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)

Strong communication skills. Brevity. What I'd like to see is more arbs who work in the softer DR areas.

(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)

I've been mediating for two years now. Most of the layout and text on WP:MEDCAB is mine.

As for ambiguities: The spirit always trumps the wording. I think we're often over-decorous with our formalities, which impresses upon people an unintended precision to the committee's rulings.

(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,C,D,F,I,J,K.

A, B, and C are essential. And if I can do those, I can do F. I'd love to do I: I love to organize. I've spent a lot of time on WT:NPOV and a bunch of essays, so that's my rationale for J. D is just something I can do. The ones I've left out are checkuser and oversight. I don't want to go near those; there are plenty capable of doing so without my help.

As for K, my experiences as a mediator have helped me to guide discussions when they've become sidetracked. Then attrition sets in, and everything becomes a drain. Can't have that!

(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)

Things that can be open should be open. I have faith that this is the guiding principle in the first place, and that certain discussions are only private for a reason.

Granted, somethings can be open, but it isn't practical. Caucusing, for instance. Much of this is political, akin to a game of chess. You don't broadcast your moves if you're building an offensive. And you're always building an offensive against someone during an arbitration, so far as they may be concerned.

(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)

I don't have access to the mailing lists, so I don't know the dynamics of this particular community. If the Arbitration Committee ever reaches a point where I see this happening, then I think it's important to make it public and ask for help.

(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)

Article work – broadly interpreted – is essential. Wikipedia is a very dynamic community: What worked last year may not work this year. If you're not spending time "in the trenches", you can end up stuck with old paradigms. An entirely different sort of "group think"

(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)

Functionaries, arbcom, and clerks is essential. I only see myself reading Oversight and Checkuser if it's over a request I've made or one I'm interested in as it relates to a case. There are plenty of arbs who do read those, and who can pass on the important bits.

(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)

No, it's not acceptable. And they should not be reading any of the material as it relates to a case they're involved in. This is on principle.

Safeguards, I'm not sure of. But I do think a formal, categorical procedure is needed.

Inappropriate usage ought to be made public, provided that what can be made public isn't against our privacy policy. Even something as vague as "X did something bad. On behalf of the committee, ~~~~" is better than helping to keep those skeletons in the closet.

(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)

If the community can handle it, then keep it with the community. Usually it can't, hence arbitration. Community consensus overrides ArbCom's prerogatives. Remember: we're the last stop.

(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)

I think it's gotten it about right. Some of the injunctions are a bit heavy-handed, but precautionary principle and all...

(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)

I oppose on principle. The whole community ought to decide... that includes arbs, but not exclusively.

(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)

Only if the RfC/U or mile-long ANI thread would be essentially frivilous.

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

It's not a decision I'm comfortable making. Unless you mean this is their first case, and they haven't been admonished previously. Then it depends on circumstance. Socking, abuse of tools during a content dispute they're involved in, and other high crimes are entirely unbecoming of an administrator. If they want to prove themselves again, they can go through RfA.

(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 massive trouting. They should know better, but it's easy to get caught up in that sort of thing and it's often in a morally gray area. Of course, if Admin A knew Example X was a sock and encouraged him at an RfA, well... that's stretching it. (And all this depends highly on circumstance)

(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]

Only more direct communication between Arbs and others in DR.

(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)

I surely do. Arbcom is not elected to override the community in any consensus-related manner.

(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)

I encourage clerks and arbs to take greater control over discussion to avoid pointless meandering. As for remedies: mentorship and discretionary sanctions should only be done if they can work. Given the option of, say, mentorship over a topic ban, I will only pick mentorship if DR folks believe that mentorship will work.

(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)

This is a tough question. Where we're at now, I believe that ArbCom is a necessary evil. But it creates a DR ladder of sorts, and keeps admins from making tough decisions when it's well within their remit. If the WQA, RfC/U, and the mile-long ANI thread fail to resolve the problem, the next step is usually seen as being ArbCom. Often, I think it would be better if an administrator could just block a Very Disruptive Editor... but then there's no accountability. Hence a need for ArbCom. But a reasonable admin can't just go around blocking that Very Disruptive Editor because of the fear of repercussions at ArbCom.

