On the whole, arbitration works well. So I wouldn't want to change it wholesale. But there are several edges that it's probably common consensus can be improved and would be widely appreciated to improve.

• First - A first priority has to be "don't leave it worse". That means, for example, in the haste to fix a perceived problem, don't leave it actually with more serious problems for 2009 to fix. Don't let what does work well at December 2007, slip -- and in many ways, a lot does work well.

• Speed and responsiveness - Then, look at it from users viewpoint. I see a few key areas where some kind of change could be possible, and in which many wish change would happen. Speed and responsiveness is a big one. I work in business, and I'm used to starting in january with a team that feels a 30 day turnaround is about fine, and by June we're working to a turnaround under half of that. Likewise, we've got used to a 6-8 week turnaround on some cases. There's no reason for more than 4, and in many cases we should be able to break 2 or 3 if we discuss and agree how to case-manage them, the timings and processes to establish, and so on. Probably there needs to be discussion within arbcom (who know what the issues are for real) and also communal discussion of the suggestions (to get consensus that allow improvements). I've discussed this with several of the other candidates already, it seems that thoughts of these kind will be held by more than one person. How it works out is down to human nature and interia, but in either case, 1/ I'll be using the skills I have to try and do so, and 2/ if it can't be done I'll be fine summarizing factually, an overview on why not, because the community will deserve to know why a body it has delegated to, isn't delivering as people believe possible -- whether to fix it, collaborate to agree a better way, or at least understand why it wasn't practical. Arbcom is answerable to the community, not the other way round.

• Transparency and accessibility (= communication and contact) - can probably be improved. Or at least, the perceptions of these can. Arbcom and its members work phenomenally hard. The cases, and the additional invisible problems by email, are a very heavy workload, enough to burn out many experienced committee appointees in a few months. A lot of what Arbcom does must be and remain, a " black box". But this does not mean "set aside communication and explaining". In a way, communication is one of the most important things one can do. Good communication seriously quells disputes, heals divisions, assures all parties they are heard and respected, prevents people feeling that arbcom is "remote" and un-clued-in, explains how good decison making works and what policies mean, and a dozen other things. As an administrator when I started working on AFD, I began the habit of writing full length closes. They were wordy, they were long... but they worked. Over and over, people in the most contentious disputes commented afterwards that they felt it had helped, made sense, clarified what would otherwise have been assumed to be a biased decision by some side or other that it really was carefully considered and so on. It worked in the toughest disputes, almost as routine, it was appreciated by those declined as much as those supported, it took people who were flaming and helped them get to "I understand now", even if they didn't always like it. So I think Arbcom can communicate better, just because I know I do so and have done so, and I'm seeing what it achieves. Not unduely, or to breach privacy, but simply to bridge the gap non-arbcom editors sometimes have felt and described (despite arbcom's best efforts), of communication, contact, and trust.

• Decisions in tough cases - I'm told in a few cases, the committee, like the community, was split and indecisive. That's to be expected, but a direction, principles and ultimately a decision must be found in such cases, and this must be a decision that gains wide respect from the community. Again, its down to insight, draftsmanship and focus, and that's an area where I have a significant advantage - I've done the drafting for an unusually large number of policy pages, disputes, and sensitive complex matters, a fair bit of my offline life is spent figuring out "whats really going on/what might help this work" in problems, and I think I can help a lot there by simply doing the "donkey work" such as drafting and case summarizing, which I do already on tough matters. I find a good case summary and analysis makes a decision almost obvious, in many cases. If you want a few examples, let me know.

• Conduct while a case is being heard - in cases of habitual bad conduct and edit warring, problem users often get an effective 'free hand' from Arbcom to persist, while the case is considered and discussed. Its good evidence of conduct, but a case just doesn't (or shouldn't) be accepted at arbcom without good evidence there's a problem already. So there's a limit how much it's helpful to allow more. Especially, people come to arbcom specifically to have problem behavior dealt with. I'd not mind seeing Arbcom issue brief warnings and then temporary injunctions, in cases where there's ongoing escalation or continuing misconduct by an involved party during the case. People can die waiting for the ambulance, so to speak. Or in Wiki terms, become disheartened waiting whilst the bad conduct continues. We can do better, I think, by ensuring once a case is accepted, the worst ongoing abuses (if any) will be addressed even as the case is heard, and not (apparently) ignored.

• Process and administration - There's a question if the committee is operating the best way - right number of people, right length of appointment, right handling of absence, and so on. I've participated in that discussion so far, and will in future. The questions are things like - does arbcom have the capacity for its present workload? Does it have enough spare capacity not to burn all its members out? Should there be more non-arb checkusers? Should arbcom run two or more "circuits" or should it have one as at present? Should stay on arbcom reduce to a year or two, can members take a break, and what process is used to replace people temporarily or permanently? If someone is absent, how long do we let a case be held up? Is it taking on tasks it shouldn't, or not handling any it should? Things like that. I'm as much on the arb mailing list as you; so I would have my own understanding to gain from those with experience before forming too many fixed opinions. Again, this is what I do for a living, so I'm comfortable looking for ways to help it be better.

• Standing of committee - Last, one other for now (there's more but these seem to be some of the main ones). The last one is, does arbcom have a role just as a jury/judge in disputes and an advisor in sensitive matters? Or does it also have a de facto leadership role of setting certain directions for the community? In what areas should arbcom have more "say", or less, and who can override who? That sort of thing. I think arbcom's done very well here, but the relationship between committee and community is always going to be one to watch. What does the community expect arbcom to be?

I would never say that was "all". Like the community and project, Arbcom grows, matures and changes. It may have internal processes none of us see that prevent it doing its job at times, for example. It has a range of people who must work together. So the above is said with certainty that if I sat down 3 more minutes I'd find another few ideas, and knowing that many people's top wishes aren't on that list.

(There's one to do with sensitive information handling which I know is going to be discussed, but I don't know if it's my place to more than allude to it right now, for example. Another is whether editors who through no fault of their own have been attacked or smeared unfairly in cases that come to arbcom, are sufficiently vindicated by arbitration, or whether more needs doing from this direction. A third is in cases themselves, whether fact findings and remedies are always well chosen.)

But if the January committee do no harm, leave it no worse, and do address some of these kinds of things effectively during their time, then we'll have been good custodians the coming year and have improved.

I've answered a fair bit of the "what do I think about arbcom (including case duration) and what would I do" above (1). Take a look, and if you want me to expand on any part of that comment, do let me know, I'll be glad to :)

Do Arbcom act too hastily, and facets get dropped...? I'd like to say that on the whole, arbcom seem remarkably balanced at what they do, especially given the complexity of the cases they look at. However this isn't a single-sided question; the question covers several points:

1. Do arbcom get it right, but fail to communicate this, so that people perceive an error of judgement?
2. Are some errors in fact legitimate differences of interpretation, or application of good faith?
3. Do arbcom take the decisional view that rulings aren't expected to be perfect (given the pressures and complexity) but can be reviewed if needed, whilst users expect perfect insight?
4. Are case pages so messy by the time all evidence and counter-accusations are presented, that it's not clear where a decision has come from or if it's well informed?
5. Do arbcom have their own views and criteria to measure what constitutes "successful/appropriate case handling", so that the targets they work to are slightly different to the broader community's? (Ie, with more experience comes hopefully, wisdom in deciding what a "successful" handling might be, what matters, and what doesn't. Conceivably facets might well be dropped through wisdom and clear thinking, and not error, in some cases.)
6. In some cases, is there non-public evidence involved, so that what seems unusual from outside is a partial view? (By its nature, decisions based on such evidence may not be capable of informed review by other editors; this is a communal status quo with high buy-in though.)
7. Are cases well-assessed for acceptance or rejection? (It's easy to look at cases once accepted; what about the acceptance decision though?)
8. Last, the genuine concern: are there cases where significant aspects or points of principle are missed, misunderstood, or mis-assessed by arbcom, or poor judgement arises in the proposals and decisions, that are not covered by any of the above?

The striking thing is that 6 of these 8 essentially speak to communication and communications failure, rather than case errors. Most of these can easily be stated, discussed, and reassured, rather than left to create silences and perceptions of concern to others. So quick answers to the above:

1. Perception and communication

In my own experience, there are regularly cases where the involved parties don't seem to be reassured that arbcom did a good job (even if they did). Cases come to arbitration after a long history of stress, and good faith parties usually want above all, reassurance of good handling and a good final resolution. So if we can reduce stress and reassure people better, then we should. This is a matter of communication as much as decision-making, and I think arbcom could do a lot better at communication. Reassurance and certainty aren't trivial if you're in an arbcom case, and if users did have a serious concern something's been overlooked, we can certainly explain why it was handled that way, or look into it further. There are routes for such communication, but they're not adequately used.

