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.

My note: these questions are interminable. I can't believe anyone, let alone the vast majority of voters, can possibly read all the questions and answers for all the candidates. I know I didn't, last time. I think you'll find my log of blocks more valuable that the Q+A below William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC) On reflection, the questions were interesting enough to answer that I bothered. I'm not sure you'll find my answers interesting enough to read. I have been terse but (I trust) comprehensible. If I've been incomprehensible, feel free to ask me to expand William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General questions

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

Arbitrators' skills

(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: Not wasting time on pointless matters.

(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: No.

(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: As appropriate; but in particular A, B, C, D.

Challenges of being an arbitrator

(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: Per my statement: more needs to come back on-wiki.

(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: Previous history suggests this will not be a problem.

(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: Yes.

(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: As little as possible but as much as needed.

(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: Circumstances will vary. Ideally, an arb who is a participant would unsubscribe; this may not be practical. Case-related comments etc are obviously inpermissible and are, I have been assured, not made.

ArbCom and admins

(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: The community should do as much as possible. Arbcomm should only step in if the community fails to deal with matters.

(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: Obviously, arbcomm has got it wrong :-).

(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: This is a wiki; link to examples.

(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: "it is clear" is a vague phrase that people often use to mean "it is clear to me". But assuming the literal meaning, the WP:BURO applies.

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

A: No. It would depend on the case.

(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: It depends.

ArbCom's role and structure

(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: See my statement.

(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: The words sounds fine, but there will always be grey areas.

(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: I agree. Arbcomm cases need to be actively managed. See my statement.

(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: Arbcomm is inevitable and necessary.

(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: ACoPD was an error. [1].

(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: Arbcomm hasn't managed to find a useful way to intervene in content disputes. Inevitably, most of arbcomm will lack the knowledge required to disentangle intractable content disputes or the patience to discover for themselves. Finding per-case independent trusted experts might be worth trying.

(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: Yes, there is all too much of this, I saw all to much of it at WP:AN3. A more lightweight sanction (e.g. community or indivdual admin imposed 1RR limts) might help ward off some cases.

(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: Wiki is, in general, too incivil. But judging this inevitably involves grey areas and... judgement. Arbcomm should enforce civility within cases; incivility includes wasting everyones time with interminable repetition.

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

A: Arbs need to participate in cases more quickly. See-also my statement.

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

A: Very.

(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: The same as when I answered question 19.

(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.[2] 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: Arbs, and admins, need to remain in contact with reality by content editing. Judging content edits by a raw count is inappropriate.

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making

(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. No.

(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: For the reasons they gave. Don't know.

(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: What they did seems appropriate.

(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: (a) For tU they got the right answer reasonably swiftly. For mine, you won't be surprised to learn, they got the wrong answer after tedious delay.

(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: Yes; std.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007

A: Yes; arbcomm fails this.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

A: Yes, though uncomfortable with the wording.

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

A: No. anything you say on-wiki may be quoted.

(v) "Outing", June 2009

A: Written with the usual arbcomm lack of rigour. Assuming that they meant to say, revealing previously self-revealed info is not outing, yes.

(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 don't.

Other issues

(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: This seems a bit dull. Case names can be decided on a case-by-case basis.

(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: BLP can be used, or attempted to be used, as a bludgeon by those who have lost the argument. This is bad.

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

A: User:Tom_L-C (used to upload some of his pix); User:Miriam_Brod (created in a vain attempt to get my wife a watchlist). Neither has been used in ages. I don't edit from IPs.

(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: A case-by-case approach is inevitable. The overall good of wiki is the guiding principle.

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here.

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.

   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

   I'm not very interested in BLP, though I did go so far as to write User:William M. Connolley/For me/On BLP abuse. I excuse this because many other people appear to be very interested in it so there is no lack.

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.

   Like I say, I'm not very interested in BLP so I've paid no attention to past arbcomm decisions o the subject.

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?

   I don't think it is clear that en has outgrown itself.

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?

