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

This page is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may ask a question, via one of the following methods:

1. General questions: Editors submitted these from 27 October through 10 November; they appear first.
2. Individual questions: Eligible voters may ask an individual question of one or more candidates; it can be added to the section underneath the general questions. Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do ensure you are not overlapping with a general question, or with an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to provide their responses before voting starts on 1 December. They are reminded that voters may support or oppose based on which questions are responded to as well as the responses themselves. Candidates are welcome to refuse to answer a question if they feel uncomfortable doing so; if a question is very similar to another, candidates are welcome to simply refer the editor to their response to the similar question.

General Questions submitted by the users indicated. For more information, please see the guidelines posted here.

(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. 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. (UltraExactZZ)

A:It's hard to identify a single characteristic, but the most important is probably fairness. For ArbCom to retain its legitimacy, the community needs to be confident that its decisions are made without bias or favouritism.

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)

A:Two of my major interests in the law are legislative draftsmanship and statutory interpretation, both of which emphasize the importance of clarity and concision. I've written and revised bylaws for non-profits, and in the latter case pride myself that my output is always shorter and less ambiguous than what I started with. The only online evidence of this is an endorsement from my student politics days which calls me "a skilled nitpicker", but I'd be happy to find and upload examples of my work or testimonials from those who have worked with me. On-wiki, I'm pleased with my closes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) and Talk:Flag of Ireland#2nd Requested move (succeeded), though neither is especially analogous to the dry, sparse writing of Arbitration decisions; my closures resemble court judgments, while arbitrators' motions should more closely resemble statues.

(3) 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 the 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). (Newyorkbrad)

A:B is the duty of every arbitrator, and I intend to be active in that area. G is the only one in which I'd expect to be uninvolved, though I can't think of any examples of K. The total time I'd expect to devote to these tasks would depend on my real life schedule and the committee's workload; in general, I'd expect to do my share, and perhaps occasionally slightly more. In what proportion I would do each task would depend on the committee's needs.

(4) 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? (Sam Blacketer)

A:There isn't really much of a balancing act there: we need to treat individuals' personal information with the utmost care, and that is incompatible with releasing it to the community. As far as openness goes, I will be happy to answer the community's questions up until doing so would require the disclosure of private information.

(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of 'groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? (Sam Blacketer)

A:Certainly. The recent practice of ArbCom members publicly disagreeing (always respectfully and collegially) is valuable, as it diminishes pressure to present a united front. Besides that, the best thing we can do is foster an environment in which polite disagreement is expected rather than treated as a personal attack. Finally, having the odd devil's advocate around is valuable, and that's a role I can play if nobody else is.

(6) 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)

A:I think it's important that I continue some level of mainspace activity, if only so I don't grow to hate Wikipedia.

(7) 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 actually read? (Tznkai)

A:I have no idea how much traffic to expect on each. I will read everything of interest to ArbCom as a whole (i.e. things on which the committee might be expected to make a decision) and some portion of things requiring only individual arbitrators'/oversighters' attention ("Could somebody please..."), depending on time.

(8) 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? (EdChem)

A:In those rare events that a sitting arbitrator is party to a case, I would support requiring that arbitrator to take a leave of absence for the duration of that case or shifting all internal communications about it to a venue to which the arbitrator party does not have access (possibly a new and temporary mailing list).

(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? (LessHeard vanU)

A:(a) is already done outside the committee, through RFCs, ANI, etc. I strongly support the development of a community-driven desysopping process (I've been an admin open to recall for my entire tenure, though the shortcomings of that voluntary process are well-documented), though ArbCom does not have the mandate to impose one.

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

A:I think it's got it about right. I can think of a handful of administrators that it declined to desysop that I thought it should have, and one or two that it desysopped when I may not have, but the overall number seems about right.

(11) 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? (Finn Casey)

A:The only cases in which I would support such a move are those in which ArbCom wished to overturn itself (that is if it determined that its previous decision was in error) or if it had authorized an emergency desysop for which subsequent investigation found no emergency. In other cases, I support requiring candidates to re-submit to RFA if they wish to regain sysop status. For the same reason, I oppose desysops of fixed duration.

(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? (Majorly)

A:If it was clear that the admin had lost community trust (that is, there could be no doubt of the outcome of an RFC), then I see no need to jump through hoops, and would support hearing a case. I would be cautious in reaching that determination, though; there are ample examples of early consensus pointing one way, but the fullness of time and discussion shifting it in the opposite direction.

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)

A:First, emergency desysops: if there is reason to believe that an administrator's account is compromised, has "gone rogue", or is being operated by an abusive sock. Second, cases where the facts are straightforward and not in dispute, and only interpretation of policy and remedy are at issue. In those cases, I would only desysop without a case in dire circumstances, and not before allowing the administrator a full response.

(14) If it's discovered that an admin is 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? (Od Mishehu)

A:I cannot imagine what you might be referring to. While I accept that Wikipedia does not generally impose affirmative duties on its administrators, actively aiding an abusive sockpuppet in its activities is incommensurate with adminship, and I would generally support a desysop.

(15) Over the past 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? (Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A:I have no agenda in this area, though I may develop one as I become more familiar with the ArbCom's day to day operations.

