my friends on the encyclopaedia.

1. ArbCom cases sometimes become huge, divisive messes, diverting vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into pointless arguments, oppressing and even driving away constructive editors who get caught up in them (the description 'Kafka-esque' seems to arise quite a lot), and leading to nothing except "remedies" that are really just retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. How far do you agree with this, and what would you do about it?

   A: Cases often become unwieldy because no scope has been defined. At the opening of a case, the committee ought to say "We will look at the conduct of editors within subject areas X and Y," or "We will look at the difficulties of editing subject area Z", or something equally as precise. Doing so means that evidence, discussions, and workshop proposals can easily be evaluated as being relevant or not. Material that is not relevant to the scope, or indeed that is unhelpful or adds nothing of use, could then be easily removed by a clerk or an administrator. (For clarity: yes, I would be happy for uninvolved clerks and uninvolved administrators to take a more active role in managing committee cases than they currently do.)

   I don't think that most remedies are punitive. Most neutralise problematic editors, and thereby reduce the seriousness of a given problem. Where problems persist, I think the cause is that not all aspects of the problem were neutralised. Another common cause is that, where discretionary sanctions are authorised, they have not been enforced rigorously enough to neutralise the problem (although that is more a problem with the arbitration enforcement process itself).

   Arbitration is never a nice process. If elected, I would simply seek to make it as stress-free as is feasible within the context by having zero tolerance for edits to a case that are critical of another editor without merit.

The Arbitration Committee has changed significantly in scope and size since its initial creation. Which of these additional duties do you embrace? Which would you discard, and how?

1. How do you deal with the tensions between privacy and transparency?

   How would you prioritize the following issues within arbitration matters: Privacy of living persons, privacy of editors, administrator conduct, CU conduct, OS conduct, content disputes, conflict of interest editing, conduct on noticeboards boards, conduct on RfA, conduct on XfD, conduct in editing, conduct on policy pages, arbitrator conduct, tracking complaint?. Feel free to add issues and answer however makes sense to you

   What is one relatively minor reform you would like to make to the Arbitration Committee's workings?

   What about a major one?

   A: I think I have already addressed this question in my first response to Sam, above: #Questions from Sam Blacketer. If you were looking for something different, please do say so, and I will be happy to give a full answer.

1. Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you read? How much of that traffic will you actually read?

   A: My understanding is that the traffic on arbcom-l is in the region of tens per day at minimum. I would expect functionaries-en to be quite high too. I would skim most e-mails to both, read in full those that were not trivial (and that were subjects that formed a central part of my work on the committee), and contribute to any thread I had something to offer to. Where I was short on time that day, the proportion of traffic I would actually read would be lower. There are also changes on the arbcomwiki to be tracked. I would check that site's recentchanges page at least daily. I would read little of checkuser-l and of oversight-l. I would read most of clerks-l, which in comparison is very low-traffic.

1. Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why?

   A: I would reject that view, for two reasons. First: We were the first Wikipedia, and we remain the biggest; but when designing our editing model, we were effectively running blind, and accordingly our project is not well suited to handling complicated disputes. A Committee simplifies the process. Second: We have an almost unrivalled prominence in Western society. Because of that prominence, we are required to deal with much more sensitive information than other projects would (I imagine) have to. The arbitration committee is the body to which we delegate the task of processing such information to. In short, it's a necessary evil.

2. Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s).

   A: I can't help but think that Mattisse arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) was poorly disposed of, considering that Mattisse (talk · contribs) was blocked for disruption as recently as 13 November; but it must be noted that Mattisse's poor conduct was, as I understand it, caused by real-life stress. The Scientology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) was handled especially sensibly, in the context of it being a matter of interest to the public. (The decision was commented on by the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, and The Colbert Report.) I otherwise have nothing to say about the committee's performance in 2009. Things seem to have been going quite well.

3. A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee?

   A: The committee is not a policy-making body. Governance and project development is the remit of the community, and not a dispute resolution body such as ArbCom. So I would agree with those who say that over-reaching remedies are unacceptable. The council and the enforcement provisions were both resoundingly rejected by the community (in the first case, the community shot down the council; in the second, the enforcement provisions have been used almost never), and so in the absence of any similarly over-reaching measures I would say that the committee is probably not currently expansive (at least relative to its original role).

   To address the examples you cite: The BLP enforcement remedy was, I think, too far-reaching. It seemed to me like an opportunist remedy implemented alongside the outcome of the arbitration of a not-wholly-related unrelated dispute. (Maybe the BLP measures were the only feasible measure that neutralised the problems underlying the Footnoted quotes dispute; I don't know, as I first am not familiar with all aspects of the case, and second was not one of the arbitrators involved in passing the decision. But I think that unlikely.) It is less clear whether the advisory council is indicative of attempts by the committee to over-reach its role as a resolver of disputes. Many arbitrators made the argument during the RfC on the advisory council that its creation was an attempt to devolve power away from the committee. But that is based on the assumption that the committee has any power over project governance. (Its recommendations certainly carry a lot of weight: when the committee asks the community to do something, our editors are definitely going to listen.) Formally, it does not. Constitutionally, it should not. I would thus agree that the creation of the council, whilst undertaken with the best intentions, did constitute an attempt by the community to be overly expansive.

   I guess I would deal with such concerns if elected by simply not supporting any measures which I thought overstepped the committee's role as a body exclusively for the resolution of disputes. (I would intend to do that, anyway. I think most of those who supported the advisory council simply thought "Yeah, the community could use that sort of thing" without thinking of the consequences of establishing such a body by dictum and not by community consensus. These examples are probably not so useful for illustrating the overstepping by the arbitrators of the ArbCom's role as they are useful for illustrating the need for careful and considered voting by committee members. Rushed and ill-considered decisions are bad ones.)

For the purpose of these questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator.

Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.)

1. "Private correspondence", July 2007

   A: A given, in the context of applicable law and what most of our community would consider to be the most just approach. I would support.

2. "Responsibility", December 2007

   A: The community expects its administrators to be accountable. Where they fail to be, they fail to meet the community's standards for administrator conduct. The final sentence is a vital component: concessions must be made for matters of a sensitive nature (as OTRS and restricted permissions tasks often are), although in those cases it must still be possible for the community to have the matter scrutinised by those who are authorised. I would support.

3. "Bad Blood", February 2008

   A: Bad blood causes problems, in many cases with the judgement of those concerned and in most with the external perception (and the legitimacy) of the actions undertaken. I would support, with a note that failure to honour this principle can usually be considered to be a serious error in judgement.

4. "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

   A: Adjectives such as "libellous" are invariably unhelpful, and in most cases would constitute commenting on contributors and not on content. I would support, with sadness at the fact that it was even necessary to point this out.

5. "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008

   A: The privilege of mediation is necessary for mediation to work, but I say that in the context of two caveats. It is not a free license for an editor to hinder attempts at dispute resolution; and it does not excuse violations of the notions of etiquette. This principle is unduly sweeping, and I would probably enter an oppose vote and propose an alternative.

6. "System administrators", June 2009

   A: The community doesn't own the MediaWiki software, so that sadly is true. But the finding gives the impression that the developers are omnipotent and that the community are powerless; in practical terms such is not the case. In theory, though, the developers could do what they want, and the community can do nothing to stop it. So, although I don't like it, I think that it is an accurate statement of the principles by which our community operates; and I would probably support, if I didn't abstain and propose an alternative.

7. "Outing", June 2009

   You can only "out" information that is "in", so where an editor such as Matt Bisanz, who freely distributes his real-life identity, is concerned, this principle would be perfectly correct. But drawing attention to the real-life identity of an editor (even where that identity was not too difficult to uncover) is at best not helpful and at worst irresponsible. Accordingly, I'd oppose: this principle gives too much license to those who would seek to discredit or intimidate our editors. Wikipedia is a site for writing an encyclopedia, and not for whistle-blowing. If an editor's RL identity becomes germane to a dispute or a wider problem with the encyclopedia, then the ArbCom should always be the first and only port of call.

• Q. Originally RfARs were named in the style of Party X v. Party Y in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in A/R/Zeraeph?