Personal example - communication    Taken from the 'Attachment Therapy' arbitration case (DPeterson and socks, July - Aug 2007)

One experience of this I saw close-up this year was in the DPeterson and socks case (July 2007) where the sock-warrior was allowed to run rampant with untruthful smears and personal attack and misrepresentation, and yet no proposals were being added to clarify that arbcom realized this. In fact Arbcom almost didn't communicate at all, in the case. It would not do harm to be more communicative. As a result the good-faith parties I was helping (and myself) were in fact left very concerned that they actually didn't understand the complex evidence, or were going to be bamboozled by this editor or handle him hopelessly inadequately. A 1 year ban proposal also gave the editors new to arbcom much concern, because from where they stood, they saw only that this was a dedicated warrior who wasn't going to change, and interpreted the result to mean Arbcom grossly underestimated his virulence. What was missing was an explanation that there had been understanding, but that a years ban would be rather tougher than it seemed, and the community would handle the rest. Had I not explained, the parties concerned would have taken this impression of Arbcom with them. So a lot of the concern over "dropped facets" in some cases are actually avoidable, and based on poor cross-communication. I made a start on this by writing Arbitration policy/Case handling which explained these kinds of things for newcomers to Arbitration. The rationale was, as a non-arbcom member I couldn't make arbcom communicate better; but I could aim to ensure people visiting arbcom knew what to expect and why, and therefore be less worried by some features of current case handling. If appointed, communication during the case (a willingness to consider questions regarding handling, progress, and where it's at, for example) is something I'm fairly sure I can improve, and would remove much stress from a lot of cases.

2. Are cases wrongly accepted or rejected

Yes, I think so. I'm going to put myself on the line a bit, noting at least two cases I felt were accepted wrongly. In each there was either no case, or no case needing Arbcom attention. With a clear statement, this could have been explained. One was the BJAODN "Wheel war" case (later dropped following my suggestion ^{lines 5-14, 1144}), and the other was Sadi Carnot. I feel the Sadi Carnot case could easily have been handled at ANI and probably got rapid consensus, if Arbcom had explained why they felt this. The problem in this case was that people jumped hard, and it escalated quickly, and once there was a block, unblock and differing views, it was sent directly to Arbcom as "divisive". In fact within a fairly short time it became obvious that there hadn't been wheel warring (by consensus definition), there weren't major problems, the users spamming was often not his own actions ^[3], and the user had shown willingness to engage in dispute resolution ^[4] but had never been asked to. This was actually a pretty straightforward COI/POV pusher who had been mismanaged and then suddenly became a major headline. I'm not very happy at the ruling or lack of prior discussion either, but that's a different matter; and note it may easily have eventually come to a ban or long term block by other routes too. I wrote a full analysis of the background of the case, and evidence to back this, at the point it was looking to be accepted by arbcom, and I still feel this case (if returned with explanation to ANI) would have been adequately handled there, at that point. There was no great difficulty or complexity to suggest that Arbcom was really needed.

That said, it's better to accept a case in error than reject one in error.

3. Do facets actually get overlooked (I)

It's almost inevitable that some will be. These are complex cases and the evidence is often very long and disputed. Arbcom aren't lawyers or legal draftspeople, so rulings and such do occasionally have gaps. Evidence of this can be found in cases that return for clarification, or "fixing" of rulings. I think arbcom would argue that in many cases, the ruling isn't expected to be perfect; rather it's expected to give enough that if the problem continues it can always be reopened for further review. That's speculative but would make sense. Obviously one prefers to get it 100% at once, but cases are complex enough that I can see "do what we can readily do, and accept if its still a problem later" having been deemed a plausible strategy in some cases. I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with less than high quality decisions, but even on Arbcom one would expect different approaches. Again, communication would help; it would help if people were aware, so there wasn't this concern over it. There is no real reason not to be more forthcoming about the basis on which cases have been assessed and allegations considered, it need not be drama-inspiring, and tends to unite rather than divide.

4. Do facets actually get overlooked (II)

Does arbcom ever fail to take cognisance of key evidence that they should notice, or misjudge the case and users involved? I'd be amazed if they didn't, at times. The canonical example here would be a warrior who is skillful enough that they can pull the wool over arbcom, or the evidence is confusing and poorly presented, or where frustration by the other party has led to both being less than perfect actors so both get sanctioned rather than the genuine problem user being seen for what they are.

Of the two kinds of error - penalizing someone who did little wrong, or letting someone off lighter who did - the Committee seem to err on the right side. Rarely do arbitration cases seem to make the error of penalizing someone wrongly. Usually if there has been error, it's under-estimation or lack of appreciation of seriousness, or telling both to improve and not end up back at Arbcom again, ie, the fixable kind.

So for example, there have been cases where a clearer statement was wanted and instead Arbcom returned the community a ruling that put them back where they started without any further help. There have also been cases where all parties are told to start from fresh, and this seemed to some like an error of judgement. There have certainly been rulings that (in retrospect) were inadequately drafted and needed fixing. and cases (like the Albania-Azabaijan ones) where some serious sorting out was needed that didn't happen. What is notable is, that all of these tend to work out well eventually (or can be modified later if insufficient), since what was returned to the community was enough to provide foundations to help somewhat, anyhow. At least they do not often seem to produce manifest miscarriages of natural justice.

I don't think "hastily" is a word most would use on arbcom cases, and it does tend to have a significant payoff: - cases where the actual case has miscarried significantly in the end, to unfair detriment of an editor, are in fact uncommon.

(That said, see (3) below for two examples of genuine case mishandling. However, one of those cases didn't misjudge evidence, it just refused to rule, which is erring on the side of caution, and the other is questionable as to the harm done - maybe the user would have been banned, maybe not, with better Arbcom handling.)

Hope that helps! FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 05:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Two recent cases come to mind:

Allegations of apartheid

The findings in Allegations of apartheid were obviously a source of problem to the Committee. Several sets of proposals were presented by Arbitrators seeking to pin down the best proposed wordings, but although arbitrators were able to identify what was wrong with various wordings, they found it exceptionally hard to propose a wording that was right. One need only to look at the "opposes" on the proposed decision page to see the issues identified in different approaches.

For example, when I reviewed the proposals, it was clear the proposed principle on IAR (2) was not in fact anything like a good representation of the "limits of IAR", and finding of facts 2 ^{(2.1, 2.2)}, 3 , 4, and 6, all floundered because, although the findings centered around using article creation and AFD to make a point, the committee hadn't thought to lay the groundwork for this by including a principle on what the AFD process was, and how it was to be used.

As a result several proposals -- including all remedies -- floundered after that, because they couldn't find a way to clarify the concern neutrally from all sides. A proposal for a general amnesty also floundered, and rightly so, because it was clear that significant untoward conduct had taken place that needed specific comment. I tried to add some help by drafting a better set of proposals for the problematic area, but in the end Arbcom just didn't seem to find a way to address the case.

The end result was the case was effectively dismissed because Arbcom couldn't work out what to say... which is so far from ideal that I'm almost at a loss. For example, the case lingered for almost three months (11 weeks) in committee, with not one principle or finding of productive output as a result. The matter was ultimately deemed closable as "being resolved by the community", but this does not equate to any "success" for the arbitration process. Some general findings and measures might have been suggested for this significant dispute. Arbcom is there precisely to help guide a resolution to such matters, and the general principles that led to this case arising were not, in my view, as well addressed as they could have been. I'm not aware of any novel or off-wiki issues that were relevant. It was not an exceptionally complex case to need such indecision.

Sadi Carnot

This case was an editor who was, clearly, a link pusher, with COI, SPAM, POV/"own theory" issues, and using citations in a dubious way to "support" these, going back to 2005 or earlier and a previous account.

Unquestionably there were genuine issues and concerns. The problem was that the case was "railroaded" (I think the term is) - ie, it wasn't a concern, no formal or informal talk page warning had been given under this or his last account, and then suddenly the user was blocked as a major case, leading to dispute over the fairness of this, arbitration, and ban. I got involved because it didn't seem that the case history was clearly summarized and therefore it was getting heated rather than fairly considered.

(When I reviewed it, it became clear that there had indeed been serious defects in the prior handling of this editor, including a misunderstanding of evidence, complete lack of previous warning or other discussion on his talk page, evidence of willingness to engage in dispute resolution was ignored (and DR had never been requested), and his block log was clear under both accounts ^{[5] [6]}.)

The upshot was that SC was rapidly banned (3 weeks) for a year at Arbcom.