Arbitration is often frivolous because of this, but it's where the responsibility now lies.

(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)

For legal and ethical reasons, I agree with BLPSE. I think the boundaries of our remit is well-established and ought not to change, unless a change is internal.

(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)

I will decline all cases that are based on content disputes. ArbCom has failed in that regard before. Mediation is always preferred. If mediation fails, it's the result of an editor or a group of editors. In that event, I'll accept a case but I'd want to work closely with the mediators who know the dispute.

(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)

Unfortunately, were an administrator to take more responsibility (e.g., block, topic-ban, etc), then there's a real good chance that a case will end up at ArbCom over admin abuse. What ArbCom ought to do is tell uninvolved admins that the bar for using tools on editor X or article Y for dispute Z is set lower. ArbCom has to devolve power, I think, before admins can pick some of it up.

(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)

Good content contributors who are not great at communication are often excellent candidates for mentorship, particularly if the incivility is just an aspect of poor communication skills. If someone is causing a bad environment on a collaborative project, then they should probably change their ways.

Administrators, however, are expected to at least be partly civil. If they can't manage that, then their use of the tools is likely to cause more drama than it solves, and so should be mentored. If they can't be mentored, then maybe they're not the best administrator. This is the only case where I think asking the committee for the bit back is acceptable, if not better, than RfA.

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

I have no clue; I don't know what happens in arbcom-l. I do know that long and pointless discussions during a case tend to drag things on, and I again would recommend arbs and clerks to better handle a discussion.

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

Extremely. You come here, there's no turning back... an ugly but necessary requirement of arbitration.

(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)

As I've mentioned above, I believe that arbcom's role is well established, and shouldn't go any further unless the community deems it wise. Luckily, the community did not deem that wise. Certainly, arbs can come up with ideas, and even say it's within the remit of the committee... but it has to pass the community, first.

(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)

I don't, and that's why there needs to be better communication between the on-the-ground DR workers (mediators, 3O providers, etc) and ArbCom. The dynamics of the community change from year to year, and if you're not aware of the new developments of the community, you'll end up making bad decisions for the community.

(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)

Yes. I wouldn't have handled it differently.

(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)

I would've followed Vassyana on this: not sure (abstain), then sure (support). Admins need to know and accept that they've done wrong. It's a bit unsettling otherwise.

(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)

Ehh... Tell the former that BN isn't the way to go, and the latter isn't really culpable for anything gone wrong. But at least with the former it's at the 'crats discretion. I think an admonishment would be in order, just to set that precedent if something like this were to happen again.

(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)

I think most were handled successfully. A bit tepid sometimes, but reasonable by and large. There was one case (Ireland article names) that should not have been taken: it was primarily content related, and there a good effort was being made by the editors. The resulting remedies made the problem worse merely by ripping the rug out from under the discussion. Then everyone's back at square one, re-hashing the same things. Attrition sets in.

(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

Good. They're private, and we shouldn't have the ability to decide if our want for publication overrides someone else's privacy.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007

Yes, the timely part. Sometimes you think what you're doing is uncontroversial but it ends up differently. If the reasoning behind an action is likely to cause controversy, then it's probably best to defer.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

Yes, in principle. Of course, some folks will call libel or slander (?) without realizing how powerful that wording is. Step 1 is to tell them to stop before jumping the gun.

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

Absolutely, per the wording: "In the interests of facilitating open communication between parties, communications made during mediation may not be used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions". People can speak their mind without fear of repercussion, and that can be very important during mediation.

(v) "Outing", June 2009

This is basically like (i) If someone considers something private, only they should have the ability to make it public. Personal details are private by default.

(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)

MBisanz is a trusted user... my only concern is, were it someone less known, would they have been picked?

(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)

In X vs. Y disputes: change the name to the perpetrator. That was clear in the Zeraeph case.

In cases where it's not clear if someone is really a "perpetrator", then I think it's best to stick with either an article name or a descriptive title. It's harmful to one's morale to go through ArbCom, be cleared of any wrongdoing, and still have their name attached to a case.