• A: The title of a case should reflect its scope. If the case is scrutinising the conduct of one or two editors, then AGK-MBisanz would be appropriate; but such cases are becoming less common than larger cases with many parties. Where the case is chiefly looking into activities in one subject area, such as chronic edit warring on multiple Mathematics articles, then a case name of Mathematics would be the most sensible title. You call these "random titles", but, so long as the title matches the scope, I think they are the most sensible. In answer to your first question, then, I would say that the present naming convention is probably fine.
  An alteration ought to be considered where the initial title does not reflect all of the main aspects of the case, or where it suggests that something is a central aspect of the case when it is not (or was, but no longer is), or where the title is otherwise unsuitable. This isn't a terribly difficult issue: if the title doesn't suit, then it should be changed.

Thank you in advance for your candidacy and for your thoughtful answers.

• Previous questions deal with the removal of administrator privileges. However, on a slightly different topic, do you believe that the rights of the community are best upheld by ensuring that the community-directed RfA structure is the only forum for acquiring or reacquiring administrator privileges? That is: do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval.

A: On a general level, I oppose that practice, although I accept that concessions may have to be made in that tiny number of cases where private or sensitive information plays an important role.

Keeping some of last year's questions and adding new ones. NB: I will be basing my vote on your initial answer.

1. Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can 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?

   A: The Committee was created in 2004 to resolve disputes where the involved parties and the community had failed to do so. Between 2004 and today, the arbitrators have avoided making content rulings because they hold themselves (and rightly so) as not as the holders of all knowledge or a panel of experts but as a group of sensible users who have a better chance than most of sorting out intractable problems. So the committee could aid in content disputes by actually doing its job. That might involve kicking out those who make life unpleasant for others (although our administrators and the community are becoming more capable of filling this role). It might involve telling them all to move their backsides over to mediation. And it might even involve saying "Actually, this statement does not adhere to our Neutral Point of View policy". (Gasp! Horror! Did he just say the committee can make content rulings? Sort of. Within reason, I guess we could, so long as the facts were clear; although just as consensus can change, so to can the facts, and so such rulings should probably be more easily overruled by the community than decisions on conduct matters currently can.)

   I don't want to make stupid overgeneralisations in my answer here, because no two cases are the same, and I would use my full discretion as an arbitrator to put as big a stop on a dispute as I could with one shot at a final decision. But where content matters are concerned, it's clear that "We don't rule on content" is often not a helpful response. Sometimes "The community will please solve this content dispute for these editors" or even "Fine, we'll solve it for you" is what's needed.

   This is all, of course, subject to community approval. If I accepted a case that has a large content aspect and the community kicked up a gigantic fuss about it, it's likely that I'd put serious thought into whether my decision was wrong.

2. Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?

   A: Ethnic edit warring is a major problem, but not one that I have a "magic-wand solution" to. I was part of the working group on ethnic edit warring, and helped author its final report (caveat: much of what was written is Elonka's words, not mine; she was one of the most active participants in the group). I stand by the principal recommendations we presented to the committee when that group ended its discussions.

   A continuation of the arbitrators' current willingness to implement discretionary sanctions would be fruitful. So to would showing the door (by means of a topic ban of appropriate scope) to more of those editors whose presence is unhelpful. But these types of remedies can only be deployed where there is an open case with which to frame them. We need to take a more proactive approach to highlighting problematic subject areas, and systematically work as a community towards sorting them out—even if we need to take them all the way to arbitration to do so. Those nationalist areas that become problematic in future, or that currently are problematic but which have not yet been scrutinised by means of a case, could then be placed on the list, and subsequently tackled (and taken to arbitration if all else fails). This approach would be advisable for three reasons. First, editors in subject areas that are placed on the to-be-tackled list are more likely to take a step back and behave more appropriately; and so the workload is (theoretically) lessened before it is even tackled. Second, a systematic approach (through tackling one item on the list at a time) means that the attention of all the uninvolved editors—most importantly, administrators, who can levy community- or committee-based sanctions—is focussed on one area at a time; and so the level of scrutiny received by target areas is greater. Third, a group of Wikipedians is more likely to be successful at tackling nationalist edit warring than an un-coordinated group of independent administrators. Incessant criticism and harrassment (undertaken by those who are sanctioned and by their friends, with the aim of wearing down those few sysops who do try to kick them into line) is less effective against, say, five administrators than against one. What I am suggesting here amounts to nothing more than a basic to-do list drawn up for a semi-formal and tightly-organised group to work through. A little organisation goes a long way.

   Merely sorting out the conduct side of things would not be enough. Nationalist disputes are as intractable as they are because they are in many cases the online continuation of bitterly contested "IRL" differences of opinion that have been on-going for generations. In some cases, there may be disputes over content that the subject area's editors genuinely cannot resolve. When we have the conduct sorted, we might have to assist with the content as well. Where that was necessary, dispute resolution (perhaps including arbitration) would be the appropriate course of action; for my views on that, see the preceding question.

   There probably are other ways by which both the community and the committee to contribute could tackle nationalist and ethnic conflicts. The one I floated above is but one suggestion. If I were sitting on the committee when a nationalist dispute was brought to arbitration, I can only promise to do my very best to sort out that conflict with a decision that actually goes some way to fixing things. If we are to make real progress with ethnic edit warring, a touch of reform in our working practices are needed. And the community, not the committee, is the one to achieve that.

3. Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others?

   A: I am going to opt for brevity in answering this. For more on this topic, see #Questions from Avraham and #Questions from Sarah777.

   Those who collaborate poorly, or obstruct attempts at collaboration, are actively making it more difficult for others to write the encyclopedia. For that reason, such editors ought to be treated as a problem wherever they are encountered—including at arbitration. Incivility, if adverse enough, would be grounds for desysopping (for those who obstruct collaboration are clearly not fit to be administering the encyclopedia). A ban similarly might be necessary. I am not a fan of civility restrictions. In some cases, it might be okay to say "If your civility is problematic at any point within the next six months, you will be sanctioned"; but that is more a final warning than a civility restriction. In other cases, it might be okay to place somebody on probation primarily because they are incivil; but that is a sanction which applies to all disruptive behaviour, and not just incivility. Bans or blocks which can be invoked only when an editor is incivil (ie, a civility restriction) are watery, and I would tend to avoid them when arbitrating.

   I probably would view extensive baiting as a mitigating factor. It is difficult to collaborate with those who are not interested in collaborating with you (but instead in pushing their own agenda). Indeed, I would probably be inclined to sanction such persons for incivility. This would vary from case to case, and I would have to examine every angle before determining whether leniency might be in order. (The bottom line is that incivility is not acceptable, and is disruptive.)

• Wow. I count twelve questions. Is it sad that I actually relish the challenge of answering a bad boy like this? Probably. Answer to come shortly.
• Answer to question three to come soon. Still thinking on this topic. But cf my answers to #Questions from Sarah777. AGK 01:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months?

   A: By setting targets for evidence submission, the publishing of the proposed decision, and the completion of voting and case closure on the day that the case opens. These targets would be reasonable ones, and ones that take account for the demands both of the complexity of the case and on the arbitrators in terms of other tasks.

   For those that pay attention: yes, this does already happen on cases (although the dates are often not honoured, because of scheduling demands). I am not claiming this idea as my own :-) My intention is to work with the clerks (which I would be predisposed to do in any case, being one myself) to ensure that this practice is continued for all cases—and perhaps to extend it to tasks other than full cases.

Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer the subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
   1. Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
   2. Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
   3. How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?
   4. What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?

      A: I think our current system for removing administrators who are no longer fit for office is workable, if (like any enwiki process) not ideal. Egregious abuses of administrator rights are handled well. Less clear-cut instances of unsuitability for office, such as in the case of an administrator whose conduct steadily deteriorates to the point where some consider him "just a little rough around the edges" and some "a real pain in the backside", are not handled so well. I would like a process for community-operated desysopping established, but I would not use my time on the committee to push for one: it is for the community to establish its own process, I think.

      A1: The current controls are probably adequate, but I would like to see them easier to use. A dedicated section on the arbitration requests page, for instances of administrator abuse, would make it easier for a community member to have scrutinised the conduct of a problematic administrator.

      A2: The final say should be exclusively in the hands of the community, with the committee only becoming involved where sensitive evidence becomes pertinent. In practice, the lack of an effective (read: drama-less) forum for desysopping when problematic conduct comes to light makes it the case that the committee is the de facto authority on the removal of administrator status.

      A3: In cases where it becomes necessary to contemplate an emergency desysopping, a full request for arbitration is probably not feasible. When the desysopping has been completed and the perceived or alleged threat has been neutralised, a full investigation might be necessary to determine in an attentive manner whether the removal should stand; but that would depend on the complexity of the situation.