(16) In last year's 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 generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? (Davewild)

A:I disagree; the "normal wiki process" cannot resolve contentious policy questions. If there are gaps in policy, ArbCom should fill them as it sees fit, until the community fills them itself, whereupon ArbCom should respect the community's will. I view this role as akin to that of courts in a common law system, which fill in gaps in the law by whatever measures they consider best (and most in keeping with prior jurisprudence), but must respect the will of the legislature if it subsequently fills that gap by statute.

(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? (Kotniski)

A:Broadly, I disagree with that statement. While there's no doubt that ArbCom cases involve a great deal of often pointless argument, the issues that wind up at ArbCom were generally already causing such argument. I have some sympathy for the view that ArbCom often fails to remedy underlying problems, preferring to address individual behaviour; for that reason, I support the kind of creative solution exhibited in the Ireland naming case which, while it inevitably left many editors bitter and unsatisfied, put an end to the disruptive tug-of-war.

(18) 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? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? (Camaron/Majorly)

A:We benefit enormously from having an Arbitration Committee, because it is the only means by which decisions in which many editors are interested can be made (consensus being entirely unequal to this purpose). I shudder to think of the English Wikipedia without ArbCom.

(19) 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? (Camaron)

A:I do not agree with them; there is far too little structure on Wikipedia. I will deal with such criticisms by directing editors making them to the following statement: a vote for Steve Smith is a vote for structure.

(20) 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? (Heimstern)

A:ArbCom should refrain from direct content rulings, but should be more willing to recognize that POV-pushing, cherrypicking sources, etc. are sanctionable conduct issues. If an editor (civilly and without edit-warring) pushes a POV in a given topic area and refuses to engage in consensus-building, that editor should be sanctioned, likely with a topic ban.

(21) 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? (Heimstern)

A:Ideally, administrators should be more aggressive in patrolling ethnic problem areas. That said, administrators are here because they enjoy it, and there's only so much unpleasant stuff you can ask them to do. The Arbitration Committee should be aggressive in sanctioning editors in these areas; revert restrictions can be helpful to prevent actual edit-warring and drive discussion from edit summaries to article talk pages, but topic bans are probably the most useful arrow in ArbCom's quiver for dealing with nationalists. I also support measures to force resolutions to well-defined conflicts, such as those taken in the Ireland naming dispute.

(22) 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? (Heimstern)

A:Despite strongly supporting civility standards, I no longer make civility blocks. This is because the resulting discussion and potential for wheel-warring are often more disruptive than the initial incivility. ArbCom's rulings are not subject to being overturned through noticeboard discussion, and are better-suited than individual administrators to sanction incivility that is so egregious as to justify an ArbCom case. Incivility is certainly grounds for desysopping, and in extreme cases could be grounds for banning. Incivility can be mitigated, but not justified, by the conditions you describe; I'd be reluctant to desysop an administrator who, while single-handedly defending a subject area against POV-pushers, occasionally slipped into it.

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)

A:ArbCom has implemented soft deadlines this year, which has been a positive step. I would vote on proposed decisions in a timely manner, and gently prod my colleagues when they were behind schedule in drafting or voting on decisions.

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)

A:It's very important that it try, if only to keep ArbCom's workload at a reasonable level. ArbCom needs to bear in mind, however, that the community, operating under its broken consensus system, is singularily ill-suited to solving many of the disputes that wind up at ArbCom.

(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. (NuclearWarfare)

A:As I noted in on offsite venue at the time, "We must do something, and this is something, therefore we must do it." The state of governance on Wikipedia is such that any kind of structure is welcome, and many of the reactions opposing it bordered on the hysterical (others were more considered; Iridescent and Tony1 stick out in my mind as particularily articulate critics). In hindsight, ArbCom would have been wiser to float a trial balloon to solicit community feedback in advance, when the impulse of many users to revolt against ArbCom's having created by fiat a powerless advisory body would have been less. I remain hopeful that we can eventually see a body responsible for policy, ideally with some actual power and an elected membership.

(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months.[1] Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. (NuclearWarfare)

A:Active mainspace editing is not a prerequisite to being able to judge these things, though it's certainly desirable. Many arbitrators have histories of article editing before their tenures on the committee, and things haven't changed that much down in the trenches. Besides that, it is quite possible to keep abreast of mainspace issues without actively editing.

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

A:Yes. To do otherwise would be to incentivize abusive socking.

(28) 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? (Jake Wartenberg)

A:I haven't the foggiest idea, and found that decision to be a very odd one. I would have voted to desysop both.

(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly 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? (Jake Wartenberg)

A:Accepting your statement that they have so-admitted, I believe that Iridescent should be required to undergo an RFA to be re-sysoped. MZMcBride can be distinguished on the bases that he was not an administrator during the RFA (and therefore was not violating community trust, since he held no position of trust) and did not actively participate in it (and Wikipedia does not place affirmative obligations on its users/administrators).