The current randomish style is preferred, since it doesn't appear to prejudge an editor.

(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)

I think it needs more manpower, but otherwise it's fine with what we've got.

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

First made edits under User:Nitcomb, which I changed for obvious reasons. I'll occasionally log out and go by my IP if I'm just tired of looking at the tools and their subtle temptations, but I don't make any substantive edits from it. If Xavexgoem and my IP are editing the same article, I would say. I don't think that's happened.

(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)

Given the last two years, I do believe I'd side a little more heavily with the iron fist approach if discretionary sanctions or mentorship are either poor options or too iffy a proposition.

Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here.

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) 01:10, 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?

      The current controls are working more-or-less OK. At any rate, someone somewhere will sneak past whatever we set up.

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

      Well, if the case came all the way to ArbCom then it's really in ArbCom's hands. The mood of the community will have an impact on decision making, of course, but I don't see any point in re-opening a desysop to the community (since that's what the mile-long ANI threads are generally trying to achieve and failing at).

   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?

      Admins shouldn't be running socks. Certainly, they shouldn't be stacking votes. When they're on notice, and an arbcom case is underway, they'd have to be really, really stupid to continue. If they do act stupid, then desysop them prematurely.

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

      If it's not controversial, then just ask a bureaucrat. Hell, I relinquished the tools a short while after being an admin, and I got them back without a fuss. And that was in IRC.

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?

      At least try to be nice.

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

      It's holding steady. Could be better, though. 'Course, I spend most of my time mediating entrenched disputes.

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

      Old hats, undeniably. And a few good content contributors. They shouldn't be untouchable, but for whatever series of reasons... <shrug> Just the way it is.

   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?

      Enforcement, no. Better examples, yes. It seems paradoxical to hit an uncivil editor over the head with what amounts to a rather uncivil tool.

   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?

      Mentorship is a good option for editors who A) have good grasp of policy, are B) in good standing as article editors, and C) are truly willing to reform.

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?

   They're good the way they are. ArbCom should only make rulings concerning "rights" to fill in any gaping holes we hadn't considered. Otherwise, leave these decisions for either the community or the foundation.

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.
   1. We need more editors working in DR. It's a good learning experience, and it's an invaluable tool that benefits the community.

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

   Very. Don't want to leave anyone hanging during a case.

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

   Very, for the same reason as above. Progress updates probably wouldn't hurt, either.

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?

   Two things: 1) deadlines, and 2) better discussion flow. Deadlines to keep cases shorter, and flow to keep discussions small enough that people don't feel they need to write paragraphs of rebuttals against paragraphs of rebuttals ad infinitum.

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

   Agree. How to go about measuring the drama:productivity ratio is another matter.

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?

   My fear is that this adds too personal an element from the arbitrators to the parties. Unless there's some internal process that already deals with this, I'm afraid what's going to happen is some people are going to get the "exceptional treatment" while others do not, even if they're deserving (they're deserving to somebody). Either everyone gets it or no-one gets it.

1. You subscribe to a category that announces, among other things, "Smash the manual of style" (part of "Wikipedians by editing philosophy", with a reference to "Wikipedia humour" tucked away at the bottom that is not entirely clear from the lead). Can you explain how your main policy plank involving a greater role for ArbCom in mediation is consistent with this statement?

   Oh, I don't take that seriously. I prefer endashes, actually. -- vs. –. The latter is a clear winner. (I've removed myself from the category, by the way). I sometimes think that the dispute over en-dashes and em-dashes is a little silly, but I've only been an observer.

   And truthfully I've never been a mediator in MOS disputes. It's not something I figure ArbCom would need to worry about. I'd recuse myself from those cases if it came up.

2. In your answer to GQ2 above, you say "As for ambiguities: The spirit always trumps the wording." Please explain why you think the spirit of what ArbCom means in its written judgements, injunctions, etc, trumps the meaning of the wording.

   This is more of a principled front against wikilawyering. If editor X is being sanctioned, then they're on notice to begin with; wording only needs to clarify what's acceptable. If you say: you can't do this, you can't do this, you can't do this for article X, then it's very likely that someone will equivocate their way into doing something forbidden by saying "it's not on the list!" Of course, most people can see past that, but the resulting block generally causes more drama. And then the editor feels victimized and it's just a big mess.