      A4: A user who voluntarily relinquished the administrator tools may request them back at any point from a bureaucrat. This request will only be granted only where the bureaucrat does not think that the administrator resigned under controversial circumstances, and moreover where there is no question of whether the administrator retains the community's trust. Where there is any doubt, the bureaucrat would be expected to defer the matter back to the community—by declining to desysop, and referring the editor to requests for adminship for a re-confirmation discussion.

2. What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
   1. What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
   2. Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
   3. Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
   4. Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
   5. Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
   6. If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?

      A: The majority of editors are able to collaborate effectively. In a small number of cases—which are typically concentrated in contested subject areas—edits that are uncivil are so common as to undermine collaboration. All that the committee and the community can do is to foster a good working environment in the hope that an editor will never feel the need to forgo civility when contributing. As a rule, I take an unsympathetic view towards incivility, although I am mindful that there is a thin line between strong rhetoric and the use of curses to reinforce one's point and the attacking of one's fellow editors.

      A1: Civility to me is what the policy states: participating in a respectful and considerate way; not ignore the positions and conclusions of others; discouraging others from being uncivil; and not upsetting other editors whenever possible. It is also being courteous when interacting with one's fellow editors, and collaborating in an honest and meaningful way. More broadly, it's simply being a good workmate.

      A2: I think the drive towards super-civility that we had a few years ago has ended (which was a good thing, as we seemed to be more focussed on enforcing courteous wording than cracking down on those who collaborate poorly). Today, we still have the ordinary problems with those who can't play nice; but overall, I think we've shifted towards a sensible level of civility. Whether that's more or less than previously, I'm not sure. Thing still aren't great; as I mentioned in my preliminary answer (under "A:"), a number of subject areas continue to be plagued with chronic civility problems.

      A3: A handful of editors use strong language when posting, and are otherwise especially blunt when commenting. These editors are largely allowed to go on behaving so, because straight-talkers are a valuable and useful resource in a community. But I wouldn't say that those contributors were necessarily uncivil. Otherwise, I don't think there are a class of exempt editors. But I don't profess to be fully in the know about, or aware of, all sides of the project at all times. If you gave me a specific example, I might be able to answer more clearly. Do rest assured, though, that I wouldn't allow those who collaborate poorly to go unsanctioned if I was elected.

      A4: Whereas I consider civility to simply be playing nicely with others, no, I don't think anybody should be exempt from our policies. To ignore civility is to disrupt our working environment, and never is that a good thing.

      A5: I don't know whether there should be more enforcement of our civility policies, because I simply can't know everything about every aspect of the project. But I think there should be consistent enforcement of our site policies, and that all editors should at all times be striving to collaborate well with their peers.

      A6: The committee's role in facilitating civility is, first, to ensure that instances of incivility go sanctioned, and, second, to ensure, on a wider level, that problems with editorial working environments are resolved (so that no editor is forced to resort to incivility). As an arbitrator, I would simply aim to do my job well, in the hope that no editor would ever feel so desperate as to have to lash out. That's an idealised view, and there are always going to be instances of people being rude towards their peers; but I would like to see chronic civility issues remedied.

3. What is your opinion regarding Wikipedians "rights," or at least "expectations" to privacy and ano/psuedo-nymity, and what is ArbCom's role in either supporting or adjusting these expectations/rights?

   A: All editors should be entitled to contribute to Wikipedia anonymously. To support this entitlement, the committee should:

   • in its rôle as a scrutiniser of conduct, allow no instances of "outing" to go unsanctioned.
   • as the body in charge of restricted permissions, ensure that an effective and vigilant network of oversighters are in place, so that the damage caused by "outing" can be limited (in cases where the information was released on-wiki).
   • in its capacity as the designated handler of sensitive information, ensure that sensitive evidence can be easily submitted in private to the committee. This applies only where evidence of misconduct comes to light that might, if publicly released, threaten the anonymity of its subject. It should also ensure that all such evidence will be properly considered, by which I mean that they must ensure that private evidence send to arbcom-l is not lost to the abyss. If people know that they trust the arbcom to handle those who break our policies even where it is necessary to use evidence that might violate that person's privacy, then the temptation to just post the evidence publicly and set a lynch mob on them is lessened.

   It is my opinion that every editor has an obligation to preserve his own privacy whilst editing. If you wish your real-life identity to remain hidden from the Wikipedia community (and from peripheral audiences, such as those of Hivemind and of Wikipedia Review), then you yourself need to make it difficult for somebody to guess it. My thoughts are largely the same as those of Kylu at m:User:Kylu/Essay (cf the points "Wiki Is Mirrored", "If you go somewhere not on Wikipedia", "Don't reveal information you don't want others to have", and "If you use IRC", amongst others).

4. Lastly, please list one to three issues that you believe are of primary importance to the ongoing future of wikipedia and how you will contribute to the handling of those issues. Please feel free to copy/paste sections from your nominating statement if you have addressed it there.

   A: Before I answer, a preface: The scope for the committee to reform is limited. Arbitrators who attempt to use their initiative to found new organisations or structures often find that their efforts are not appreciated. So, unless a case was filed that addressed the any of these issues, I don't think I would be able to completely neutralise these issues in my time on the committee.

   • Community scrutiny of user conduct. The current structures for scrutinising user conduct outside of arbitration are inadequate. A new structure, or perhaps a reform of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct that gave that process more "teeth", is needed.
   • Improved manpower for content dispute resolution. The mediation cabal is underworked. The mediation committee is underused. We need more mediators working to resolve intractable differences of editorial opinion.
   • A better approach to BLPs. I am worried about the incidence of Biographies of Living Persons (BLPs) which do not meet our core policies (and, in many cases, are libellous). Some progress on this issue has been made (such as the stepping up of patrols of BLP articles to identify and remove more quickly material that is defamatory), but I do not think the BLP problem will resolve itself until a more proactive system of editorial oversight (such as flagged revisions or permanent semi-protection) is installed on all BLPs. This issue ought to be addressed with haste (although, as I say above, I am not hopeful that I will single-handledly solve it if elected; I think any system will have to be brought in on the mandate of the community, and not the committee). I would consider it a shocking indictment of my success as an arbitrator if the English Wikipedia were to be the subject of its first big lawsuit.
   • More administrators active on AE. Today, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement is patrolled for the most part by the same administrators. These administrators are small in number. As a result, they receive the majority of the flack for unpopular decisions (which is levied in many cases by the wikifriends or fellow POV-warriors of those whom the administrator sanctions). If more administrators were to take part in arbitration enforcement, or perhaps even if decisions on the more contested complaints were made by a group of administrators and not by one sysop alone, then AE would be a much more effective process than it is today.

   I've listed four issues, but I can't easily pick between them.

1. a) In your opinion, how important is the dispute resolution process?

   b) Do you feel that it is important the community tries to resolve issues before arbcom step in?

   c) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear, for example, that an admin has lost community trust, but has had no RfC, attempts at resolving the issue etc?

   A1: Very. Too many editors of our project today are unable to resolve their differences (because of their own approach, because of another reason, or through no fault of their own). If we're ever going to have a well-rounded encyclopedia, we need a path for disputes which arise in our more contested subject areas to proceed down in pursuit of resolution. This applies both for content and for conduct disputes.

   A2: I do, yes. If the community hopes to one day be capable of resolving disputes without having to delegate some of the work to a closed committee, then it needs to actually try to do so. Additionally, it is simply preferable that the community resolve disputes on its own.

   A3: It would depend on how egregious the administrator's conduct was. I would prefer that a request for comment be first undertaken, if only to assess community opinion on that administrator. Perhaps a still more preferable option would be for the committee to resolve by motion that the administrator take another RfA, but I don't know how well-received that would be. I think I'd need to have a specific situation given to be before I could say how I could act.

2. Would you say that arbcom are/should be too tough/too soft on editors who frequently flout community norms?

   A: We should be tough on those who show disregard for our communal norms, simply because by doing so, they undermine our working environment. (When I say "communal norms," I mean site policy. Those who are simply not normal, but are still valuable contributors, should never be penalised: for example, those who are "straight-talkers".) I'm not sure if the current committee is too soft on such editors, although I can say that I can think of a few cases where an editor has gotten off lightly. I haven't ever researched with enough detail into whether those editors later went back to their old ways, though, so I can't say whether in those cases "what seemed to be a soft remedy" was actually "too soft to work". As an arbitrator, I wouldn't have much sympathy for those who violate our policies; I detail this in my candidacy statement and on my platform.