(30) 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). (Camaron)

A:Some of the cases that were handled most successfully were done so because they were essentially no-brainers (for example, 194x144x90x118, Seeyou). Of the others, some that stand out are Prem Rawat 2 (in which the committee was appropriately forceful in sanctioning editors who needed sanctioning), Ireland article names (in which it established a procedure by which otherwise unresolvable disputes could be resolved), Date delinking (in which it crafted a wide range of remedies to deal with the problematic behaviour of otherwise good contributors, though some of the sanctions were in hindsight harsher than needed and the case took longer than it should have to close), and Lapsed Pacifist 2 (in which the committee established a welcome precedent of issuing sanctions for content-related conduct). I don't think any have been handled especially badly, though I think that the committee was too soft in Aitias, SemBubenny, and Ryulong (towards Mythdon, not Ryulong). I found the outcome of Macedonia 2 somewhat tragic, since it (directly or indirectly) resulted in the desysopping of two admins who were doing near-heroic work in some of our ethnic battlegrounds. I can understand the reasons for the desysoppings, but it's a failure of the admin corps (me included) that they were left fighting the NPOV battle so alone.

(31) For the purpose of the following five 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.) (Daniel)

(As a point of further clarification, it is entirely unnecessary to read the case these principles were originally decided in — the intent of these questions are to establish your opinion on the general principles that are linked to, while working under the assumption they are directly relevant to a case you are deciding.)

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007

A:I would oppose this principle, because of its frankly bizarre emphasis on copyright. The reason that private communications should generally not be posted without the communicator's consent is that doing so violates their privacy, not that it violates their copyright. Alternative principle 2.2 is somewhat closer to the mark, though I'd rather have seen something stronger.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007

A:As worded, that principle is too strong. I have occasionally undertaken non-OTRS-related administrative actions while noting in the log that other admins should not undo them without contacting me privately. Generally, this has been because I have been dealing off-wiki with an article subject. I believe that those administrative actions were appropriate, notwithstanding my unwillingness to discuss them on-wiki.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

A:I would support this, but only because it does not include a statement or implication that users can be blocked under WP:NLT for inadvertently implied legal threats.

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008

A:This is an expectation that users have when they enter mediation. If it is to be changed, it should be done by consensus at the mediation committee talk page, and should not apply retroactively. As such, I would support this principle until such time as mediation participants were no longer led to believe that their communications would be "privileged".

(v) "Outing", June 2009

A:I would have supported the alternate principle, 20.1, from the proposed decision of that case as a first choice. There is a clear community expectation that editors have the right to edit pseudonymously, and as an arbitrator I would uphold that expectation (as I do as an administrator), whatever my qualms with it. On the other hand, it is ludicrous to suggest that an editor who reveals real life information on-wiki can then be outed in a sanctionable way by another editor (though I take Newyorkbrad's point that gratuitous reference to non-secret personal details can be disruptive, depending on the circumstance).

(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? (NuclearWarfare)

A:I disagree with it, because it worked against the predictability and consistency we could use much more of around here. I did think that some of the decision's critics showed an unfortunate lack of perspective in their rhetoric.

(33) 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? (MBisanz)

A:Generally speaking, cases should be named for the locus of dispute, rather than the editor. Naming a case after a single editor creates an environment suggesting that that editor is on trial, when ArbCom cases should examine the behaviour of all parties (and any non-parties whose behaviour at that locus was relevant). A case name should generally only be changed if the previous name prejudged the outcome somehow; even if the dispute locus is found after opening to be broader or narrower than anticipated in the name, it will often be preferable to keep the original name to avoid confusion.

(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? (NuclearWarfare)

A:No. There are trivial measures we could take to counter about 80% of the BLP problem, and we haven't taken them; this is a function of Wikipedia lacking any mechanism by which to make controversial changes. The easiest of these would be automatic semi-protection of BLPs, which I have long supported. Flagged revisions could provide an alternative to this, though the "flagged protection" slated to be unveiled at some indeterminite point is far too weak, since it would only apply to pages that qualify for protection under the current rules.

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)

A:I used to be known as Sarcasticidealist. When that account was renamed to this one, Sarcasticidealist (talk · contribs) was left behind; I've accidentally made a couple of edits from it thanks to SUL. I also created Glassviper (talk · contribs) as a (non-mainspace, non-Mediawikispace) sock for April Fool's 2008. I also once woke up in the middle of the night with history's most brilliant idea for a Wikipedia username, and registered it. By morning, I couldn't remember what it was. It didn't make any edits, in any event. Any I.P. edits I have made were accidental, and should be easily traceable to me (either because it fits with a pattern of editing I was doing while logged in or because I immediately logged in and signed it). I believe that any I.P.s I have used would geolocate to Edmonton, Alberta, St. Albert, Alberta, or Fredericton, New Brunswick.

(36) 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 those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? (Newyorkbrad)

A:When it comes to administrator misbehaviour, I foresee myself being strict: my threshold for what constitutes behaviour unbecoming an admin is not high, and my tolerance for continued admin-ship by people who engage in it is no higher. When it comes to regular editors, I foresee being a mix of strict and lenient: if a user is chronically disruptive, I don't think the community bears much burden to rehabilitate. But where banned or otherwise sanctioned users show genuine evidence of rehabilitation, I'm probably more generous than most with second, third, and fourth chances. I'm also a big believer in topic bans over site bans, and would work to help tailor them to the circumstance.