I disagree with this ruling on several scores:

1. The case should not have been accepted. The issue was lack of good case handling in the past, of a COI link pusher, not wheel warring or major difficulty (the contributors at ANI had actually sorted out that aspect already), and ANI can handle those very well. A comment to the efect: Reject - talk to the user, warn the user, and if the problem continues address the usual way, does not presently need arbcom involvement would have done the job just as well. The community is more than able to handle such actions by COI users. (Principle: Where the community can handle it with a gentle nudge, and no overriding principle is at issue to be decided upon, Arbcom should not as a rule take the case over, but allow the community to handle it and learn.)
2. Much of the impetus to escalate came from cross-wiki spamming. Evidence at ANI already suggested a question over this; much spam was misattributed and not the user's work. ^[7]
3. Evidence tended to suggest the user generally showed civility and perhaps even willing to address disputes, ^{[8] [9]} but no DR had ever been requested. There had been no dispute resolution, nor warnings, nor an overriding "unusual divisiveness" amongst administrators at that point ( WP:RFAR refers and a brief "reject" note would have explained this) - acceptance was contrary to arbcom norms.
4. The decisions focussed on SC's actions only; there was no mention of the community's failing to warn him, and in fact he had never been formally warned. (Principle: Even as a pusher and the like, arbitration should reflect fairly on all, even on long term "editors of concern", and not make one side seem more wrong than they are, or the other side less at fault than they were. All sides need to be advised if they could have done better, and cases neutrally summed up.)
5. Arbcom did not seem to investigate the background to the case effectively, or if they did the ruling doesn't show it - a piece of research that took me a couple of hours to collate.
6. The decision did not comment on any of the mishandling that had gone on that had led to this. For example, there was 1/ no affirmation that a user who breaches norms should be warned, if the matter is not so heinious as to deserve immediate block/ban. It didn't note that 2/ random contributors' comments at AFD considerable time ago are not sufficient to count as "warning", nor the corollary that 3/ users are expected to "get a clue" even if not "officially warned". These are all valid things that might have been noted, and reflect on the root of the case.
7. There was no comment regarding the apparent rush to paint SC blacker than was fair and to also marginalize well-founded concerns of evidence and fairness raised by reputable users, by some users at ANI, nor suggestion that there might be lessons to be learned for future ANI handling of "known problem editors". This is a very obvious finding, and a concern that is likely to happen again at some point, so a somber comment on good and bad case handling (and the need for the former) would have helped.

My main concerns therefore were 1/ the lack of fairness to the user, 2/ the taking over of the case from the community without real cause, instead of directing the community to fix the mishandling and treat it as usual, and 3/ that Arbcom must be willing to note if there is fault on behalf of the community, for many reasons (fairness, lessons, future reference when reassessing the banned user, etc).

Following the ruling, the old account was " blocked as a sockpuppet" (and added to "Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sadi Carnot"), which would tend to make SC seen as a user of prohibited puppetry in future. However upon checking, it is visible that Sadi had used the accounts completely in line with WP:SOCK ( last contribs of WM to any article/talk/project page Dec 15 2005, first contribs of SC Dec 27 2005), and also, the old account was last used almost 2 years previously. I had previously pointed out these observations in compiling my "outside view".

There is no guarantee that SC would not have been rapidly warned, blocked, and reblocked longer, and so on, if left to the community. He may well have been, and the community has that power. The community mood these days is less tolerant of people who are unlikely ever to contribute positively to the project, if they cannot be brought into a more positive style. But that's fair, if he had continued. This serious decision, in the face of our mishandling as a community, was not.

Conduct RFC is a page that always catches my eye, even though I don't usually see a need to comment on it. The format:- Allegation, Evidence, Desired change, Certifiers, Response, and then the freedom for anyone in the community to comment on views or add a fresh view of their own, is one of our most open dispute handling formats. For that reason it often ends up one of the most likely to be fair; in and of itself it simply collates views, and tests consensus on different interpretations and views, in a very open manner that doesn't show obvious bias to any given person. The results show the range of conclusions reached, which is healthy - it's what one would expect such a forum to deliver if running well. Since by itself (and unlike ANI) it doesn't usually result in sanction, it allows the "silent majority" of fair and balanced users to show their views.

A possible weakness is in complex cases, or where it's hard to tell which of two sides is right or wrong (or both, or neither), but since conduct RFC is simply a forum for views, even then it's usually helpful, since extra views do indeed get raised, which help in future progression of the case. In a problem, sometimes just having others' input this way can help and reassure a good-faith user, that they have some backing within the wider community that they have acted well or their concerns are endorsed, and also feedback on anything they are doing that might best change.

To me, one thing thats highly noticable in conduct RFC is the way that even if earlier statements (or some statements) are non-neutral, as the RFC progresses, other more balanced voices tend to kick in and get support. In that manner, it's reasonably self-correcting, which is highly desirable.

Examples:

• RFC/Ryulong (July - Aug 2007) - one can see the wide range of responses, from many different angles. But notice how Ryulong has a good chance to justify his actions, or at least present evidence in that regard, and one can see two credible administrators concurring (demon, mackensen)... then a comment on the position of warning in block placement and whether the zeal was excessive... a concern that this was noted at RFA and was ignored then... a view on proxy blocking norms... a placement of the blocks in context and an assessment of where the problem might be... and so on. RFC is doing exactly what it should, and anyone reviewing the case has a clear idea the range of views and evidence, and how credibly they are endorsed.

• RFC/Alkivar (July - Aug 2007, taken to Arbcom Oct 2007) - A past miscommunication between Durova and Alkivar that led to concerns is part cleared up when the material is raised at RFC... an outside view that the case was raised maliciously or in bad faith... a " WP:COOL" haiku... a comment that everyone gets heated now and then, and that other admins are worse (which I note was followed up with request for details)... a comment that nobody comes out of the case looking good and the focus should be on improving the project, advising self-examination by the parties... a comment that takes up the diffs which disparage non-admins and criticizes it (correctly) as completely out of ordser and mistaken...

• RFC/Dbachmann (2) (Nov 2007) - A name I recognize from being asked to investigate the actions of User:Deeceevoice at Afrocentrism. One could not review that dispute without noticing Dbachmann being a regular on that article, as are users Deeceevoice and Futurebird. The RFC is certified and endorsed by 6 users, some of whom I recognize as being associated with concerns over POV pushing and edit warring. Despite its origins in a complex edit war with POV and fringe pushing involved, the comments seem remarkably suited to give an experienced reader (who doesn't know those involved) a good insight into the problems. The good and bad of all is presented and can be assessed.

It seems that by its nature conduct RFC usually does its job. Its job is not to "judge" or "rule" on cases, but 1/ to seek comments and gain insight from the community as a whole, what others feel, and 2/ to solicit independent inspection, and what uninvolved parties see as important in the case. In most cases it does this job very well. It is well visited, with a range of results suggestive of genuine openness, and insightful varied responses in most cases. As a result, an outsider reading a conduct RFC in most cases will rapidly get a good "sense of the community" and the different interpretations, issues and perspectives that exist. This is the aim of RFC, for the community, and for the involved parties on both sides.

The main source of harm (as with any process) is when RFC is used as a means of harassment or to misrepresent others or put them in a bad light. I'm going to suspect from what Ive seen, that in fact when this is tried, the community response usually is fairer than the harasser would wish. Nevertheless Im sure there are times it is abused, or goes wrong.

One exceptional case I got involved in was the banned sock-user DPeterson, who (as reported at this RFC, May 2007) had himself created an exceptional six conduct RFCs between October 2006 and May 2007, as part of his pattern of harassment against people opposing him in his edit wars ^{1 (2 - delinked by email request) 3 4 5 6}. Most of DPeterson's accusations at Arbitration were untenable, spurious, and in bad faith; there is no reason to suspect these were any different. The cases were stuffed full of DIFFS and CITES. If RFC were easily misled then these would be examples to check, being 6 cases over 8 months. In fact apart from his own socks, not one of the six cases he tried to raise and accuse others of misconduct, gained support, and many gained no support at all despite the regular "sock-supporting-sock" activity from his own other accounts.

I'm sure that cases where conduct RFC goes bad do happen. But the format of the page mitigates against it strongly, and I'm not personally aware of any that did in fact go wrong as such. If you come across any, please do let me know - I'd want to take a look.

This answer is in four parts - general overview, personal aims and approach, arbcom handling, and summary, because the question touches on so much ground.

Overview - I have been handling the kind of edit warriors who end up at Arbcom since 2004. I took my first POV/attack warrior through RFC, mediation and (with approval of the ex-mediator and after seeking community agreement) to Arbitration and a topic ban, within 5 months of joining the project, and looking back the case statement was well drafted, and solidly evidenced. Since then I've dealt with several others. I discuss here the more problematic kind of edit warrior, the kind who may end up at ANI, RFC or Arbitration.