1. Would you please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses that you have made substantive edits from?

   A: The only non-disclosed account that I have operated is Uncle Garfunkle (talk · contribs). I created this as something of an experiment in continuation of a private debate between another editor and I about the experience that an editor who is new to Wikipedia undergoes. If you're interested, I found that I received assistance quite promptly when I used the {{Help me}} template, but that there were no prompts that I noticed that told me how to use that template if I needed help. We clearly need to make things easier for new editors, although I hope that the usability initiative will go some way towards doing that.

   In addition, I have a couple of disclosed secondary accounts: User:AGKbot and User:Agkwiki (the first being a placeholder account and the second being a doppelgänger of my primary IRC nick. I have never operated an account on Wikipedia except in accordance with the applicable site policy.

1. If it's discovered that some admin (call him/her Example) is, in fact, a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters?

   A: Those who knowingly allow a banned editor to regain adminship should be at the very least desysopped. Depending on the circumstances, a short ban might also be in order. If their conduct was especially unacceptable, I would be yet more inclined to propose and support a ban. Allowing a banned editor to return and claim adminship is just not on. (For clarity: a silly "admonishment" would not be a heavy enough sanction in this case, in my opinion.) I address this topic at greater length at #Questions from Jake Wartenberg.

1. An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members?

   A: Reading these materials would be unacceptable. Ideally, the arbcom-l software would be configured to exclude arbitrators who are recused in a given matter from threads flagged as relating to those topics; but mailman is a very primitive set-up, so I don't foresee this being possible. Similarly, the arbcomwiki would, ideally, be configured to prevent recused arbitrators from viewing the relevant pages, but this is equally not feasible at present (due to the security issues with MediaWiki authorization extensions).

   If I was elected, I would make a point to ignore all material relating to case I was recused in. But one's word only counts for so much, doesn't it? We really need some software improvements.

   Inappropriate usage should be dealt with on-wiki, simply because there is no need for it to be kept private, although concessions may have to be made in the interests of privacy. In minor matters, a simple "Don't do that again" sent via e-mail might also be acceptable, although I'd be inclined to post that on-wiki for transparency's sake.

1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:

(A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;

(B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;

(C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;

(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Banned User Subcommittee or considering the subcommittee's recommendations;

(E) Overseeing the granting and use of Checkuser and Oversight permissions, including vetting candidates for these privileges and supervising elections for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;

(F) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;

(G) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;

(H) Carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators generally are given oversight privileges also);

(I) Internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming Arbcom-l mailing list traffic, reminding colleagues of internal deadlines, and the like;

(J) Assisting with policy- and procedure-related discussions, such as working to finalize the long-pending revision of the Arbitration Policy;

(K) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).

A: There's always going to be one more task for an arbitrator to work on, but to give some idea of where I would primarily focus my attentions:

• A, B, and C are vital to the work of an arbitrator. Much of my work would be focussed here.
• D is an issue that interests me. I would be active here too.
• I would leave E to others, although I would be okay with volunteering for a term on the AUSC if I am not active on the BASC and if no others are particularly keen to do so.
• F: Only in matters that I was especially interested in, or if I had some time to do so.
• Not G. I would leave this to those with more technical aptitude.
• Sometimes H, although it would be a low-priority issue and I would rather leave it to the elected oversighters wherever possible.
• Not I: I don't have the patience to co-ordinate without resorting to kicking backsides.
• Only J where I was not active with a through d.
• K: Following case discussion pages, and responding to comments as needed. Setting time frames for cases, and keeping the parties informed of changes. Taking a role in clerk co-ordination.

2. One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with the those tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? In general terms, what types of factors might lead you to vote for a less severe sanction in a given case, and what types of things might lead you to believe that a long-term ban or a desysopping is necessary?

A: I do not think it's helpful to commit oneself to the label of "strict" or "lenient", for two reasons. First (and foremost), remedies should be crafted to solve whichever problem they are to target. How lenient a remedy (and so the arbitrator who drafted it) is perceived as being is in most respects not relevant to the wider goal of an arbitration case: to solve a dispute. Second, an arbitrator who makes himself known for being predisposed to leniency or to severity might find after sitting on the committee for a while that it is expected that he will act accordingly. Neither of the two consequences of this—that he will rebel against that stereotype, or that he will embrace it and make a point of acting so—are conducive to good judgement and an open mind.

My record as an administrator does, I think, show me as previously being mostly lenient, but recently having less tolerance for disruption. In fact, I'd say that if anything, I am today a fairly strict administrator; although I am careful to never be heavy-handed and to never (where it can be helped) levy a sanction that is so lengthy that the subject simply leaves Wikipedia. I would imagine as an arbitrator I would behave no differently.

I would be inclined to vote for one sanction over a more severe alternative where I was convinced that the less severe of the two would probably be sufficient to halt any further disruption by the subject. Read that contrariwise for an answer to your next question. The factors that would lead me to think that the sanction would be adequate are probably too numerous to specify, but I can provide a couple of hypotheticals:

• In cases of uncivil discussion participation, where the proportion of an editor's disruptive comments in relation to his total discussion contributions was small, I might be more inclined to leniency than in cases where most of the editor's talk page comments were disruptive. (In the latter case, it would seem to me that the editor has a difficulty with general collaboration, rather than with participation in a given subject area or set of areas.)
• In cases where one editor edited exclusively (and disruptively) in one topic area, but where another edited in a number (and perhaps disruptively only in that same one, but constructively in many others), I would be inclined to sanction more severely (read: sanction with a longer length of time) the former.

All editors being sanctioned should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Whether they had previously been sanctioned under a general remedy (such as discretionary sanctions provisions) at arbitration enforcement, how courteous they where elsewhere, whether they had accepted their misconduct was unhelpful, whether they had resolved to improve moving forward (irrespective of how the case is decided)—this one is sadly rare in arbitration cases, and a number of other factors would all be taken into account when I was deciding how leniently to dispose of a particular aspect of a dispute.

I have a few questions:

1. It is very rare for anyone to ascend through Wikipedia’s ranks of added responsibilities without running afoul with others. As either User:Anthony cfc or under your current name, were you the subject of any RfCs or ANIs? If so, please provide a (very) brief summary of them.

   A: I seem to have always been able to carry out my responsibilities without causing anybody to have a grievance so acute as to warrant a request for comment or a noticeboard complaint. I was taken to WQA in the past couple of months by an individual who I had levied a sanction against, but the complaint was not actioned and was closed. I can't seem to find a link in my talk page archives to the complaint, and I'm not going to spend any longer looking for it unless you are especially keen to see it. It is actually not very difficult to be an administrator and still not annoy everybody on whose conduct you rule: courtesy, a clear willingness to listen and to reconsider one's decision, and diligence make other editors much less inclined to give you hell simply for sanctioning them. (In case I haven't made it clear, I would bring this approach to my arbitrator duties to the same degree that I have brought them to my administrator duties.)

2. Have you ever edited on Wikipedia under any other names besides AGK and Anthony cfc?

   A: Never in a way that is contrary to Wikipedia policy; and for the most part, never. I once edited as Uncle Garfunkle (talk · contribs), as part of an experiment to gauge how steep is the learning curve for an individual who is wholly new to the Wikipedia interface. (Cf #Questions from Hipocrite.) I have otherwise never edited under any other name.

3. Under your previous pen names, were you ever blocked? If so, could you describe the general nature surrounding those events?

   A: I have never been blocked, and never edited under another pen name.

4. Do you think administrators and arbitrators on Wikipedia are simply regular editors who have access to special tools or do you think that admins and arbs have police officer and judge-type powers on Wikipedia? Can you expand on your philosophy on this aspect?

   A: I would like to say that all editors are equal and that administrators are simply regular contributors with access to some restricted functions. But it doesn't seem to be so. Administrators are empowered to police the conduct of other editors, and to sanction those who behave inappropriately. They are therefore perceived by most editors differently from "regular contributors". But most administrators manage to successfully manage their hats: I, for example, am capable of being "AGK the administrator" on some articles, and "AGK the contributor" on others. An editor will treat me as somebody who is there to kick butts into line when I am wearing the first hat, and as an equal who is there to collaborate when I am wearing the second. (Those administrators who fail to balance their hats properly would probably be guilty of using their status to gain leverage in matters of content.)

   This approach only holds where an administrator only acts where he is uninvolved, both in the subject area concerned and with the involved editors, which is why I taken an especially unsympathetic view to administrators who work in areas where they cannot be considered neutral.