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:I did not follow this case, so my answer is based on looking at the case pages now. Given that the evidence and workshop pages saw very little activity after the end of January 2008 and a draft decision was posted by then as well, it seems odd that the final decision was not approved until April. It's possible that there was a good reason for the delay, but no such reason is apparent from looking at the case pages.

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

   A:Not WikiProjects as such, no. Article layout is a matter of community consensus. However, if there is a clear consensus among editors who contribute in a certain area (whether a WikiProject or not) that article layout guidelines should be applied in a particular way to a given set of articles, that appears to me to be a legitimate local consensus.

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:I have a hard time reconciling "ignoring consensus" with "not broken policies per se", as those points seem to contradict one another. I could not give a definite answer without seeing precisely what is meant by those statements in conjunction with each other, but my initial reaction is that a topic ban would be appropriate if the editor is active in only one area (in an effort to force him/her to try editing other areas), and that a series of escalating blocks would be otherwise.

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:My initial diagnosis would be that they have authority issues. Enforcement falling short of a community ban is generally ill-advised in these cases, because it plays into the rebel mythology the editors have constructed for themselves.

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:If their native language can be ascertained, they should be directed towards the Wikipedia of that language. If they persist in editing the English Wikipedia, they should be regretfully indefinitely blocked, though in a case like that I'd hope not to see any "banned" or "indefinitely blocked" templates applied to their user page, as that would be unduly stigmatizing.

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

   A:All of them could, depending on severity. In the case of #5, if a community ban is warranted, it should take the form of a single administrator blocking and no administrator being interested in unblocking, rather than that of a community ban discussion, which seems too harsh for a good faith user.

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

   A:3RR is a bright line restriction on edit-warring that says that reverting other users' edits in a given article more than three times in a single 24 hour period is automatically blockable edit-warring (except in specific cases like obvious vandalism or BLP violations). If a user who is aware of the policy violates it (I never block for 3RR without a warning), they should be blocked for a short period of time. Generally speaking, the page should be left in the state it's in, or reverted to the state it was in before the first 3RR violation took place.

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

   A:I don't do a lot of work in that area, and most of what I have done has involved blocking usernames meant to impersonate famous people. Unless a name is obviously disruptive, I would try to discuss it with the user to see what was intended rather than just outright blocking. It's difficult to be more specific than this, as Potter Stewart's famous axiom applies here.

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

   A:If the user was banned for inserting subtle inaccuracies into Wikipedia articles, their edits should be reverted. If the user clearly wants attention for some reason, their edits should be quietly reverted. In other cases, it's a subjective judgment. Automatically reverting all edits by banned users can create really silly situations, like re-inserting BLP violations. While edits being made by a banned user entitles editors to revert them, they should use their best judgment.

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:Casliber left because he acknowledged being aware that Law (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of banned user The undertow (talk · contribs) and did not do anything about it. He found this behaviour to be inconsistent with the expectations of an arbitrator.

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

    A:Oh, geez, is there a word limit on this? The biggest problem is that it's unwieldy and has no mechanism by which to make controversial decisions. Besides that, elements of it are extremely self-entitled and have little appreciation of the interaction between Wikipedia and real life (e.g. they confuse Wikipedia policies with real life ethical standards). Finally, a disproportionate number of Wikipedia users appear to be people who have trouble functioning in real life, which can obviously bring problems.

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

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) 13:34, 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?

      A:I'm not quite clear on the meaning of this question. ArbCom should retain the authority to desysop admins. Jimbo probably shouldn't, at least not unilaterally. Efforts should continue to develop a community-driven process, though I'm not optimistic that they will succeed. Is that more controls, or fewer?

   2. Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?

      A:ArbCom and the community should each have independent authority to desysop administrators. Until the community develops a mechanism by which it can exercise that authority, final authority will remain solely with ArbCom.

   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?

      A:It should be handled much more quickly. Depending on the peril posed by the emergency, it's possible that a steward should act without a formal directive by ArbCom, such action to be endorsed (or overturned) by ArbCom after the fact.

   4. What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?

      A:If resignation was not "under a cloud" (i.e. there was not some danger either of ArbCom imminently revoking the tools or some danger of a RFAR being filed in which a desysop was a plausible outcome), the tools are normally returned on request. If there has been some controversy involving the user since the desysop, the bureaucrats may be reluctant to return the tools without another RFA. I understand that the bureaucrats have recently instituted a policy of waiting 24 hours after a request before acting on it, to allow concerns to be raised; I think this is a positive thing.

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?

      Communicating any given idea in the fashion least likely to give offense and, where that idea cannot be communicated in a way that is unlikely to give offense, considering seriously whether it's useful to express at all.

   2. Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?

      I'm not an old-timer, so I can't say for sure. My impression is that things have remained about the same since I got here.

   3. Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?

      Effectively, anybody with sufficient wikifriends to raise a ruckus at ANI is exempt from civility blocks. Since this is most editors, I no longer issue civility blocks.

   4. Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?

      No.

   5. Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?

      Ideally more, though I've yet to wrap my head around how to do that without ANI brouhahas overturning blocks or reducing them to time served, which benefits nobody but the drama moths.

   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?