With any user said to be edit warring, there are many factors where judgement is needed, that influence the view, decision, and handling. Some of these are:

• Openness to change - Some are amenable to change, and just have a hard time getting the point, but are open to good support and advice if offered. Others seem not to be. So in many cases users identified by some person as "edit warriors" can be reasoned with, while others one ultimately concludes can't.
• Positive contributions - Some warriors have a record of valid contributions as well, or edit in other areas where they act well. Others seem to be editing just as another website to push their views on the world. (I've actually co-written an article with an edit warrior; many views and edits were extreme or unsupported, but his knowledge of the science of it was actually invaluable to the final article, even if it was difficult getting agreement on balanced wordings and removing some more extreme points.)
• Types of problematic behavior - Some have specific behaviors that if inhibited would address the visible problem without needing harsher measures (revert parole is one example).
• Virulence/nature of activity - There is a sense of virulence - the active harm done. Not all edit warriors are the same. Some just write tendentiously, but others are actively into personal attack, and more heavy duty warring. In some ways the ones who just grind down a topic are harder for other editors to deal with - user:Ludvikus on Philosophy (and possibly some behaviors described in the current Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 clarification case) come to mind - because they aren't actively attacking, they just make good editing impossible. (Which should not be underestimated either, it's also capable of being extremely damaging by driving off editors, stonewalling problem texts for months, preventing movement or collaboration, etc.)
• Honesty - Some edit warriors are 'honest' - they have their point or perspective, and argue it. Many articles have actually benefited from this range of perspectives, and the users have eventually been gotten to collaborate over time in some. But some are more dishonest - sock use, gaming the system, subtle mis-citing, refusal to get the point, and so on.
• Patience - Some editors may be seen as "not worth the trouble" by the community, and are referred to arbcom due to exhausted patience, even if their actions individually are not extreme ones.
• General situation - It's also a factor how complex the situation is. Some cases its one clear 'warrior', others its two 'sides' and their proponents, sometimes there is an antagonist to look at also... some cases are a near-hopeless train wreck of hostility with a few sane voices trying to stem the tide (a number of nationalist cases and almost perrenial edit wars come to mind).
• Effect on editorial environment - Last, although by no means a comprehensive list of 'factors', I'd put the factor that almost sums up the others - effect on the editorial environment. Our editorial environment is how we use the community we have, to write the content we're aiming for. So the acid test of any editor is to look simply at their impact on the editing environment.

I think that's a fair "first take" at factors to consider - their 'modus', honesty, impact, virulence, ability to change, and nature of contribution. Obviously each case varies. But as the above makes clear, there are many factors, and so it's to be expected each case varies. It's a judgement, and that's essentially what arbcom is empanelled to do - make judgements based on evidence how to handle difficult editors. Ultimately cases reach arbcom because the problem is one of the 15 - 35 a month requests (5 - 12 a month accepted in 2007) that the community feels can't be handled without a direct ruling. So with the understanding that no description can be exact, I'll try and describe my handling.

Degree of accomodation - We can accomodate (to a fair extent and if they agree) those who are learning our ways, and often use means such as parole and supervised editing, or topic restrictions to do so. NPOV and CIVILity isn't a stance that people always have initially, so some people take a long time to learn these and we aim to allow positive contribution without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". But there are those who continually fail or show little sign of wishing to be a positive member of the community, or aren't able to employ the neutral point of view and respect of others' input which is essential for article writing, and in a significant number of arbcom cases the ruling therefore focuses on protection via removal rather than reform.

My general philosophy, (which I vary somewhat depending on the user's actual activity) is roughly - be civil and constructive, try to gain a genuine understanding and work with them, extend chances and choices - but at the end of the day the aim is still to gain fruitful discussion, and communicate the need for, and achieve, change, and to prevent further damage to the editorial environment. Editors who are not working collaboratively need to learn to do so (in whatever way we can), and work with others constructively and honestly, or it's doubtful there will be a place for them here. We're writing an encyclopedia, not providing general forum services.

Personal aims - In communication terms, I keep myself focused on what's needed to communicate and to listen, and what might help that happen, to try and work fairly with problem editors by starting with where they are at, and also balance that with clear explanation where things stand:

• for the community,
• for where I'm at, and the future decisions I may have to make (as a user with administrative responsibilities focused on the project's benefit), and
• for the user as an editor seeking to contribute.

I tend to always use both the "line clearly drawn" and the "helping hand" which I see as equally important points to communicate, but the emphasis and style depends upon the nature of their actions and harm being done, vs. attempts to contribute and not getting the point, and my own judgement what needs to be said. As an administrator my style is roughly, "help, advice and alternative approaches are openly there, but if these are not taken then this is where it stands and what must ultimately happen."

At arbcom the decision is going to be slightly different since one is not mentoring personally, but making a ruling as a reviewer at a single point in time, based on how they have acted so far and evidence provided of intent, conduct and activity. The emphasis is more on, what are they up to, what's the damage/benefit/prospects of their activity, what have they done with any help to date, and what is the view of experienced editors who are acting as arbitrators, on the user and the situation.

Personal approach - I've used both supportive discussion, and firm statement of policy, often together. As a result, I routinely can get the respect of edit warriors and "problem editors" and at times this has helped. Virulent edit warriors though often don't change easily if at all.

I look to communicate and keep trying to communicate all the way. If there is any reasonable hope for improvement, I'll be one of the first to try to seek it, and I'll discuss, explain, set out the "what must happen otherwise" and put my own time and effort into mentoring and supervising, make myself available... the works. I tend to be a good judge of people on this score. I do this myself and if it fails, I'll draw the line myself. Two examples:

• After the arbcom case on The Troubles, I got asked by one very respected admin if I'd mentor user:Vintagekits, a well known difficult editor, on the basis they thought he was likely to be banned but if there was anything salvagable, they couldn't think of anyone else willing to give a fair go who would lay down the rules to him and might get his respect. (If confirmation's needed I'm sure they'll confirm, as this took place privately Confirmed below.)

• Likewise I wrote the now-banned DPeterson this policy note, which combines a clear warning on policy and administrators' role, with the request even at that late stage to change. He didn't; and within 48 hours I blocked him for clear and further edit war conduct [10], then just over 24 hours later again for his repeat of the same edits when his block expired [11].
  
  (Other examples showing my approach in this area, are linked on my "additional notes" page here)

But my own personal tendency as an administrator specifically used to heavy duty edit warriors is, if I don't see that potential interest in good editing, or nothing happens as a result, is to tend towards some form of final option - a topic ban, or restrictions plus escalating blocks as enforcement by the community, or (if they are dedicated warriors of no notable project benefit), then removal, because we're here to get content written, not to babysit warriors, and if I think that's best for the project, that'll likely be the stance I take. An edit warrior with bad faith (socks, inability to enter genuine discussion, etc) I'm much more likely to conclude is a problem than a plus.

Knowing I have that approach in some cases, I make sure to listen to others' thoughts, if someone considers a lesser remedy for serious edit warriors is needed, but in those cases that I've stated at arbcom a site or topic ban was appropriate, my assessment that they would not reform was accurate:

1. Ciz tried to come back as a sock a year after his topic ban. When I identified the sock and called him on this, he next tried edit warring on unconnected articles, necessitating my opening a second arb case to seek an extension of ruling to cover unconnected articles and other shortcomings in the original remedy. I drafted the amended remedy for Arbcom (2005), aiming to rule out his multiple problem areas but allow editing in other areas. After discussion and explanation of the need, it was adopted word for word by Arbcom. No further problems have been noted since.
2. HeadleyDown burned out the arbcom-appointed mentors and was finally banned... then community-banned as KrishnaVindaloo... then blocked as maypole, jeffrire, and many other reincarnations, and admitted in email to doing it [sock-vandalism wars] for "fun". Over a year later, I've blocked another four socks earlier this month (November 2007).
3. DPeterson, an unrepentant warrior to the last, evaded his arbcom year ban via an unblocked dormant account, to post personal attacks on his "opponents" talk pages, about their tax filings (of all things) and was community banned at ANI.

Arbcom remedies - Arbcom has several kinds of remedy:

1. Supervision of some kind - probations and supervised editing/mentorship are used where there is an intent to educate the user as they work, or positive work elsewhere. They require an assessment that this is an editor who does not understand, and if coached and watched may gain that understanding or "get the hang of it". It places them (or the article generally) under strict supervision in order that failure to do so can be addressed by administrators without delay.
2. Parole and editing restrictions - used as the term suggests, to inhibit problem actions whilst having minimal impact otherwise. These can be fairly flexible, being drafted them to suit individual cases, thus one might propose that a given process which has been abused (revert, AFD, RFC) may only be used to a limited extent, or with supervision... or that certain pages or sources of conflict are not to be edited upon... usually until decided otherwise, or until the user requests the condition be removed on the basis of subsequent good conduct.
3. Bans - which are the remedy most people think of first when arbcom is discussed. An editor is removed from the site, or from a topic or set of pages. Arbcom has set indefinite topic bans, but usually caps its site bans at a year. This isn't as loose as it seems; a returning edit warrior will rapidly find that their scope for warring is very limited (ANI and community ban took under a week for DPeterson, for example), or if they breach their arbcom ban, may find that the ban is reset or extended by the community to a community ban. Arbcom do not generally take it as their role to ban users permanently (possible extreme cases such as stalking aside).
4. Arbcom is not restricted in the types of remedy it may create, and can innovate remedies as it sees fit, in the best interest of the project. There may therefore at times be other types of remedy. The above are the most common.