   My philosophy on arbitrators is somewhat similar, but I think there it is much more difficult to balance an editor hat with an arbitrator one. The reason for this is purely that arbitrators are more well-known in the community, because the committee consists of only fifteen or so editors. But I view this as a less important philosophy, because most arbitrators do little except arbitrate (because of the constraints of time).

   This philosophy is all set against one important backdrop: it is the editorial function that is the most important one. We only create others, such as that of administrator or arbitrator, out of necessity.

5. Doing a good job as an arb on Wikipedia requires the devotion of a great deal of time. What personal rewards do you think you derive from performing such an extensive volunteer effort?

   A: I don't receive any substantive rewards, and I don't profit from any contributions I make to Wikipedia. I rarely talk about why I contribute, because most attempts to do so tend to sound very corny and clichéd, but I guess you've left me with no alternative. I like what we do on here. I like the idea that anybody with internet access can find out anything about almost any subject by more accessible methods than expensive books or a local library. I like the idea that I'm doing my own small part to help that mission. And I like the people that I work with on Wikipedia. No matter how I help—whether through directly expanding the encyclopedia, as most do, or helping with site maintenance, or even making life more pleasant for other editors by resolving content or conduct disputes—I enjoy doing so. (I think I would enjoy arbitrating, even if some days are a living hell.) So I suppose the personal reward that I get is the plain old "good feeling" that I get from logging on every day and doing a few things to make our encyclopedia even better.

6. Spring a sixth one on you here… I’ve long felt that everywhere humans gather in an organization or under one flag, those in power may govern only with the consent of the governed. Admins and Arbs currently receive their powers and privileges from the general Wikipedian community—what I would call “the governed.” Let’s explore this line a bit more. I note questions on this from LessHeard vanU, Tony, and Davewild. In particular, I note your first answer to LessHeard vanU and then your change of heart. You at first wrote of how modified procedures for desysopping made it “sadly [more] probable that such a process would be abused to neutralise administrators who work in difficult or highly-contested areas” and “[t]hese administrators are a rare and special breed of editor” and the current process is “a necessary evil.” As you have seen from the questions others have posed to you above, there is a great deal of concern over what I would call the “consent of the governed” issue. I suspect that many (more than 10%) of Wikipedia’s current administrators see Wikipedia as a sort of hierarchy of a club-like environment where they’ve become an “inny” and they value their power and *getting their way* more than they value being able to improve Wikipedia. What do you think of this impression? Greg L (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   A: The requirements for any special status on Wikipedia are progressive: adminship demands a level of experience and competency; bureaucratship a higher level; and so on. A hierarchy does therefore exist, whether we like it or not. But I think most of our administrators are decent people who recognise that they are just regular contributors their peers have given some extra access levels. And I think it is insulting to say that our administrators have pursued their access levels for the sake of having a status, rather than to better the encyclopedia. (Caveat: there are bad eggs in every basket. I am here speaking generally.) I hold this view in part because I've interacted with many of the site's administrators. They are all decent people to whom contributing is a hobby they enjoy pursuing. The darkly exclusive cabal which exists in the view you narrate certainly isn't operational on the Wikipedia I know. I doubt I, and most others, would be logging in every day if it was.

   I would firmly agree that those who govern must have the consent of the governed. That was part of the reason for the change in my stance on LvHU's question, which you noted in your question.

• Answers to the last two to come within two days. AGK 20:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?

   A: As a rule, all communication should be responded to in a timely manner. If an editor (especially one who is a party to an open arbitration case) is made to feel as though he is being ignored, then frustration and upset will result. So my answer is that it is very important.

2. How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?

   A: It is important that an arbitrator follows discussions, simply because important information or critical counter-arguments may be contained therein. A lot of what is said on case discussion pages is not important, or indeed is downright unhelpful (although the incidence of such material has recently being lessened as a result of the clerks becoming more proactive in policing case pages). So it might not always be a useful exercise for an arbitrator to read case discussion pages. But I think it ought to be done anyway.

   Participation in the discussion pages is not so vital. It can be useful as a way of letting the parties know that the committee is paying attention to what is being said, but a comment for the sake of commenting is a silly one. Having said that, when reading a discussion, I invariably have a question or comment of some form to offer, so I think participation to some degree would naturally follow when one is monitoring a case discussion page.

3. In both my experience, and that of some other editors I talked to, being "grilled" at arbitration for weeks (or months) is "one of the worst experience of one's life" - and it doesn't matter if one is found innocent or guilty afterwards. Do you think that something can be done to make the experience of parties be less stressful?

   A: I have never been taken to court, but I imagine it would be a stressful and unpleasant experience. In the same way, being the subject of an arbitration case is always going to be unpleasant. Minimising the length of time the case takes to end, by ensuring that workload is effectively managed (through the use of scheduling and target dates), and setting a clear end date at the beginning of the case would minimise the stress placed on the parties. Practicing good communication, so that the parties do not feel "left in the dark", would help too. It is the job of the arbitrators to make sure that they have enough time to devote to every party to a case.

4. Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?

   A: All arbitration involves some degree of cost-benefit analysis (said a wise man once). So I would agree that asking the question "will this hurt or help the encyclopedia?" is one of the central components of an arbitrator's thinking when writing a decision. Naturally, I would also agree with "have some backbone and don't be afraid to make tough calls", although I would like to think that I have proven myself quite willing to make tough calls. But I think that "if I don't ban the editor, will the encyclopedia lose valuable content?" is a dangerous route to go down: too often in the past have those who make life for others hell but also contribute much content been allowed to go on editing without consequence. I would rather just ask the first question I mentioned in this answer, and be done with it. A good essay, though; I would broadly agree with its message.

5. ArbCom commonly criticizes editors, publishing findings about their failings and remedies to correct them. While nobody disputes this is needed, do you think ArbCom should also try to clarify whether noted failings are exceptional, and accompany critical findings with positive reinforcement, such as here?

   A: I think findings such as the one you linked to are a good idea. When the arbitration committee finds against an editor, he is typically branded for life as a miscreant and a trouble-maker. Where it would not be fair to give that impression, an offset should be made by way of a "positive finding". The less harm that is done unnecessarily, the better.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.

The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?

   A: Three months is beyond reasonable limits. Justice delayed is justice denied.

2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

   A: WikiProjects can be useful ways of streamlining collaboration. Where they provide "guidance" on article layout and related issues, their guidance is usually sensible, and so in most cases it would be in best interests of the project to follow it. But as an organisation, a WikiProject should not enforce a given version of a piece of text on the basis that their own policies dictate that it is to be so. That would strike me as only likely to discourage from editing those editors who simply wish to contribute quietly and outside of the WikiProject.

   The consensus on article standards can and should be enforced, but it is important to distinguish such attempts in the same of consensus from attempts in the name of the WikiProject.

3. An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?

   A: Such an editor is making collaboration difficult, and so can be considered to behaving disruptively. If attempts to guide this editor towards a more helpful method of contributing are unsuccessful, the matters should be handled by the ordinary methods. An editor who makes it difficult for others to contribute is not a helpful influence.

4. There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?

   A: Administrators are necessary for the running of the project. I think editors who behave in the way you describe are often failing to realise that administrators are just ordinary editors with a few extra functions, at least in the context of content matters. It would not be my intention to attempt to stifle their criticism, and so, although I would disagree with their views, I would not attempt to sanction them (either as an arbitrator or as an administrator). But in cases where such views are being repeated ad nauseum, and where the propagator is thereby posing a drain on the energies of others, it may be necessary to take action.

5. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?

   A: I do not think that an inability to use markup correctly is a lack of intelligence. To me, it instead suggests in ineptitude for technical matters, which could itself be easily remedied with a spot of guidance in the art of wiki-synatx. Similarly, an inability to understand written English would to me suggest not that the user is unintelligent but that they are not a native speaker. In both cases, some attempt to guide them should be made: all persons do, I think, have the capacity to contribute constructively. But there comes a point where the energy required to unlock that capacity offsets the energy needed to remedy the mess they are causing. When that point is reached, it would sadly become necessary to convince that editor that their efforts would be better spent elsewhere; and a block may be needed if the editor does not take the point.

   As an aside, I think these cases are rare. All of our regular contributors are talented and bright individuals. Somebody who is as unrectifiably incompetent as the editor you describe would be exceedingly rare, I think.

6. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?