      Arb Comm is in a privileged position in that blocks issued under its command cannot be overturned, so it needn't worry about the ANI/unblocking pattern that I mentioned above. As an arbitrator, I would vote to accept cases of chronic incivility and would vote to sanction parties for incivility where there is no reason to believe that the incivility would improve without sanctions.

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?

   I think I address this fairly thoroughly in Lar's question 5 below. I would be happy to elaborate on any specific points on request.

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.

   I'll go with two: governance and BLP issues. Wikipedia is not governable by the version of consensus practiced here (that is, major and controversial decisions cannot be made by that mechanism); we're already seeing a shit towards formal voting on, for example, the RFC for this election, and I think that's a good thing. As an Arb, I would use the bully pulpit to promote governance reform, though I fear for the success of any such efforts without intervention from above. On the BLP front, I would use the same bully pulpit to advocate for reforms needed on the BLP front, and would impose stiff sanctions on any defamers to come before Arb Comm.

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:I have never used IRC for any purpose and would have no idea how to go about doing so if I ever wanted to.

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 [2]. 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  18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A:I think SirFozzie's motion would have been about right. I don't think an immediate desysop would have been inappropriate, in view of the fact that your initial block was outside of the scope permitted by the relevant enforcement clause, but there's no question that Law handled it inappropriately and that he should be told that. I note, in partial defense of the Arbitration Committee, that more than one arb essentially issued an informal warning of the sort suggested by SirFozzie, though it's true that warnings issued formally by the Arbitration Committee are graver than those issued informally by individual arbs. As an aside, I'm distressed to hear that you've ceased activity at AE; I always took some comfort in knowing that you were handling that stuff.

Have you read War and Peace?

A:No.

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.

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.

   A:Ideally, this would be unnecessary; were we to redesign Wikipedia from the ground up, I think it would be possible to design a system where I could comfortably tell article subjects that they have no say in whether or not they're covered by Wikipedia. The status quo isn't it. Though I'm intuitively uncomfortable with the idea of giving subjects say over their own entries (which this would effectively do), Wikipedia's current approach to BLPs makes an opt-out ethically necessary.

   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.

   A:Totally support.

   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)

   A:All BLPs should be semi-protected. Absent that, applying a liberal interpretation of the current policy is better than nothing.

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

   A:From a BLP perspective, this is only useful insofar as it might reduce resistance to a broader application of semi-protection (since anons and non-autoconfirmed accounts would now be able to edit semi-protected pages, without their edits going immediately live). If the protection criteria are to remain exactly the same for flagged protection as they do for the current varieties, this is not a step forward on the BLP front.

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

   A:It would certainly be better than the status quo. I'm not sure that I'd prefer it to automatic semi-protection, but at this point I'll take whatever we can get.

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?

   A:c, d, and e are primarily policy. a and b are a mix of content and 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?

   A:I presume that this is a reference to WP:BLPSE. In my view, this did not create new policy as the term is meant in the phrase "ArbCom should not make policy". Rather, it set up a structure in which existing policy could be enforced. It hasn't amounted to much, unfortunately, but I think ArbCom was acting within its mandate in setting that up.

   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:These issues cannot be solved at the community level. My approach to changing these issues has been to run in the last two WMF trustee elections on a platform of Foundation interference in BLP and governance issues. Short of that, I am extremely pessimistic that anything will meaningfully change, though I did take the token measure of voting in the relevant polls when they were up.

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 agree with that statement. Consensus, as practiced by Wikipedia, doe not work. As with the BLP issue, this cannot be solved at the community level (there's something of a catch-22 there: Wikipedia's dysfunctional governance model prevents it from fixing its dysfunctional governance model), but the project should be moved to a more structured system. This should entail specific bodies (like ArbCom, but not ArbCom) with the authority to make policy changes and content decisions. Those issues that are to be decided by the community should use voting systems in which the rules are clear in advance.

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:For the reasons I mention in my earlier answers, I'm leery of viewing flagged revisions as a panacea. The limiting factor in fixing Wikipedia is currently political will, not technical features. That said, I support the implementation of something like the German Wikipedia's model. The reasons we haven't seen it rolled out yet are twofold: first of all, the version that the community was prepared to accept (flagged protection) is not supported by the current version of the extension, so there's development work needed there. Second, the community lacks the political will to implement any more muscular configuration that is supported by the current version. I do not see a role for ArbCom in this matter.

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?

   A:I think guaranteeing pseudonymity to the point of taking on an affirmative obligation to protect it is one of the major mistakes made when Wikipedia was being set up. It's set up a mystique around people's real life identities, creating sort of a true name phenomenon and facilitating things like Hivemind. If I were to design Wikipedia from the ground up, I would require the public disclosure of editors' real names, though in the interests of keeping editorship accessible I'd probably only require measures to prove this for administrators. But the ship's sort of sailed on that.

   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)?

   A:No, I think pseudonymity is sufficiently entrenched now, and enough editors feel that it's their right, that trying to change it would i. be unsuccessful, and ii. tear this place apart.

   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?

   A:If revision deletion can remove traces of real life identity without removing anything else of importance, that's fine. If not, not. As in real life, it's not always possible to re-can worms here; there are consequences to creating an online footprint here as elsewhere, and we shouldn't pretend that it's Wikipedia's job to nullify that law of internet use.