   I have no strong views on this issue. It is not clear that there is any need for an arbcomm role.

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)

   Yes. NA. You can't go back. If an identity is discoverable by moderately competent web-trawling then revealing it on-wiki should be accepted. Yes. It would be best. Trust. NA. Don't know. Ditto. At present, nothing. It would depend on the case. Arbcomm has little or no role wrt off-wiki activity.

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?

   Nothing to do with arbcomm. Ditto. It depends on the case. Not clear this neeeds any arbcomm intervention. It is indeed a grey area; no fixed mechanistic line can be drawn. yes. Tell them so.

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?

   *If* someones edits are at the revert-all-edits level then they should be banned. If there is no consensus for banning, they shouldn't be at r-a-e. Some editors indeed make edits which ar largely reverted but some are kept; this is life. Is this an arbcomm problem? Ditto.

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?

   It is inevitable, so it doesn't matter if it is acceptable. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ (and http://mustelid.blogspot.com/). I can't write http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/rip_her_to_shreds.php on-wiki. Sometimes I look for my name there but they can't spell very well. Never heard of it, NA. Because I never heard of it? Not interested. It is inevitable. It is inevitable. It is acceptable, if done with caution. Which one? No. NA. What can you do, if they are anonymous? NA. Arbs shouldn't try to hide. Mine hasn't. NA.

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)?

   To some extent, though that isn't a great page; it also has a problem with lack of vested contributors. I'm not sure there are, percentagewise, any more problems with VC's than with "std" editors, though they tend to be bigger. Arbcomm is needed.

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

    Fuligin, obviously.

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 17 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 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention at [3]. 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 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  06:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, arbcomm was rubbish, unblock-without-consultation has happened before (to me, no less) and is always bad. The block should have been re-imposed; arbcomm failed in doing this but so did any number of other admins.

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?
2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
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?
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?
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?
6. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
7. Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
8. When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
9. A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
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
11. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

1. I paid no attention to that case; based on their usual M.O., I'd assume it was slow.
2. They either can or they can't. Did you mean "should be able to"?
3. Leave it to an appropriate admin to ban them if necessary.
4. It is irritating, but ought to be pointless. RFA's aren't supposed to be a pure vote; closers should know such pointless folk by reputation and ignore them. It might be cleaner to ban them from comment, though. [Update: on further thought, wiki has enough noise. This kind of behaviour is bad, and should be stopped. The community, through admins, should be able to do this. Arbcomm should back them up, if needed.]
5. If they are editing with good will, but incompetently, then we should try to help them.
6. If the community desires it.
7. We have a policy; it isn't easily summarised; you'd be better off looking at my record at WP:AN3 (these are "individual" questions, no? So you have bothered to look up my record, yes?)
8. I haven't had to. It seems unlikely that this issue will trouble arbcomm.
9. Always.
10. FT2 is the easy one; it was inevitable due to poor decisions.
11. This margin is too small to contain the answer.

These questions are being asked of all candidates. If some of them are repetitious of others asked above, 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. Yes. Sadly, I'm not desperately active as a cc at the moment; this is likely to continue. No.

[Minor update: this says my article edits are running at ~200/month at the moment. Much of that, however, is cleaning up rather than original content.]

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) 01:09, 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?

Based on personal experience, I would say that mistakes have been made. There have been various attempts at "recall" procedures or "reconfirmations" all of which fail. The final say should be with arbcomm and the community, with the community in theory retaining primacy but in practice rarely if ever being sufficiently cohesive to say anything meaningful on this subject. Not anywhere in between. It should be done more quickly; it can be undone at leisure if required. The obvious; if they are alid down in non-controversial circumstances they can be regained in same.

1. 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?

Civility is worse than it should be and flagrant incivility is too often excused. I began a page somewhat about this User:William M. Connolley/For me/On civility but never finished it. But incivility is a gresy area; probably the best we can hope for is parliamentary language.

1. 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?

Someone else asked about outing etc; so I think I've done that.

1. 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.