   A: A ban in the case of question #4 and #5 would probably be overkill. A block, to prevent disruption, might necessary, and I would be willing to consider one. In the case of question #3, a ban might be justifiable, although the matter could probably be more easily disposed of by a simple block levied by an uninvolved administrator.

7. Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.

   A: I do not agree with the three-revert rule. I think it is arbitary and promotes both leniency in cases where genuine disruption has occurred and severity in cases where the reversion was in the spirit of genuine collaboration. As an administrator, I instead evaluate all cases of edit warring on their own merits—and do not attempt to apply a silly measuring stick to a case of what is often a complex type of disruptive situation. (If you would still like for me to answer your question, please indicate so, and I will be happy to; but I think you ought to be aware of my views that I think 3RR is in most cases unhelpful.)

8. When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?

   A: I am not sure what criteria I use, as I rarely evaluate improper usernames (my work is more in the field of arbitration enforcement)—and when I do, it is on a case-by-case basis—but I think I am probably inclined to be quite unsympathetic to usernames that do not meet our username policy. We are an academic project. Provocative usernames are not appropriate.

9. A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?

   A: Site policy states that their edits should always be reverted. I would be inclined to agree with this view.

10. During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. b) Question removed

    A: Sam left the committee when it was discovered that he had operated in the past an account that was desysopped for disruption (cf User:AGK/a). For obvious reasons, it would have been impossible for him to continue to function as an arbitrator.

11. Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
12. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

    We need to muster the consensus to have flagged revisions installed, so that it can be activated on problematic articles (and especially on biographies of living persons). We need to better co-ordinate our administrators where contested subject areas and where arbitration enforcement is concerned. And we need a more efficient system for scrutinising user conduct. But I think that on a more general level, we're actually doing okay. I for one love being a part of it.

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use any of the wikimedia related IRC channels? If you do, will you please permit any logs of your conversations to be posted, in full? Thanks.

A: Yes, I participate on occasion in IRC discussions. The channels I am primarily present in are #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins, #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks, and #wikipedia-medcab. I am careful about what I say on chat media, and so I don't think there would be a problem with any of my comments being publicly released; but such a release would have to be pursuant to Wikipedia:Copyrights and other applicable policies (and, specifically, would have to have the consent of any other participants in those conversations). I'm not convinced that publishing these logs would be necessary for the sake of publishing them, but if I do happen to have said anything that might be of interest to a voter, then yes, I would acquiesce in the release of that comment. AGK 14:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in a 2008 motion. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention, as suggested by the 2008 motion, at [1]. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it (e.g. by reblocking or sanctioning the unblocker) for 15 days until the case became moot because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks,  Sandstein  18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: You would have received my full support. In any case where an action made on arbitration enforcement (AE) is appealed to the committee, I would not be inclined to tolerate the appeal being left to drift into the abyss. All matters heard by the arbitrators ought to have a clear result, even if that is simply a statement by the committee that "We see nothing here that warrants our attention." In the specific case you cite, the matter would have been closed with a member of the committee restoring the block.

Note when reading this that I am also active on the AE page. I think that support for the administrators who enforce committee decisions should receive complete support from the committee, even unto the stage where the matter is being considered for a full case at AR. An effective network for enforcing arbitration decisions is a vital component in the dispute resolution process (and I say as much in my answers to other questions, especially this one). The committee must never let those precious few administrators who are willing to sort out contested and contentious complaint threads feel as though they have been marooned, and as an arbitrator I doubt my time enforcing decisions would allow me to forget that

(By the by: your inactivity at AE is a great loss. I say genuinely and not to be flattering or obsequious that I hope you'll consider returning soon.)

Have you read War and Peace?

A: I've just finished Ulysses (novel). It might be another five years before I have the energy to tackle anything more difficult than Harry Potter.

Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.

A: I have tried to answer all aspects of your question. In many cases, I have provided a preliminary response (that often just contained comments on the general issue); but I have always followed that up with responses to the specific questions and sub-parts. If I have missed anything, it was not deliberate, and so I would appreciate having my attention drawing to omissions. Thank you for the interesting questions.

1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

   a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

   b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

   c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)

   d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get

   e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied

   A: We are moving towards adopting more effective approaches to BLPs, but a lot remains to be done. My view is that there ought to be a more stringent system of editorial oversight available for activation on biographies (such as flagged revisions). Such systems could easily be enabled or disabled as needed (either by a consensus of administrators, as an administrative damage-limitation action; or by a consensus of editors, as an article quality improvement action).

   (a): Weight ought to be given in deletion discussions to the wishes of the subject, yes. The final say should, of course, rest with the community; but if a subject says "I would rather not have an entry in your encyclopedia," we ought to be treating that with a lot of weight. An "opt out" system is one that I would agree with for BLPs of the appropriate level of notability. (Caveat: deletion is not a substitute for good editorial oversight. We still ought to be looking at systems for maintaining BLP quality.)
   (b): I don't think that approach is sensible, except in the cases of articles that are so libellous as to pose a serious problem.
   (c): As a wikt:necessary evil, I would support this. But a system whereby we could configure an article to hold anonymous contributions for approval (in the way particular set-ups of flagged revisions do and as flagged protection does) would be preferable; blanket semi-protection is a somewhat crude measure.
   (d): This would make maintaining article quality on BLPs a much easier task. We should make trialling it a matter of urgency.
   (e): As with (d). I don't want to say that I think this is essential, as I'd need to see how the systems worked in practice. But this would make patrolling BLPs a less stressful task for our editors.

2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:

   a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

   b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

   c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

   A: The question of determining site policy with respect to BLPs should be left to the community. If the committee were to instigate site-wide changes (or even changes across all BLPs), it would be at best not very successful. (This is, of course, unless the community were to say in an RFC or community poll, for example, that "We want flagged revisions for all BLPs". If the committee were to then implement flagged revisions for all BLPs, there might be more success.)

   (a) A question of policy, inasmuch as policy is a codification of how the community operates the encyclopedia (and how it wishes others to operate it).
   (b) Previous expeditions into the territory of setting BLP policy were necessary, as they helped establish some boundaries and ground rules for what the committee is and is not entitled to do in the field of BLPs. But I don't think the decisions were overly helpful, as they have solved no problems.
   (c) As an arbitrator, I don't think I could do much. The community has made it clear that the committee's job is not to govern, and so I would not embark on any attempts to solve the BLP problem by dictum. I might try to work with the community to push for some of the proposed solutions to the BLP problem, but that would probably be more in my capacity as a community member than as an arbitrator. This is all, of course, assuming that no dispute about BLPs were ever to be brought before the committee. With a full case, the arbitrators might be able to do a little more.

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?

   A: I am assuming that you are referring primarily to consensus for matters of project governance, and not to consensus on article content matters. The consensus-building approach does generally still work well even in cases where the pool of editors is some hundreds large. But votes can be helpful tools for gauging consensus, if used with caution. I generally agree with the various essays and policies on this: Wikipedia:Voting, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, m:Don't vote on everything, m:Polling is evil, and m:Voting is a tool, amongst others.

   I am a mediator. I've guided tonnes of cases through the MedCab and the MedCom. So I think it's quite clear that I am a firm believer in the concept of editorial consensus, even to the point where I think editors ought to invest time and energy into resolving disputes that could so easily be solved by (arbitrarily or not) saying "Side X is correct." Other candidates may have a very different frame of mind.

   As for SecurePoll: I have only saw that used for elections, and to my knowledge there are no intentions for using it for any other purposes (the m:Licensing update excepted, what with the obvious difficulties with pan-project and multilingual discussions). So I don't think the recent adoption of SecurePoll changes much, although I do think we ought to use voting systems like it sparingly and never for anything other than elections and matters similar to the licensing update: the inability to attach comments to one's vote completely undermines the concept of a "discussion-vote."

4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?

   A: Argh, so many questions, Lar! :-)

   I answered the first question already, but to reiterate: I think Flagged revisions is a sensible solution for improving the level of editorial oversight our articles presently have; so yes, we should implement some form of it—at least on a trial basis. Preferably, we would have both flagged revisions and flagged protection available to us. I'm not sure what you mean by "which form". If you mean for me to pick from a table or list of possible configurations, please link me to it, as I can't immediately see one on the relevant policy pages.