   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?

   A:I don't know if it's "outing", per se, but it should certainly be frowned upon, if only because it creates drama for no especially good reason. I think it's appropriate for ArbCom to sanction that sort of behaviour, especially when done in bad faith (when done in good faith, sanctions should probably be limited to admonishments).

   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)

   A:I have acknowledged my real identity since my first day here. For reasons of both pragmatism and principle, I believe that all arbitrators should do the same; in fact, I think anybody with a position requiring verifying their identity with the office should also publicly disclose their identity. That said, the culture of pseudonymity is probably too strong to make that a reasonable possibility.

   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?

   A:The WMF doesn't make this completely clear, but I don't really think it should have to; could any reasonable person believe that their internet activities are completely risk-free? I'm not certain that the WMF should be doing anything to protect pseudonymity. Because pseudonymity is such a widely held community value, ArbCom should sanction anybody who violates it.

   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:In that case, I believe an indefinite ban is appropriate. If it is done off-wiki but it is possible to clearly and unambiguously link the Wikipedia user to the person who committed the outing, then a community ban remains appropriate.

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?

   A:I'm inclined to say no. Again, I think most people who are at the point of wanting to edit Wikipedia are aware of the risks of online footprints, and I can't really see it as Wikipedia's job to educate them in it if they're not. A statement on registration

   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.

   A:Real stalking, as distinct from the wiki- variety, is a matter for real law enforcement. The WMF should cooperate with law enforcement to the extent permitted under the privacy policy.

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

   A:I don't see a need for any special provisions. I understand that the legal system can be less accessible than it should be to victims of stalking, but the WMF cannot set itself up as a surrogate legal system.

   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.

   A:I like the distinction between "editor here" and "real life person". Anyway, if there's conclusive evidence of untoward off-wiki activity, we should be prepared to ban the people doing the stalking; ideally such evidence should come directly from law enforcement agencies, though that may not always be possible.

   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?

   A:Reviewing a contributor's on-wiki contributions for on-wiki purposes is not stalking, period. There may be a point at which it is unhelpful to the project because it emphasizes personality politics of encyclopaedia-building, and wiki-restraining orders can be an effective means of dealing with such situations, but I'd rather avoid the use of terms like "stalking" and "harassment" in such cases.

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

   A:"Overplaying the stalking card" is much like any other drama-seeking behaviour, and should be dealt with by ignoring it to the maximum extent possible. Note that by "overplaying the stalking card" I am referring primarily to people who consider themselves to be stalked by reason of solely on-wiki activity, and who have never been given any reason to believe that their safety is in danger or that this activity could transfer over to real life.

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:In my response to Rschen's question 9, I said the following: "If the user was banned for inserting subtle inaccuracies into Wikipedia articles, their edits should be reverted. If the user clearly wants attention for some reason, their edits should be quietly reverted. In other cases, it's a subjective judgment. Automatically reverting all edits by banned users can create really silly situations, like re-inserting BLP violations. While edits being made by a banned user entitles editors to revert them, they should use their best judgment." That editor's behaviour is essentially an especially loathsome form of attention-seeking, and his edits should indeed be reverted on site.

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?

   A:Wikipedia is big enough that the notion of keeping all discussion of it in one place is laughable. Doing so would not be desirable in any event, since discussion here takes place in the echo chamber of the Wikipedia community, and discussion elsewhere can include outsiders.

   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?

   A:I have occasionally mentioned Wikipedia on my very seldom updated blog, [3]. I sort of cringe disclosing the url, because it's full of banal thoughts and poor writing, but I'd hate to be accused of hiding anything.

   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)?

   A:I see no issue with participating in either. I paid very little attention to Wikback, so I'm not sure why it failed; I've heard it suggested that it was over-moderated, though I have no opinion on that myself. I don't think there's such thing as the ideal outside criticism site, though I suppose it would feature respectful conversation between mature, intelligent people from a wide range of backgrounds and with varying relationships to Wikipedia and the WMF.

   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?

   A:What makes it appropriate or inappropriate is not the venue but what is said. There's nothing inherently wrong with editors, administrators, or arbitrators participating in outside criticism sites.

   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? )

   A:I am Sarcasticidealist at the Wikipedia Review. I don't think connecting a Wikipedia Review account with its corresponding Wikipedia account is a sanctionable form of outing.

   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:I'm not sure I've seen a great deal of change in the last year. For want of a better word, I think participation at WR has become more "mainstream", which has the effect of making the old-timers there kind of cranky (picture the reaction of a bunch of regulars at an underground club who suddenly find it the popular place for first year college students). I'm not really an old-timer, but I'd say I signed on to WR somewhere near the beginning of its mainstreamification. Because of the influx of (overt) Wikipedians, many of the forums there have become something of an extension of Wikipedia talk pages and bureaucracy pages, which I view as a shame, since it reduces the use of having outside criticism sites, but it's hardly as though I'm doing much to prevent that, so I should probably keep my mouth shut.