Summing up - No one answer fits all warriors. There are a number of factors which direct how edit warriors are seen, including a large element of judgement and "reading between the lines", good faith where reasonable, and some hard nosed reality (we're here to write a project).

Arbcom must be willing to use any of the means in its armory. It must look carefully into the problem to ensure it really does understand the problem and has fairly assessed it, by using judgement to assess the nature of the war and those in it, their roles, and the remedies that might help. It must protect the project, which often means putting some form of protection in place such as probation, supervision, parole, topic bans, general conditions of editing... whatever it feels useful. A warrior who may make valuable contributions should be attempted to remove the problem editing without losing their positive input. An editor who can't change or refuses to, the burden may not be to any avail, and a ban may be appropriate.

The simple version when all said and done is that arbcom's choice of remedies is aimed at identifying the minimum measure that is likely to be needed to remove the problematic behaviors (with appropriate enforcement powers to address them), and making reform as likely as possible (if reform is deemed likely), whilst impacting as little as possible on any positive contributions that the user may make, or be capable of making, and giving the community a ruling that gains wide respect as well thought out.

My personal view on incivility (including personal attacks) is that I'm strongly against it. I've handled exceptionally virulent attack warriors and never found it necessary or indeed useful. Incivility and attacks are damaging to communal quality, and easily provoke some, dishearten or misrepresent others, and leads to escalation and bad atmosphere all round. It's also a serious breach of communal acceptable norms, not to be treated as trivial or minor. Further evidence of my stance on incivility and personal attack is on this post "Section break and outside view" on Swatjester's talk page (there had been a block of a known "difficult user", who responded with personal attack leading to an extension; I was asked to review it by another admin).

Editors aren't expected to be perfect or never have a bad week, or never be provoked. (Though personal attack is never acceptable.) Theres a range from curt, to bad faith, to snarky, through to vindictively nasty attacks, so there's a need for judgement how to handle each case. The aim is to avoid recurrence (rather than punishment) and protect the editing environment from the damage caused, which is the logic behind WP:NPA and WP:BLOCK endorsing appropriate use of blocks for these kinds of behaviors.

In general though, it is an unfortunate fact that incivility and attack do often repeat, so regardless of anything else and regardless of decisions in the present case, one should explain (or warn) the seriousness of it so they have a clear understanding where they may stand if it repeats.

Regarding incivility at Arbcom, I don't think Ive ever seen a user taken through DR and to arbcom for persistent "simple incivility" alone (though they have been blocked for it). Almost invariably it's turned into more problematic kinds of civility issue - edit warring, personal attack, bad faith and accusations, and so on. Arbcom regularly sanctions people who can't get the idea that you just don't do that here, with the twin aims of protecting the editing environment and hoping they will come to change their ways.

It's important though to check the circumstances; any attacks are "not okay" but some editors have otherwise good records and only end up at arbcom with attacks a factor because of (for example) some specific provocation, or because some bad-faith editor dug through their edits to find one or two that might be presented as incivility/attack. Others are almost professional provocateurs and tread the line to try and game the system. So one needs to check behind the dispute to get an idea what's really gone on. Sometimes one persons "attack" is another person's "assume good faith" (ie, a comment being taken the wrong way). But ultimately, if an editor is uncivil or the like, it's not okay.

How it's handled depends on circumstances. Some people are open to a ruling and probation; others will respond well to site or topic bans, (either short and escalating, or otherwise) ... some you simply block for an extended period, because their behavior indicates they are incorrigible, and (when they come back) if they repeat, let the community handle it thereafter. In general one tries to gauge the least thats needed to ensure the behavior doesn't happen, and if that means a site ban for a year, or a topic ban and mentorship for a month, or personal attack parole... case by case, best judgement. When the incivility was genuinely minor but clearly existed, it may be that it is noted as a finding ("X engaged in incivility [DIFF]") but no significant sanction ("X is cautioned to avoid incivility in future"). That way it's not over reacted but nor is it ignored.

I'd always ensure there's a clear "what if" to any ruling though -- what if they improve (when will it be lifted) and what if they don't (when do we escalate or just remove them, or can any administrator deal with it). And I'd try to ensure the ruling contained enough scope that the community could handle it from there on.

Established editors and conduct standards generally - Problem actions by established editors are always a matter to consider carefully. As well as the usual factors, there will also be concerns about neutrality of the decision both ways (including perceptions about the neutrality and rightness of the decision), concerns about the appropriateness of criticism (by those who feel established editors should be allowed to get on with the job or given more leeway), and also the risk of losing a proven valued contributor of much experience if they respond by leaving. Much of Wikipedia's content work is done by a relatively small number of editors and IPs (a few thousand perhaps according to some stats), and so in real terms, whilst nobody is indispensible, we do want to try where possible to keep established and productive editors engaged and not disillusioned.

However, there is a hard line there. We have clear standards, and ultimately these apply to all. Over the years Wikipedia has now existed, not one policy has gained a section that notes established users have more leeway to breach conduct norms or a lower standard to meet - clear evidence that this view has not gained communal endorsement. We might seek to discuss or work around problems of this kind, but if the established editor (sysop or not) cannot or will not get the point, or their actions seriously damage their (or the project's) credibility, then action may be needed. We have one set of standards, and at the end of the day they apply to all, without exception. An editor who performs actions that are problematic, will have a detrimental effect - and the spread of perception that we have double standards would have a much greater detrimental effect rippling out from that.

By contrast firm application of our standards to all sends the message that this is our communal norm, which we respect and support, and a number of other editors will often recognize or respect that. (Note: we do not decide cases to make an example; what is being referred to is that a fair and well judged case decision that re-affirms or enforces communal norms with clear even-handedness will get noticed and a proportion of others will also adapt their behavior positively or feel confident asserting these as norms themselves, if they see this happen.)

Sysops - Sysops are users who are trusted by the community to have access to the tools, and not abuse them. They have respect as experienced users, but no other special status, and in principle all users are expected or able to make judgements as sysops do (only lacking the tools to execute some of them). These are old principles and communal norms.

There have been many discussions concerning the desysopping of admins. RFA is listed at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals ("RFA is our most debated process and nearly everybody seems to think there's something wrong with it, literally years of discussion have yielded no consensus whatsoever") and desysopping is almost of the same status.

I wrote in my June 2006 RFA that the primary difference between administrators and non-administrator registered users was, an admin has far fewer excuses. Specifically also:

"An admin has (ideally) been round longer, seen more, demonstrated knowledge and sufficient awareness of policies and attitudes to bear some responsibility for exemplifying the spirit and practice of the project. An admin also has more ability to do wrong if they mess up, to cause problems if they let personality and strong emotions get in their way, and to set a bad role model, and fewer good excuses of ignorance or acceptability if they do so. An admin has also represented to others that as a long standing Wikipidean he/she will be trustworthy to represent Wikipedia and help with certain kinds of decision for the project and has been trusted that they will help (and not hinder the project) if given that trust. They have also made a commitment to nurture the project. A non admin *should* do the same, but has not made any such explicit and willful commitment to do so, nor is Wikipedia at such risk if they don't, and therefore may have more rope. Another answer might be - although both are (ideally) trusted and competent, the minimum level of trustworthiness and competence is higher for the admin. And focussing on the role rather than the authorization, might be - a non-admin is on Wikipedia for the fun of editing and contributing. An admin is there for that reason, but also performs a function, which may involve mundane or a share of "chores", extra jobs as well as 'fun'." [Wording unchanged; slightly condensed]

Ultimately, all admins should enjoy a high level of communal confidence. Having earned it once does not protect against its loss later; it sets a presumption that the admin is doing the job well, but if there are visible serious problems or concerns, especially amongst their peers, then that is a serious concern.

General conduct of sysops - In terms of general conduct, administrators are not only judged on their trust with the tools. They must also have communal confidence, and the damage they can do by even ordinary misconduct (ie, not involving the tools) is potentially worse since administrators may be seen by users as representing Wikipedia and its communal stances and approaches, in ways that non-administrators are not. (See RFA statement above.) Thus an administrator who regularly engages in edit warring or personal attacks, and keeps on doing it (ie, despite warning or ANI discussion), may ultimately end up cautioned, suspended or losing their sysophood for this, despite the fact these actions do not actually reflect at all upon their tool use.

When the question of sysop conduct, and expectations of sysops has been considered by Arbcom, the committee has repeatedly ruled each time that administrators act as role models and will be expected to demonstrate a higher level of conduct ^{1  2  3}. These rulings contain details of some of the expectations that apply to editors the community has approved to be sysops.