   The spirit for sanctions: look, you've come this far and it's pretty clear you screwed up, so don't make it worse for yourself by using the precise wording as an excuse to do something that's likely to raise a few eyebrows.

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?

   Oh wow. I don't know how that happened, but that went on for far too long. This is a good case for deadlines.

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

   If that's the consensus. WikiProjects don't make a consensus, though, and I've seen a couple projects take a heavy-handed approach on "rogue articles" under the presumption that the consensus of the project trumps the need for consensus building when an article "goes astray".

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?

   Ignore and move on. Don't feed the trolls. Your attention is what they feed off of.

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?

   As above.

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?

   If they continue to harm the project after discussion, then a series of escalating blocks.

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

   If the community thinks so!

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

   It's a stop-gap for edit-warring, but sometimes it's easy to game. A good administrator will check the history; there are plenty of cases where one person is at 4 reverts and the other at 3. They're both edit-warring. Depending on circumstance, a full protect is a better measure than a single block, and a block on both editors better than full protection.

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

   Not my area of expertise, truth be told. I'd honestly just defer.

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

   It isn't a matter of "when" but "if". If the edit isn't reverted, then it's not reverted. If it is reverted, then that's that. Tersely: When should their edits be reverted? When their edit is 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

    I'd prefer not to answer. It's an extremely tough job and it's a lot of pressure. I don't want to misrepresent nor theorize on their motives.

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

    In my experience, the biggest problem is plain stubbornness and a refusal to honestly participate in consensus building... or, more likely, a failure to understand how one builds consensus.

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

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

I'm on #wikipedia-medcab and #wikipedia-en-admins occasionally... mostly for the entertainment. I don't record any conversations, so there are no logs I can release. Any future logs, that's fine.

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  18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least one arb ought to be coordinating between the committee and enforcement. Yikes.

I would've replied sooner.

Have you read War and Peace?

I haven't. One day.

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.

   Good in principle, but the problem becomes where the line is drawn. I'm a little uncomfortable telling someone that, according to us (the largest reference site on the net), you're just too notable. The bureaucratic problems associated with figuring out who gets to opt-out seems rather daunting.

   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.

   Agreed. We should be cautious on borderline cases.

   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)

   That sounds reasonable, but only if (d) or (e) don't work.

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

   Not as strong, prefer (e)

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

   I like it, but only for BLP articles (and some giant vandal magnets, of course)

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?

   Both, but for legal and ethical reasons, this is one case where policy trumps content, and where IAR rarely applies.

   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?

   Ehh... for the time being, I suppose it's OK. I'd rather another process were set up to deal with these problems.

   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.

   I think flagged revisions on BLP articles will greatly improve our biographical articles.

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?

   Nonsense! Sure, at a certain point, consensus becomes nearly impossible. It's a matter of group-size. A wikiproject, for instance, is much better at building a consensus than a thread at ANI. When groups A,B,C, and D have all reached a consensus, the organization has already begun, and influencing groups E-Z is that much easier.

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'm good with it if it sticks to BLP articles. I fear a more gated community if it's applied to all articles, as well as a whole new infrastructure for handling flagged revision disputes. I do not believe we have that manpower. For BLP articles, I believe flagged revisions would actually relieve some of the stresses that BLP folks go through.

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?

   It's just the way it is. I'm fine by it. Not only does it increase the number of shy contributors, but it keeps off-wiki harassment to a far more acceptable minimum

   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)?

   Absolutely not. That's an exodus. A lot of folks – myself included – have a separation between our on-wiki personalities and our off-wiki personalities (e.g., Xavexgoem is one person, Sebastian (real name) is another)

   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?

   Deletion is fine. For particularly egregious outings, oversight is better. But the whole process needs to be handled between database dumps, lest someone get clever.

   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?

   I'd ask permission, first. Again, this is a privacy/publicity thing (as answered above)

   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)

   My name is Sebastian Kolendo. How others treat their anonymity is none of my business.