   As none of the possible configurations have yet been activated, I would say that the community has (obviously) failed to come to a decision. Most editors seem to think that something needs to be done about BLPs, and the majority thereof think flagged revisions seems as decent a place to start as any; but we don't seem to have gotten around to implementing it. The reason for that might be a lack of centralised discussion on the topic: we've had some threads here and some more elsewhere, but no decisive effort to "Sit down and sort this issue out." The flaggedrevs lab site is now live, so hopefully upon the completion of that trial of flagged revisions, we should see more momentum. But at present we are suffering a little from inertia where this issue is concerned (possibly, one would think having read this, because of the inactivity of the developer staff?).

   As an interesting aside on the implementation of flagged revisions, I'd point to the New York Times article of 25/08/2009 that (mistakenly) stated that a flagged revisions system was about to go live on the English Wikipedia. That article was, as one would expect, surprised that we seemed to be making some major tweaks to our "Anybody can edit" philosophy; but was otherwise quite neutral. Maybe flagged revisions would not be the disaster to the project that some nay-sayers foretell.

5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

   a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

   b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

   c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

   d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

   e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from last year in that it's more extensive)

   f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

   g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from last year)

   A: Anonymity is an important tenet of our site policy, and is especially important in the case of those editors editors who edit in contested subject areas where their contributions might have ramifications on their offline life.

   (a) I do, because it enables people to contribute to our project safely. Where they not able to do so, we may lose them from the pool of editors contributing to Wikipedia, and that would as a consequence hamper our goals.
   (b) (I do support the principle of anonymity.)
   (c) So long as doing so would abide by the applicable policy, I would be happy to have the appropriate information oversighted (within reason). It may be the case that they have developed the need for anonymity because of a change in real-life or other circumstances, and we ought to respect that.
   (d) By "elsewhere", I presume you mean not on a Wikimedia site. I would say, with the essence of WP:OUTING in mind, that posting such a link would constitute outing, yes. Outing is the "Posting another person's personal information". To publish a link to such information on-wiki has the same effect as posting the information itself, and so I would be inclined to treat the two the same.
   (e) I don't openly acknowledge it, but I wouldn't be terribly bothered if it were discovered. I don't know of any reason why arbitrators should be subject to different policies and different entitlements than other editors, so, per my above answers, I would say "No" to your second question. I would not bother with disclosing my identity if elected unless there was a compelling reason to do so.
   (g) Policy (specifically, WP:Harassment#Posting of personal information would say that outing constitutes harassment, and so should result in a block. I would be inclined to agree with that. Those who disclose the personal information of others without the subject's consent are committing one of the most grossly unhelpful acts an editor can. My instinct is therefore to have little sympathy for such behaviour. And no: as a rule, outing is outing. Committing your behaviour on another website does not mitigate the impact it has here and on the editor.

6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.

   a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

   b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

   c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

   d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

   e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

   f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?

   A: Stalking is a problem, yes. The advice of m:User:Kylu/Essay should be required reading for all those who edit our encyclopedia in any manner more complex than simple typo fixes.

   (a) It should. But our individual communities also should: they have more direct access in many respects to project contributors than does the Foundation.
   (b) Institutional backing should be the main method of support. The Foundation should be willing to verify to a contributor's local law enforcement authorities that the stalking he or she is receiving is a problem and does warrant action. The contributor is more likely to be helped by "IRL" organisations if an organisation such as the Foundation backs them. The community would also play a role in supporting the contributor, though appropriate use of oversight and other privacy-related functions.
   (c) When their account is established, we ought to allow them to exercise the right to anonymity that we extend to most contributors. So long as they are careful to not reveal their identity online, no other allowances or special provisions should be necessary.
   (d) The stalker should be banned from the project. I am disinclined to ever tolerate such behaviour. Contact with real-life authorities may also be necessary, dependant on the wishes of the subject of the stalking.
   (e) The distinction between the two is in the intent of the person following another's contributions. The intent of the former would be to harass the person; the intent of the latter would be to investigate a complaint or concern. The latter could become the former if he reviews the contributions of that other editor more out of habit and a desire to "catch" them in the act than as part of a legitimate investigation.
   (f) I have saw some editors behave so, yes. Complaints of stalking should be investigated, and a clear outcome explicitly established. Where a statement of "WAAH, I am being stalked! :'-(" is responded to with "I have looked into your accusations. No, you are not", it is unlikely that the 'stalking card' is going to be used again. Being fair and open-minded but firm should nip this sort of thing in the bud.

7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

   A: I would only support such an approach where all of the account's edits were completely unhelpful. In less serious cases, only those edits which are disruptive should be reverted. I am disinclined to send out such a firmly unwelcome vibe to an editor, lest we ruin any prospect that they become a constructive contributor.

   I am not sure what you mean by "making a large number of good edits to test this principle". Could you clarify?

   On edit summaries: again, this would depend on how disruptive the account is. For Grawp iterations, for example, blanket reverts would be fine. In less serious cases, patently disruptive edits can be reverted; more borderline cases should be reverted using the "undo" function and have an explanatory edit summary attached. The issue of blanket reversions should be approached with common sense. Inflexible or "one rule for all" policies are probably not very useful for this topic.

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

   a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

   b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

   c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

   d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?

   e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

   f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?

   A: All valuable criticism should be taken on its own merits. But reform on the basis of that criticism must take place in furtherance only to discussion that takes place on this project, on a public and well-advertised page.

   (a) We can't stop discussion happening anywhere off Wikipedia, and shouldn't stop it on. But any discussion that goes towards the building of consensus must take place on Wikipedia, where other editors can view it, evaluate its merits, and rebut any aspects they wish to.

   (b) I don't have a blog, because I don't think people would be interested in what I have to say. :-)

   (c) Wikipedia Review (WR) is a site for criticism of Wikipedia. That's fair enough. Plenty of criticism exists; that site simply devotes itself to that topic. The problem is that a site with such a focus is prone to—and does—attract those who are disaffected by this project (especially in furtherance to being banned or sanctioned, by the community or the committee). Whilst I do not wish to overgeneralise, it is clear that much of what those editors say is without much merit. If you are willing to ignore that, and other material that has no value, then I guess it is a useful forum to follow. But reading such relentless criticism of this project and its contributors is draining, which is why I tend to avoid WR. I was a little active on WikBack. It was quite an enjoyable place to participate: a bit like WR, but more fair to Wikipedia and what it stands for. I didn't participate for long, though. WikBack closed long after I stopped visiting it, so I don't know why it closed; I would imagine it was because it did not fill any niche that our on-wiki discussion fora, our official mailing list, and other such venues already met.

   (d) I don't see why it wouldn't be appropriate in general terms, so long as one wasn't making unfair digs at other editors: that would violate our policy on commenting on content, not on contributors, and so would be highly ill-advisable (at least for anybody who holds a restricted permission, including +sysop).

   (e) There is an account of the name AGK on Wikipedia Review that I operate. I rarely use it; I have made some twelve posts or so, in the year that I've had it. I am opposed to anonymous accounts on such sites, but I don't think simply having one is sanctionable. Outing the fact that an arbitrator has an account on a site such as WR is not "outing" (unless the account was under his or her real name; but that would be very uncommon, I should think); and so it is not sanctionable. Outing the fact that an arbitrator has an account on a site not related to Wikipedia would be "outing".

   (f) The community's view of external criticism websites has softened a little of late. The phrase "I have an account on Wikipedia Review" is less likely to attract a feverent shake of the head and dark mutterings than it would around the point of last year's elections to the committee. I think this is a good thing. For all its faults (for clarity: I think there are many), WR isn't the hellish tar-pit that people make it out to be. But it's still not a place I like to spend my time, and I think most Wikipedians are of the same mind as me.

9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?

   A: I don't think we have a major problem with special treatment for highly experienced contributors. There have been a few cases where different treatment has been given to those who have edited for a long time a little differently and to those who are new to the project, but they have not been severe or frequent enough for me to think that a gross imbalance exists. As a community, I think we are good at saying "That was a silly thing to do"—and are just as good at saying "That was very silly. You've been around for a long time, and you ought to know better."

10. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

    A: Grey. :-) It is anodyne and soothingly neutral.

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These questions will not be much easier than Lar's. You say:

Biographies of living persons. They're a big problem. A huge one, actually. I don't intend the project to get a huge lawsuit whilst I'm on the committee.

How do you intend to prevent a lawsuit related to content in your role as an arbitrator? If you're thinking of a case, how will someone considering a lawsuit, likely an outsider not well versed in Wikipedia's norms, even file a request with ArbCom?

If elected, I would be very aware of the importance of making special provisions for ensuring that BLPs honour our core policies.