Reasons sysops end up being considered for desysopping - The common reasons would seem to cover issues such as:

1. Misuse of tools (deletion, protection, blocking in clearly improper circumstances)
2. Breach of basic policies (attacks, edit warring, biting/civility, privacy, etc)
3. Repeated/consistent poor judgement
4. Wheel warring
5. Failure to communicate ^{(Eg: 4)} - this can be either to users (eg lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).
6. 'Bad faith' adminship (sock use, good hand/bad hand, gross breach of trust ^[12], etc)
7. Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off site attacking, etc)

Other factors that are not in themselves reasons, but contribute to the matter might include 1/ serious loss of confidence or trust, 2/ patterns of repetition or ongoing problems, and 3/ precedent states that administrators are expected to act to a high standard. (A factor in the other direction is that admins - like all editors - are not expected to be perfect, or never to make mistakes.)

Remedies and handling - Some of these are sufficiently serious that it is almost impossible to be an administrator if they are discovered. If this is not the case, then the case focuses on avoiding repetition. The principle is the same as for all arbcom cases - to keep if possible as much of the positive work, whilst removing the problems.

Admins are assumed to be able to listen, and take advice. So the default is that in all but serious cases, correction is sought. Three levels of handling of specific relevance to admins exist:

1. Cautioning - the matter is noted but no specific action taken at this time.
2. Suspension - a tangible sanction that is in a way, equivalent to blocking, in that it removes certain trusted access for a time. It sends a clear message that the conduct is firmly not acceptable, but also the message that although serious, the episode is over and closed once the remedy is complete (and that the admin is expected to change or loss of sysophood is likely).
3. Desysopping - used for conduct that is sufficiently of concern that it is incompatible with the retaining of the trust and credibility needed to be an administrator. Examples might include serious cases of: repetition or a pattern of ongoing problem conduct (especially if the subject of past formal notice at RFAR, RFC, ANI etc), bad faith actions (eg using tools for own benefit/agenda, forbidden sockpuppetry), and cases which would merit suspension but due to the specifics of the case or other factors present, is felt this is not adequate.

All administrators make positive contributions. The principle of balancing the keeping of positive contributions with removing the harmful ones, is broadly as stated above for edit warriors. We try ideally to retain their good input, and avoid their bad input. Warning (including caution or suspension) is usually an effective remedy, if it's going to work and is reasonable in the circumstances.

Wheel warring - Special attention is drawn to wheel warring. In many cases wheel warring is a once-off event for the admin in question. It is probably in most cases likely to be responsive to suspension, and/or caution that loss will occur if it should repeat. However in practice it quite often meets with direct desysopping, mainly due to its serious effect on the community, and its status as a highly forbidden act amongst administrators.

Note: - A factor not mentioned in the question covers conditions and processes (if any) to be followed for re-sysopping.

Arbcom needs to balance two things.

1. First, it should by and large respect the decision of the community, in forum, to decide on most matters. A community ban will often be based on a presentation and discussion at ANI, and are the prerogative of the community. To underline this, Arbcom itself limits its site ban rulings to one year only (exceptional circumstances aside). So the default is that where a ban is reasonable and plausible, the community's decision to act accordingly should be respected.
2. Second, Arbcom is (in effect) the place of final appeal. It should be open to addressing the cases where for whatever reason, natural justice, good faith, or the best interests of the project have not been met, or a defect in the discussion, relevant evidence or other factors mean that the ban has grounds for requesting to be reviewed. (A user cut off at arbcom has no other route to be heard except hoping some lone administrator will listen and take up their case. So rejection's a serious matter.)

There are a few cases where I think it's likely Arbcom should accept to review the ban, for example:

• The case was old, and the user may have changed, or states credibly that they wish to retry. We have a long standing communal view that nobody is incapable of change.
• There is evidence that suggests the ban, or events that led to the ban, or individuals 'pushing' for the ban, were not in fact balanced and fair. For example, sadly, we have had cases where an administrator has a grudge, and manouevered a problematic user to appear worse than they might have done.
• When there is little previous review, or the track record does not seem to fully support a ban. Some ANI cases, the user has a long track record to be examined, others there is almost no evidence except a few people's opinions.
• When the quality of consensus seems doubtful (very few people, not much relevant discussion, apathy at ANI, etc).
• When the evidence seems to suggest there was error or ambiguity, unduely negative assumptions, "pile-on" views or emotionality, or other exceptional circumstances, such that a review would be seen as fair.

In general a post that contains direct evidence that can immediately be confirmed to show "something questionable" was up with the ban, or a user with little prior record of concern, will stand more chance than (say) a user who has been at ANI several times and was banned a week ago for visible edit warring. Generally a ban should be easy to check if it's well founded, or if there is doubt, due to the discussion that should have gone on or other evidence that exists.

Arbcom should always be open to considering whether a case merits review, and importantly, if it rejects it, a very clear explanation of their rationale should be given. This is essential (and merits the time taken) since rejection by arbcom effectively closes the matter, and a user deserves the basis to be stated so that there is no doubt to the community or them, why this was felt right and what perceptions were relied upon in the decision.

Last, since community bans are creations of the community, I feel that there is a good case that where the user would get a fair hearing at ANI and ANI does not seem to be hostile to the idea (such as the first example above), Arbcom's role might be limited to considering the matter, deciding if it's fair to be heard as far as they are concerned, gaining agreement for unblocking for the sole purpose of discussion - and then direct them to ANI (which originally placed the ban) to have the matter reviewed by the community.

In general, where the community is capable of handling, and likely to handle, a matter fairly (or would do so with some initial guidance) then the community should do so. Arbcom is more for ensuring best handling of difficult exceptions where that might not be the case.

I've commented on the Allegations of apartheid case ( (3) above). This was not a case that the case was dropped because the issue was no longer current; rather to judge by the RFAR proposed decision and closure, it was a case that had been mismanaged and was dropped finally because 1/ arbcom still couldn't decide what to find or say, and 2/ the matter seemed to be dying down after the nearly 3 months of no result at arbcom and could therefore be abandoned.

I try as a rule not to be rough and I may not know the whole story, but part of arbitration is to be honest with integrity. I feel this case was mismanaged and should not have gone as it did. So in a way I'm not sure what to say on this question, except.... case mismanagement and the failure to see the issue clearly, really only have one answer - learn from it, and don't do it again. I'm not sure how the first of those cases ended up as it did; the second of them may have more reason.

If it happens again... there are some basics that count:

1. Examine the conflict in depth, as a participant would. It takes time, I know this having done it many times. Sometimes it is the only way you get a good summary that everyone uninvolved can agree upon as a solid foundation for considering the issues and actions which took place, fairly.
2. Start with basics, and note the principles and main findings. This is possible in any case.
3. If the case truly is a problem, discuss it more and consider seeking wider views.
4. If there is still a problem, say so, and consider what is needed to at least help to address it. Don't make the community wait months, or have nothing back. Give some tools, some ruling, some help. No other group on the wiki can give a unilateral direction if there's a problem, and so arbcom needs to find a way on these to help the community if the community asks help.
5. If "do nothing" is right, then do nothing - but be clear why.
6. Be responsive and visibly active. It's easier to wait, and easier to bear a partial or disappointing ruling, if there's a degree of communication (which does not mean prematurely stating views!) rather than silence. Even just the act of posting proposals and support/oppose, signifies to a party that it's not forgotten; the arbitrators are thinking about it.

One further possibility that I haven't seen discussed or used, but might be useful, is also:

Ask for more and better evidence covering the point in question. The fact that we have an Arbitration Committee does not mean they will never need to ask the community if they feel more views on some point would be useful. This kind of situation doesn't happen often (and probably shouldn't really happen at all), but when it does, perhaps that's an option that might be discussed. Note that arbcom would value further evidence and outside views on the following, and see what happens. We're a community: the aim of arbitration is to accept evidence and make good decisions; it's not a court of law which is limited to what parties choose to present. Sometimes in the most exceptional cases, if the alternative is to fail to reach a useful conclusion, arbcom might consider (as an exception) stating that it would find further evidence or additional views on specific aspects, posted at /Evidence, helpful to a difficult case.

Case management - I don't think "all cases" is essential. There are many good reasons an arbitrator may not be involved in all cases, and good reasons (from a planning point of view) why we certainly should not assume that all will be. Obvious examples:

• Extended vacations (3 week holiday?)
• Medical or domestic issues (Broken leg? Marriage? House moving? Exam season?)
• Work (Year end? System upgrade? Short term secondment with poor connectivity? Travel?)
• Pacing oneself (an arbitrator may make the very sensible decision that it's better to take a month or two away from active involvement or step back to give advice but not be so involved at some point, than "burn out" or "fade")

The question also implies a look at how arbcom works. For example:

• Some arbitrators may do more of the work on one case for their peers. All arbitrators should be able to examine evidence and draft proposals, but on each case, not everyone needs to do this, or there would be significant overlap.
• In general no specific number of arbitrators are needed for a case; we empanel enough to hopefully ensure that all cases will be heard by a good number and when some fade a bit, the process is still viable.
• A fair bit of arbcom work comprises additional matters via email, and is not in fact "RFAR activity". So it is important to be aware that an arbitrator's visible activity may not match their actual activity. In general though, activity is measured by case involvement, as evidenced by posts, views, proposals and decisions stated on-wiki.