   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?

   Interesting question... the problem is any arbitration case after the fact is likely to dish out punitive measures. Which might be OK, but it's highly circumstantial. If one had a huge conflict of interest, for instance, it might be another matter than if editor X hates editor Y, so X goes digging and pulls up info about Y and posts them on-wiki.

   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)

   Off-wiki is outside the committee's remit. What's important in that event is not to take personal details and put them on the wiki. For on-wiki outings, I believe it's highly circumstantial. If it's clearly vindictive, then measures need to be taken. What measure, I don't know.

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?

   Yes, either way.

   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.

   Contacting the authorities. Would be best to ask the victim if they're OK with IP data, etc., being disclosed to the FBI (or whomever).

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

   What matters most is to take their claims seriously.

   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.

   Ban, semi-prot indefinitely.

   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?

   As long as the "stalker" reviewing the contributions is quiet about it, and isn't out for some sort of vindication. Evidence gathering does involve checking through the contributions, after all.

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

   Take their claims seriously. Review the evidence. This is too important an issue to dither around.

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?

   I've essentially answered this above, but these questions add some nuance. The gist of my previous answer was: if an edit is reverted, it was reverted! If it isn't reverted, then it wasn't reverted. There isn't a bot that automatically reverts banned users' socks, so we're stuck with the above principle. This goes for those editors remarkably unwelcome, and editors just plain unwelcome.

   But there's a slippery slope (one that I've dealt with before) of editors testing their boundaries after being either topic-banned or out-right banned. In one case, an editor was explicitly told not to edit any articles, anything related to those articles, including talkpages. Within a week, he was making "good faith" talk-page edits. The slippery slope is: "well, despite having been told not to do this, it's a good faith edit on my part", which always struck me as a way to equivocate out of a block... and one thing may lead to another, and they're back to editing despite their topic ban. I'm a little torn, actually. My metric is "if so-and-so is going to create drama just by doing something minor", then they should not do it. That's partly what a topic ban is for. Certainly what a total ban is for.

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?

   Caucusing off-wiki can be important for mediation when you have large groups of editors going at it. Most everything else should stay on-wiki. If folks are developing a friendship, then of course it's alright if they're talking on IRC, Skype, email, whatever. So long as they're not gaming, but that's hard to prove one way or another.

   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?

   I don't have any sites related to Wikipedia.

   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)?

   Toxic environment. I don't go there (or went there). Criticism is best handled on-wiki, since at least we can all see what the problem actually is and try to fix it, y'know?

   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?

   That's their choice. None of my business.

   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? )

   I do not. And I believe if it's WP-related, "outing" doesn't quite apply. We certainly don't have jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia, anyway.

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

   Holding steady. Honestly, I haven't been paying much attention.

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)?

   Yes. If someone is going to IAR, they should have a good reason other than "I've been here a while". Paradoxically, it seems some folks think they're exempt not only from content or conduct policy but from IAR! Weird (of course, it's a misunderstanding of IAR more than anything, I'd venture).

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

    Red, orange, and yellow. Colors of the sun. Warmth.

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

Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing [3]. 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) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am vehemently opposed to paid editing. Period. This is an area I believe Jimbo was the perfect character to put the foot down.

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?
  • Yes. Lord knows, yes.
• 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?
  • I'll certainly try. What I usually do (copy-edits, mediations) don't take a heckuva lot of time in the first place.
• 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?
  • WP certainly has a seamier side. I know that anyway. To what extent I can only imagine, but I have romantic notions of seaminess, so I doubt it'll change anything. (like dilapidation, graffiti, etc)

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've written a bit about this. During mediation – I don't know where I wrote this down – I work by one tenet: do not abstract above "editor". Everyone is really just someone at a keyboard. No "nationalists", no "fringe editors", etc., etc. The labels are often presumptuous, and always contentious. Editors, editors, editors, nothing but.

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?

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) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's such a huge issue, after all: my bar for CIVIL is when it passes into personal attacks. We have many personalities on the project. Some might be labeled pompous or what-have-you (and thus uncivil to someone), but that's never enough.