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:Wikipedia clearly has a problem with vested contributors. The best thing we can do about it is make clear, especially at the ArbCom level, that the same rules apply to everybody. Still, I don't think we should be shy about treating a history of strong contribution as a mitigating factor in sentencing; somebody who does nothing but cause trouble might be banned, while someone who writes a lot of featured articles and does thankless admin work, but who causes some trouble along the way, might be admonished (for a first offense).

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

    A:I decline to answer this question, as doing so could lead to people tracking down my real life information (there are lots of Steve Smiths in the world, but how many of them identify as their favour colour t—almost gave it away).

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing [4]. 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) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A:In a perfect world, Jimbo would have no continued policy-making authority, as the notion of a Godking is not compatible with what Wikipedia should be. However, there's little enough structure and authority around here that I'm reluctant to call on one of the few people who might have that power (because Jimbo hasn't tried to impose policy in any meaningful way in quite some time, it's not clear to what extent the community would respect and/or to what extent the WMF would enforce his policy-making authority if he tried) to give it up. I think paid editing continues to exist in a grey area; while I suspect it would go over poorly if I hung out my shingle as a Wikipedia admin for hire to the highest bidder, there are plenty of examples of organizations' employees making purely beneficial (i.e. NPOV) edits to the articles about their organizations, and that's tolerated. In any event, meaningful policy against paid editing is incompatible with guaranteed pseudonymity.

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?

• A:I believe that I will be able to give the Arbitration Committee the necessary time. Law school isn't as much work as we law students sometimes like to pretend it is. Besides that, my girlfriend's likely to spend at least half of the ArbCom term out of the country, so I'll need something to occupy my time. On the second point, I'd anticipate my content contributions diminishing, as right now they're my top priority on Wikipedia and they would probably cease to be if I won, but I'd set a personal content goal for myself of something like one article at FAC every three months (do not take this as a firm commitment at this point). On the last point, I am well-versed in the seamy side of Wikipedia through my involvement at Wikipedia Review. It doesn't seem to have put me off yet.

In response to Cameron's question which addressed concerns expressed by some editors that ArbCom is becoming too powerful and expansive, and cited ACPD as an example, you said:

"I do not agree with them; there is far too little structure on Wikipedia. I will deal with criticisms of that sort by directing editors making them to the following statement: a vote for Steve Smith is a vote for structure."

Could you expand upon your answer? What kind of structure do you have in mind? Would it be a hierarchical structure beneath ArbCom? What part would ArbCom play in bringing about any restructuring? Is ArbCom's role limited to dispute resolution, or does it have a broader remit? MoreThings (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A:If I could unilaterally reform Wikipedia, I'd have an elected body of some kind with the power to enact policy, with a provision that community consensus could, if clearly demonstrated, overrule it (community consensus is impossible to achieve on any reasonably divisive issue, mind you). This would be separate and neither subservient nor superior to ArbCom (except insofar as it may have the power to amend some ArbCom-related policy - as I cannot unilaterally reform Wikipedia, I haven't bothered working out the details of this hypothetical body's mandate), which would be free to retreat into a much more strictly defined dispute resolution role. A crude analogy would be leaving ArbCom to function strictly as a judiciary while the new body acted as a legislature, but framing it in those terms will result in all manner of misconceptions and extrapolations from the analogy to the nth degree, so I prefer to avoid doing so.

I had hoped that the advisory council, initially appointed and with only recommendatory powers, might gradually evolve into something elected, with the legitimacy to make actual decisions, but that clearly didn't happen. I'm not eager to go down that road again, given the community's reaction to the last attempt, though if I did I'd make sure it was discussed openly from its genesis.

What I have in mind by way of "structure" from ArbCom is outcomes that take unresolvable decisions and apply some kind of structure that allows them to be resolved. The Ireland naming case was an example of that. Another might be assigning a panel of administrators to a problem article or topic area and giving them a broad mandate to enforce whatever combination of conduct and content policies are in dispute; think of this as replacing "any involved administrator" in article probation remedies with specifically designated administrators.

It's impossible to say exactly what remedies I'll support until I see what cases ArbCom hears, but my general approach will be to vest somebody specific with the authority to make decisions on a specific range of topics; the "wiki way" has not worked for resolving large scale disagreements.

1. What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?
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 the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.

   To answer your question properly, I'd really need to know what labels you're talking about. I have not become deeply involved in many of the protracted editing disputes that have plagued Wikipedia, so labels like "pro-British", "pro-Irish", "Intelligent Design cabal", etc. don't carry much weight with me, simply because they don't evoke anything from my "personal expectations and perspective". Labels that do mean something to me include "POV pusher", "edit warrior", and "cherry picker of sources"; those are the labels on the basis of which I will support sanctions, but I will apply them only after careful examination of an editor's relevant history. If an editor is ever before ArbCom for whom I do not feel the need to conduct that examination by reason of already having formed an opinion on them, I will recuse.

I'm not sure whether this satisfactorily addresses your questions. If not, please do elaborate on what you're looking for, and I'd be happy to take another stab at it.