Opinion-forming and decision-making is a task which arbitrators cannot ask others to do for them - The bottom line, I think, is that what arbitrators are each needed for, is their view on the case. It might be enough if one arbitrator reviews some aspect of the evidence and summarizes it for the others to check, or one does the drafting (if done well). But each arbitrator who puts their name to a case proposal is certifying that on their own checking of the facts, they independently concur with that finding. Not that they have " rubber stamped" someone elses word on it, but that they themselves can on their own cognisance, endorse it as fair and accurate ( if a principle or finding) or appropriate and best (if a remedy). That is the crucial step that cannot be delegated by any arbitrator, to any other person. Anything else in principle, can be. They can decline to comment, recuse, and it's fine. They can ask others to sum up the evidence or check what user logs show, and its viable.

But they cannot ever certify a proposal as support/oppose/neutral unless themselves they have taken whatever steps are needed to ensure that they find themselves confident of it, independently, adding whatever caveats and observations they may have as a result of their work. (Otherwise we would have <N> parrots, not <N> arbitrators.)

Activity in all cases - Arbitrators have taken on a huge load, and should be prepared to carry out that responsibility if appointed. This doesn't necessarily mean doing all the work on each case, but it does probably mean shouldering a fair share of the burden, arbitration work on all or most cases save for clear periods of absence, aiming to provide long term service, and enough independent review of each case they are active on to determine independently their views, make proposals, discuss remedies, with insight and care.

They are also human, and will have periods of less activity, or none, for various reasons over time, and arbcom should be able to handle this. Usual courtesies should apply (discussing, letting others on the committee know up front, etc). If they are absent an extended period then extra measures should be considered, such as appointing an additional (or interim) arbitrator to cover their place, until they can reliably come back

(Detailed proposals covering "interim arbitrators", such as a "pool" of substitutes, have been discussed in the last while, but no formal proposal is yet confirmed; Jimmy Wales' ad-hoc appointments as he himself comments, have not worked well).

Summing up - As a result of the above I think the answer goes something like this: arbitration is a tough and demanding job, but it is what was signed up for and for the foreseeable future, we need people of suitable qualities willing to do it. It's preferable to have reliably engaged arbitrators who act responsibly and take defined periods off or a "back seat" which the committee knows about (or self-manage and sit in at the proposals and decisions stages or offer insight and such when real life is busy) than unreliable and patchy arbitrators, or burning out ones. Arbitration is a responsibility and we count on it communally; if the editor can't do it for a time, or faces disruption to their ability to give it fair attention, then I'd expect them to proactively handle this, manage their life, let people know as best possible whats up, and co-operate in helping the arbitration process and case handling be disrupted as minimally as possible. if it's a recurring or longer term problem I'd expect them to say so up front, and allow arbcom to begin taking steps to consider how to address it.

Note: I'm taking the question to mean "Should active arbitrators be expected to comment on workshop pages, and on arbcom discussion pages".

Short answer - Indeed. I'd like to see arbitrators generally doing more of that. Although the arbitrators' primary job is to actually address and resolve the case, posts placed by users on these pages express communal or individual concerns, views, proposals and feelings, and a response can be genuinely helpful and reassuring to parties. Arb cases are stressful for participants. A well-placed comment at the right time, and where genuinely useful, can help user discussion, which may reduce stress, and benefit parties and the editing environment. It is not time consuming or unreasonable to do so.

Purpose of workshop and discussion pages - The /Workshop pages are a bit of an unusual item; they function as a structured approach for participants to attempt to set out their views on the case and its handling in the same manner that arbcom itself would. They allow anybody in the community to set out proposals, and test the response, but they do not actually (in and of themselves) usually form the backbone of a proposed or final ruling. In general Arbcom decide those based on their own discussion and experience.

The name "workshop" is well given; they provide a venue for parties to trial their own ideas, which may or may not be used by Arbcom. These pages in general also provide a venue for individual parties to show their good or bad qualities more clearly, and as parties are warned, ' mooning the jury' and conduct during the arbitration itself are taken into account. Sometimes, in the well defined editing space of the RFAR subpages, they can provide the clearest quick indication available of which users are acting in what ways, and where the problem is, in a complex dispute.

Arbitration talk pages serve a similar purpose but for general case discussion, questions, non-evidence comments, etc. Whilst arbitrators time should not be taken up with endless lawyering or other re-enactments of the dispute which led to arbcom, when genuine reasonable questions are asked, they should be noticed by more than the same one or two arbitrators and more quickly responded to. Again, it's the visible evidence of arbcom being on the case, which will benefit those waiting for a ruling in these serious cases. A concern that users are talking into a vacuum for 4 - 12 weeks (as seems to have happened in some cases), or that key points are being overlooked in the draft proposals with no confirmation that it's actually okay or the point of concern has been taken into account (as has happened in others), is hard to see as a good working practice or helpful to an already stressed set of editors. We can always say to any matter, "Arbcom is aware of this concern and will comment after the case if still needed". It's obvious, but sometimes good for participants to hear.

Spirit behind these pages - The spirit behind these pages, and the principles involved, are important:

1. Communication by and with arbitrators is helpful
2. Feedback by arbitrators is also helpful. (Arbcom cases aren't a one way street.)
3. A structured forum for parties to have involvement beyond the strict discipline of the /Evidence page may be useful
4. The educative element for users of being able to approach a case as arbcom would, in /Workshop, has value
5. Comments, questions, and new perspectives and evidence may come up in discussion, which provide extra insight on the case, or on shortcomings in the proposed handling
6. Parties who see a variety of arbcom members responding actively on these pages will feel reassured that the case is being progressed, and will feel they may have some sense how certain aspects are being seen and where the case will end up, which reduces stress
7. Arbcom members who see parties responding on these pages will gain extra insight into the users, their patterns of conduct, and the dispute.

Mix of uses - It should be noted these pages are often a mix of genuine productive discussion, and forum ranting/debating. Arbcom cases often come with heated feelings; sometimes users are best simply allowed to talk these out while arbcom gets on with the real work of resolving and ruling on the case. There is a need to discriminate between useful and non-useful comments. But either way users should not be left in doubt that arbcom are aware. A simple comment "We are aware, thanks" might be all that's needed to address such a need.

Summary - Communication is important. The demonstration that arbcom members are active and forming views on the matters is valued by and very meaningful to participants. Arbcom members should seek to be visibly active on all or most cases they are active. It's usually easy, and if they are examining the case they will clearly have initial views on basic matters already. An appropriate comment on a talk page or at /Workshop might be stating the obvious, but even if they are "just comments", they can and do have a reassurance factor that's separate from any post at /Proposed or Final decision. Stress reduction is a Good Thing in and of itself, even if none of the /Workshop proposals were to be used in /Proposed decision.

Caveats -

1. The main caveat I can think of is that /Workshop is not the same as /Proposed decision: arbitrators comments are valuable, but they should be wary of appearing to vote on proposals there, or taking a premature stance on the matter. If a proposal has merit, it can always be moved to /proposed decision and formally voted there. There is a limit on what arbitrators can say without over-commenting on the case in hand, and too much risk of being seen as biased if parties proposals and viewpoints are perceived as being directly voted on by arbcom. But a note that they will comment on this or that point after the case is concluded, will achieve the positive impact and reassurance, and probably be seen as fair, without prejudicing the case itself.
2. If an arbitrator is visibly active on the /Proposed or Final decision, and no comment is needed on the other pages, then the aims of communication and visible activity are also probably going to be served, so far as case participants are concerned.

This answer is long-ish, and one I'd rework many times to get the right "feel", given the chance - it's hard to know if I've really done it justice or given the impression I mean to. If not, I apologize.

Note: A couple of recent cases focused strongly on some of these issues. Since even Arbcom does not consider itself bound by its own past decisions and are learning too, I feel it's more likely to be helpful to look at established communal norms, trends and significant perspectives, than just one case. There may be other questions before it's all transparent.

• Short answer - no. Incivility is never okay.
• Long answer - But the community has many ways to handle incivility when it happens, which regularly results in different handling depending on the circumstances and user. Part of good judgement is in deciding how to address such disputes.

New or experienced users - Wikipedia is a complex community. We encourage inexperienced, young or new editors and support their learning of our ways and goals. We protect them with policies specific to newcomers and a communal assumption of good faith, and when they make the inevitable mistake of edit or conduct, we have communal traditions of helping, explaining and warning, where possible.

But these new editors in turn must understand we have a goal here, and accept and adopt guidance and communal norms, and work constructively with existing members. Some new users are exceptionally good at their work, equally others have much to learn of our approach. The more naive or inexperienced users can be doing their best, and yet still cause serious damage and frustration; indeed, we lose many very good editors due to the collective impact of well-meaning but naive editors (often impassioned, or young, or who see Wikipedia as a "personal stance" forum) who don't know their present limits, or cannot easily adapt to our approaches, norms and goals. And unfortunately, there also exist newcomers who tend towards the provocative or disruptive as well. Even in good faith, a " green cheese" debate can be intensely frustrating to any productive person.