Wiki needs to find a way to attract and retain experts; User:William_M._Connolley/Experts_and_wiki is yet another of my moribund pages.

1. How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?
2. How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's 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?
4. Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
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?

1. Questions should be responded to promptly and if possible publicly.
2. Very.
3. Funnily enough, I'd noticed. Yes: actively manage cases.
4. With the overriding guide, will this hurt or help the encyclopedia yes. With the but also, yes. With the idea that it can be answered by simple math, no.
5. I would interpret (on a rather quick glance) that finding as being needed for context of the rest of the judgement; arbcomm doesn't say nice things about people unless it needs to. This may be a mistake; I wouldn't take it as a hard-and-fast principle which it seems to have ossified into in some minds.

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.

No. N/A.

Have you read War and Peace?

No. I read A la recherche de temps perdu.

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) 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No: Jimbo made a statement; were it policy it would not be necessary or useful for others to endorse it. Jimbo retains, in theory, the god-king role. He uses it very rarely; so rarely that it may not in practice exist any more (the Bishonen block comes to mind). You, like me, can read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing.

Did you miss his saying "Consider this to be policy as of right now." Or are you saying that he doesn't have the right to make policy? Smallbones (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I missed that, sorry. That makes this is a bit messier and hard to fit together into a self-consistent way. So:

• Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) is but a proposal, as is Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy).
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing was closed as no consensus.

Therefore, it would appear that paid editing is not against policy, though a number of people dislike it. Looking at the RFC, Jimbo did indeed assert it was policy, but clearly lost the subsequent discussion, even though the weight of votes was on his side. But weight of votes doesn't help him, as I said before, if he needs the votes then he can't make policy by fiat. So I'd interpret that discussion asa loss for Jimbo. The subsequent closure as no-consensus supports that intrepretation.

Further, Jimbo asserted that I will personally block any cases that I am shown but subsequently failed to provide a convincing answer to "yes but you know people who are paid to edit and don't block them". This was part of his losing the argument.

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.

I can't parse "do you commit to observe to maintain" as it stands. Assuming that you mean "do you commit to to observe and to maintain", then: then I would say that you have mixed up three different issues. Transparency is best dealt with by keeping as much as possible on-wiki, and providing reports of what is done off-wiki. Objectivity is hard to maintain in issues you care about (I would have to recuse in cases related strongly to global warming, for example, but arbcomm is there to decide not to recuse so I would not do so too freely), but is a state I cultivate; you can look at my block log if you like. Dealing with issues below the surface is again difficult; perhaps best done by listening to what people say.

Your second point looks to me rather awkward; I think you've abstracted it from the EE case, but the case lingers. As I said in the EE case, I'd blocked about 6 of them for edit warring, quite neutrally as far as I can tell. That will have to do you.

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?

Yes: far too much incivility is permitted on wikipedia. I'm not aware of anyone being "silenced" by CIVIL; if you care to produce a few examples, I'll comment. To select an example from your own canon, this [5] is unacceptable.

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) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch American TV (or British, come to that). As I said above, I think a bare minimum standard is "parliamentary language".

Late questions

The remaining questions are all very very far past the deadline for submitting questions. Being a rules based person (except when there is good reason not to be; a practice I would apply to arbcomm) I can see no reason to break this rule; or to encourage the breaking of it by answering the questions; unless there is some compelling reason why the question needed to be submitted late (simple inattention to the deadline will not do) or unless the question is sufficiently fascinating to compel an answer William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sm8900

1. Exactly what do you plan to do to arbitrate disputes? I know you believe in enforcing the rules. What else? I was active in forging compromises between diametrically-opposed editors on Israeli-Palestinian disputes. What's your game plan for such issues? You can't simply always come in and tell people that they're being disruptive. Sometimes you have to help people actually get along.

2. Have you ever made a compromise with someone whom you totally disagreed with? Or does your approach to resolving editing disputes usually consist mainly of telling the various people that their proposed edits and/or sources are too weak, too marginal and/or too partisan to be used in an article which you edit? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]