How might this awareness manifest itself short of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log or something similar? Is BLP some sort of exception to the general rule that ArbCom does not make policy? Thank you in advance for your replies.

A: I don't think there is much I could do as an arbitrator to "solve" the BLP problem. The committee's scope for action is largely limited to acting within the confines of cases brought before it by members of the community; and even then, additional restrictions apply (such as those on decisions that could be perceived as making policy by dictum). I did not profess in my supplementary statement (for the benefit of readers: User:AGK/Platform, whence Chaser took these two quotes) to expect to be able to make any progress on the problem as an arbitrator over the next two years. But what I will promise is, should a dispute be brought before the committee whilst I am serving, that I would dispose of it not as an ordinary case, but as a case that is dealing with one of the project's foremost problems.

I accept that this is a weak answer. When I put "BLPs are a problem" in my platform, I wasn't saying "they are a problem… and I have the solution!" I was just saying that the BLP issue is something that worries me, and I wouldn't forget that if elected. As with every other editor on the project, I think BLPs are a big problem… But I don't know how we're going to fix it in one fell swoop.

For more on my views on biographies, see my answers at #Questions from Avraham and #Questions from Lar. AGK 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing [2]. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: The community is capable of making its own policy. Jimbo should no longer be establishing or adjusting policy by dictum. Paid editing is not against policy, but it is ill-advisable, because it almost always produces writing which does not adhere to our NPOV policies. Additionally: the moral rightfulness of taking money for what is essentially charity work is questionable. But if the article contributions which are paid for produce encyclopedia entries which are of good quality and which abide by our site's policies, then I don't have any major problems with it. AGK 23:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These questions are being asked of all candidates. If some are redundant to others already asked, feel free to ignore them.

• In limited conversation with past and present arbitrators, they have regularly mentioned the pronounced time demands which being a member of the Arbitration Committee can require, particularly in the difficult or complex cases, on such matters as reading evidence, reviewing behavior of individuals, and discussion of solutions. Do you believe that you will be able to give such matters the time they require?
• Also, as has been mentioned above, several editors have indicated some arbitrators become less active as regular contributors, either because of the "politics" or because of the demands on time. Do you anticipate being able to continue to function as an active content contributor while an arbitrator?
• Also, do you anticipate that your exposure to the seamier side of wikipedia might make you less interested in continuing as a content contributor on the conclusion of your ArbCom term?

Thanks for your questions.

A1: Yes.
I acknowledge in my candidate statement the demands placed on an arbitrator. If I thought I could not offer enough time, I would not run; and if my circumstances change drastically (they will not) and I am no longer able to put enough time into the role, I would resign.

A2: I do.
Not many arbitrators have been able to continue actively contributing to the namespace, but some have: YellowMonkey and, to a lesser extent, Kirill Lokshin being the primary examples from past iterations of the committee. I intend to follow their example, although, if I am elected, arbitration work would be my priority: anybody can contribute content; only fifteen at any one time can arbitrate.

A3: I don't think it would. Arbitration has its nasty sides, and I'm sure there would be days where I think to myself that "This is an awful lot of bother to go through for one project." But passing doubts are common to every user. We're the largest encyclopedia ever made. I don't think a couple of years dealing with the project's sewage is going to make me forget that, even if there are occasional days on which I am sick of the smell.

1. Under what conditions would you consider recusing from a case?

   A: I would recuse from a case which concerned a dispute I had had meaningful involvement in, as an editor or as an administrator, or which concerned a matter or topic which I did not think I could consider without any harmful preconceptions. Recusals of either type would, for me, be very rare.

1. What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?

   A: See first these sections of my nomination statement and supplementary statement:

   • Problems must be evaluated without the hindrance of preconceptions. I would ignore anything that (and anybody who) threatened to undermine that goal, and recuse where I could not do so.
   • It is important that the community be told where things stand. If something has to be kept hidden for privacy's sake, then a simple "We can't tell you that, because XYZ" keeps everybody as in the loop as possible.
   • The mailing list should be used sparingly. If elected, one of my first goals would be to establish some kind of discussion area for the committee to use. At present, there is no venue for the discussion of miscellaneous issues […] When an arbcom-l thread is started, it should be easy to say "There is no good reason to discuss this privately. Let's transfer this to the public discussion area."

   I would always recuse where I was not able to view matters objectively and with an open mind, either because of prior involvement in the situation or because of personal prejudices (which, admittedly, are in my case few).

   As for the issue of dealing with matters "beyond surface appearances": it is important that the committee dispose of all matters in a clear way. Good co-ordination is useful in this respect: if nothing is lost track of and everything is kept on an open task list until it is fully handled, then there is less temptation to let an issue go ignored and so wither away. If elected, I would endeavour to ensure that my personal tasks list was kept in order, and that all items on it were exhaustively dealt with. I am not in the game of ignoring issues, as I think my record as an administrator shows. In short: I would not be a useless arbitrator; I would be a responsive and active one.

2. How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the labels placed on them? As these are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem.

   A: When deciding on a case, I would view the dispute as a set of problems to be neutralised. That approach requires a neutral, open-minded approach to arbitration. So never would I see an editor as a stereotype or as the sum of what he or she is typecast as. Every editor is a contributor to the encyclopedia; every dispute is a fresh challenge to be approached enthusiastically and pragmatically. Pursuing the status quo unquestioningly is not a wise course to take. If I am elected, my duties as an arbitrator would be undertaken with that mindset.

1. A major concern of mine is the use/abuse of WP:CIVIL to silence editors by Admins who are often less than objective or neutral. Have you any concerns about the enforcement of WP:CIVIL?

A: As a general principle, it is evidently not helpful to use site policy to manipulate the editing environment. Such behaviour constitutes "gaming of the system", and is disruptive.

I am not sure about the extent to which our civility policy is used by some to cow others into submission. In my experience as an administrator, a greater problem has been the phenomenon of "tattling on the other side". But I am not active in every subject area, and I am sure that in many areas of the encyclopedia, improper use of civility is a problem.

Enforcement of civility must be sensible. Punishing strong rhetoric that is deployed to make a constructive point is unhelpful. Stifling all comments which vent frustration is, within reason, unhelpful. Civility can't be allowed to dominate our consensus-building discussions, because that would probably be conducive to an environment wherein truly unhelpful edits could be left unchecked so long as they toed the line drawn by the civility policy.

In short: enforcement of civility can sometimes defy common sense. The question applied to all instances of alleged misconduct should be "Did that comment help the encyclopedia?", with all other questions as secondary.

2. Related to the above; I believe that there is cultural difference in the acceptability of robust and frank language between America and Europe. An illustration of this is the censorship of "bad language" on US television, words which would pass unnoticed on TV in the UK or Ireland for example. How do you react to the charge that US standards of "civility" are being imposed on Wikipedians from places that happily embrace forms of expression that some Americans seem to find "uncivil"? Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I have a personal qualm with the application in any respect of politically-correct American views on which phrases are appropriate for civil discussion. That's probably because I have a low tolerance for waffle and for preferring political correctness over meaningful discourse. But nonetheless, I don't think we have a problem with this on Wikipedia, simply because on here those Americans who do contribute are open-minded and aware of the multinational nature of our pool of editors. In practice, this means I don't think it's common for an editor to use a word which an American would say is not appropriate and which any other English-speaking editor would say is.

Where wider concepts of "bluntness" is concerned, I do think that some editors view statements as being uncivil where they are not. But their objections are typically not paid much attention. So whilst I would concur strongly with your belief that there are marked differences "in real life" between the culture of the United States and of many other English-speaking nations (the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland included), I don't think it carries over to Wikipedia all that much.

Hi AGK, I am asking the same question I asked Coren, because I think you know what the EEML case is all about. Basically, I wonder about an alternative Universe where the private archive of the EEML was dismissed by the ArbCom as evidence due to privacy or other concerns. What the best course of action might be for the ArbCom in that Universe then?

A: To not dismiss it! If the evidence were discounted, then an important problem (namely, that a group of editors were co-ordinating their activities off-wiki in order to gain influence over the encyclopedia) would be allowed to go unresolved. The only course of action open to the committee in the universe you describe would be to say "We know what you did, and are doing; we simply can't prove it. But stop immediately. If we catch you again, expect a very severe response".

I am indeed familiar with the EEML case. If you'd like to ask me some more questions on it, Igny, then please do so. I seem to be on top of my questions workload at the moment, so more would be welcome.