3. Thank you! Following up... There are numerous conflicts which in the end are chalked up to being a "content dispute." And while there are many guidelines (reliable sources, etc.), those also all ultimately depend on consensus. As a result we have the perennial undertow dragging down articles whereby editors eschew creating content which fairly and accurately represents reputable sources and instead seek to manage consensus. This brings disputes down to:
   • who can more effectively attack the opposition, presenting their own edits and edit-warring as "restoring" NPOV balance, as sources are ultimately immaterial (based on consensus or lack thereof, they become just another part of the "content dispute");
   • disadvantages those whose English language skills may be suitable enough to contribute but not to argue for their position in a conflict;
   • disadvantages those who become (let us presume rightfully) frustrated and express it;
   • and most of all, disadvantages those who are not well-versed in slinging WP:ACRONYMS and not well-practiced in all the means by which one can attack the editor and not discuss the content (all the various means to open incidents, cases, etc.).
   The labels you do mention ("POV pusher", "edit warrior", and "cherry picker of sources") are code words (and let us not forget "tendentious") universally employed by well-practiced warriors to push ArbCom's buttons. Examining edit histories adds more data but it does not resolve the factors I mention above and so ultimately only reinforces first impressions.
     And so, insight—that is, coming away with information upon which to base a decision, not merely more of the same data—is an elusive entity. How do you strip away all the labels, including the ones that mean something to you (and that may seem "obvious" to everyone), to insure that you don't enter a situation and simply identify and sanction violations of conduct based on what resonates most strongly with you?

A:Thank you for your clarification. I fully expect that I will "identify and sanction violations of conduct based on what resonated most strongly with" me, as would any other arb. The material question is what violations of conduct will resonate most strongly with me. One such violation would be engaging in combat disputes through ad hominem. Another would be failing, in a content dispute, to refer to sources and argue their applicability; ArbCom doesn't resolve arguments about sources' applicability, but it can and should confirm that editors are at least engaging in them, since policy dictates that that is the basis on which content rests. A third would be exploiting opponents' lack of understanding of the assorted labels and acronyms that are tossed around; WP:CIVIL dictates that editors not exploit a greater familiarity with jargon to drive off (or drive into uncivil behaviour) less knowledgeable opponents. One way for arbs to mitigate the disadvantage at which less battle-hardened editors find themselves is to ask specific, plain language questions of them during the workshop phase, in an effort to draw out their points of view and arguments in a way that they may not be able to do in Wiki-jargon. Finally, some allowance must be made for editors drawn into uncivil behaviour by sophisticated misbehaviour on opponents' part; incivility is never desirable and should always be at least admonished, but we do not want to create a situation in which editors can win disputes by frustrating opponents (for example by stonewalling or acronym-spewing) into incivility and then having them banned.

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:Very, in almost all cases. There may be limited exceptions in which a party is asking a large number of questions to be deliberately disruptive, but I would expect such instances to be few and far between.

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

   A:It is very important for an arb to monitor discussions. The importance of participation varies; it is quite possible to imagine cases in which an individual arbitrator could glean all he/she needs to know from reading others' discussion, without needing to intervene directly. Arbitrators are obligated to explain their decisions, of course, but that can be done on the decision page, and need not take place on general discussion pages.

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 heard similar things. Unfortunately, the nature of conflict on Wikipedia is that by the time it reaches ArbCom, there is considerable emotional investment on all sides and a commitment not just to winning but to defeating opponents. ArbCom should resolve cases as expeditiously as possible, which can at least reduce the duration of the stress, but I expect that it is inevitable that arbitration remain an unpleasant experience for all concerned (including, often, the arbitrators).

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

   A:I agree with that mini-essay, especially with its emphasis on the long view of what will hurt or help the encyclopedia. For example, it's possible that banning an editor will cost the encyclopedia valuable content from that editor, but that leaving the editor free to continue his/her behaviour will eventually drive off other contributors who would have contributed even more valuable content. Besides that, turning a blind eye to the persistent misbehaviour of a good content contributor can have a ripple effect whereby other editors feel free to misbehave similarly, eventually doing major damage to the overall project environment. I also agree with the first bullet point's emphasis on adopting narrower remedies than site bans wherever possible; I am a great believer in topic bans.

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'm torn on this. The human being in me says that of course we should recognize the good as well as the bad. The draftsman says that in the interests of keeping decisions streamlined and unnecessary divisions to a minimum, ArbCom should vote only on findings of fact that are material to the remedies it is imposing. My approach would be to avoid adopting such statements as findings of fact, but to be liberal in praise, where deserved, in my own comments on case pages.

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:My primary concern is that enforcement is so subjective and controversial (especially when applied to vested editors) that effective enforcement is impossible below the ArbCom level, because a block intended to reduce unpleasantness by removing its source generally just creates more unpleasantness by provoking long threads at the assorted drama boards.

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:Incivility is not defined primarily by words but by meaning. George Carlin is not an arbitrator, and there's no list of Seven Words You Can't Say On Wikipedia. Editors should probably refrain from coarse language where milder language would convey the same meaning—just as American editors should be conscious that the world does not share their sensibilities, European editors should be conscious that the world does not share theirs—but the salient questions should not be "did the editor use four letter words?" but "did the editor make statements designed to denigrate another editor?" or "did the editor discuss the contributor where discussing the contributions would have been preferable?".

Which do you prefer harpsichord or piano? Why?

A: Harpsichord, but it's none of your business why. Steve Smith (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]