Likewise, experienced editors may be (and often are) very helpful and patient. Equally some may be impatient or incivil at times, especially with people they identify as disruptive or problematic, and especially if the experienced user themselves has a tendency towards "envelope pushing" as well.

In general, respect is given to all users, and included in that, to established productive users. They dont get a free pass, but we are all here to do a job, and people doing that job may well expect to be able to add and improve high quality content without obviously unconstructive disruption.

The priority of any handling (of any dispute or disruptive situation) is to keep good activities, remove problematic ones, and prevent future disruption. A user who has a long track record is in a different place from a user who has none. There is more context and history to assess the nature of their behavior and what it may signify (if it is out of character, provoked, or habitual). Ultimately the same standards apply to both, and for gross breach both will be expected to change forthwith (or may be sanctioned for serious matters). But if there is no pattern of misconduct, or the matter was relatively minor, then there is the possibility to assess that an experienced user is acting out of character or will not repeat, whereas for a new user with less track record the same assumption would be less certain and the possibility of repetition may be greater.

Typical scenarios - As well as the "good faith but problematic newcomer" scenario mentioned above, one other noteworthy scenario that's seen from time to time goes something like this:

"A user writes great content, has many featured articles or positive edits, adds many pictures, has done a huge amount of work for many years, and is well liked by a wide range of people. (Or is a respected admin and does a lot of positive work that way.) Unfortunately they also have a short fuze, and at times sidestep current norms, bite other editors (whether good or problem ones), described them disparagingly, blatently ignored their views, made negative assumption rather than good faith, or edit warred (3RR etc) when disagreed with.

"Some see a problem. Others feel they shouldn't be picked up on speaking as they feel to users who are difficult anyway (or should handle it) and should be given a reasonable free hand to just get on with their productive work without distractions of this kind."

Prior answers - Similar or related questions have come up before ( 5, 6, 7):

A user who is genuinely both problematic in conduct, and positive in contributions, has a mixed effect. They add encyclopedic content, and also deter others from doing so. They improve the quality standard of the community and contribute profoundly, and degrade its environment for others in a way that ripples out or may be seen as normative.

Indispensibility of editors - 7 years ago, not one editor existed. If any editor vanished, then we would mourn the loss but the preoject would not come to an end and with time, the gap would be filled. In a communal project, no one user is indispensible. (What does matter though is that the editorial environment does not lead to a problematic drain of good editors.)

That said (to self-quote), much of Wikipedia's content work is done by a relatively small number of editors and IPs (a few thousand perhaps according to some stats), and so in real terms, whilst nobody is indispensible, we do want to try where possible to keep established and productive editors engaged and not disillusioned.

Mainstream views - In general, there are two established communal views:

• View #1 is that all editors are equal. Under this view, problems caused by an established editor are as much of a problem as those caused by a newcomer (or even more untenable), because the user knows the ropes and norms, is experienced, knows (or should know) the harm they do, and knows the ripples, stress, and extra workload it causes, and yet chooses to persist.

• View #2 is that users who are productive creators of content have 'always' been given more leeway than those who are not (or should be). Under this view, we are here to write content, and people who cannot or will not work productively ("trolls") are a mere drain on patience and resources, compared to those proven to do so. A productive editor who speaks their mind is still a productive editor.

Both views have many adherents.

In practice these views overlap. Crucially, it's not an "either/or". For example most editors who adhere to view #1 would still discuss and seek resolution with established users, in some cases where they'd give less patience to a user who is not established making the same uncivil or disruptive comments (eg borderline envelope pushing). And in a similar vein, most editors who adhere to view #2 would draw a line at some point and take action if an editor's actions got serious enough (the question being more 'where to draw the line' than 'whether to draw one').

Guiding principle and resolution - The guiding principle behind both (to re-iterate from previous answers) is always to keep the good work, balancing the keeping of positive contributions with removal of harmful ones, and to act in a way that furthers the benefit of the project. The question can therefore be rephrased rather more usefully, like this:

When is it right to best benefit the project by allowing a productive editor to add content, at the cost of disheartening a number of others from doing so (or changing the communal environment negatively), and When is it right to best benefit the project by reaffirming communal standards of conduct that encourage editors generally, at the cost of dissuading specific productive Wikipedians?

Each person will have a different answer to that one, but it's a perspective that may be more amenable to resolution than the original one.

Parallel in 'real life' - This question parallels the classic management question of task v. people orientation. The classic answer is both are needed: - the long term quality of the project is risked if we place the task too high above the relationships and allow a perception that good contributions justify any behavior... and the quality is also risked if we place the relationships too high above the task and completely ignore the productive work being done.

Unsurprising since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (task and output) made possible by a community (relationships and editorial environment), both are crucial.

Whilst either approach can work well in the short term, good long term results require both, not just one. Noteably, whether online or in "real life", a focus on results only at the cost of ignoring the cultural effect is unsustainable, and usually leads to failure long term anyhow.

Community consensus - There is strong precedent that Arbcom and individual arbcom members have expressed a view that higher standards are expected of (for example) administrators. See (7) above for clear and multiple examples. But for the general case of experienced users rather than admins, there is also an indication that major exceptions are not made for established users (although a longer history of ongoing conduct may occur before anything more than talk happens), and that user parity is important.

For example, over the years Wikipedia has now existed, not one policy related to any conduct matter has ever gained a section or even a footnote that notes established users have more leeway to breach conduct norms or a lower standard to meet - clear evidence that this view may be somewhat widespread, but has not in fact gained communal endorsement. Instead, policies such as WP:NPA suggest that what has been accepted as consensus is that behaviors such as disparaging comments and personal attacks are seen as harmful and aren't ever acceptable.

The community is still noticeably reluctant or divided about how to tackle this question, and when established editors' conduct is raised as problematic on some occasion, in many cases nothing significant has happened beyond talk, for quite a long time. Thus what is actually evidenced is a communal principle that such conduct is never to be allowed, combined with a communal hesitancy to "dive in" without consideration. The combination is worth noting.

Personal views - As is well evidenced, I have been fairly willing to disagree with a view that some class of users get automatic preferential rights to act poorly and breach norms, via a double standard. In essence, one standard for all seems the expectation to me.

That's for many reasons. In general, it's difficult to find a good justification that an offensive comment, attack, sarcastic retort, or harmful accusation, somehow will become any less damaging to the community because it's posted by (say) an established editor of 5000 edits, than a newcomer of 50. In fact it may be more so - the established user carries weight in their view, and what they say may be more widely attended to (or in some cases, perhaps role modelled), they can play the system or count on support if they choose and know how to do so to better effect, they can make others look worse than they might fairly be, and so on.

There is also the tendency for large communities to develop cliques and hierachies, and a problematic clique would would be highly damaging to the activity, community and perception of the project - it's a major "negative" perception and issue. A common feature of such cliques is that some people are perceived to be "abiove the norms" - they can breach norms and not be expected to change or be questioned. Unlike previous examples, this is not a valid reason to treat people differently. We give established editors some leeway because it's for the best for the project, and because judgement says it may be sufficient, not because of some clique within which criticism is somehow not allowed.

Also, crucially, some editors receiving incivility may be valid present or future contributors who simply have different views, or tried to help and got backlashed, or have thin skins. Not every contributor can handle insults without retorting back. I'm not willing to dismiss this and say "that's just their problem".

Example - However, given that good conduct is required, how that good behavior is obtained may differ. The aim is always to benefit the project, and in some cases, this requires careful thought. I tend to try resolution before blocks and sanctions, and as a rule, established users can be reasoned with.

By way of example, a new user who breaches 3RR over a content issue will almost without fail (and uncontroversially) be blocked under that policy, for the incident. The purpose is not punishment; it is to firmly deter one type of edit warring. A few months ago, a respected editor breached 3RR in a matter that's still well remembered (no names, the case is discussed in general only). What action then, will best help the project in future? Two themes came up in discussion:

• Block? - but to what purpose? The user knew the matter, it is unlikely to influence their future choices, they are confirmed not a regular edit warrior (!)... would blocking actually be of any help? Would it cause them to realize that norms really did apply to them too? Or would it be a case of just trying to make a point?

• Don't block? (Overlook) - but with what example being set? Can we demand users not edit war then allow a respected administrator to freely do so, in a way that communal norms specify is never, ever okay, and do nothing?

In fact what I opted for was that the best interest of the project was to ask them to confirm it wouldn't happen again, and to explain that if it did, action might happen (because if it were ongoing, this would be a problem). That is not a means of handling within 3RR, but in my judgement it was the action most likely to resolve the concerns for the future. There was no reply, but I have no doubt the view was read, and the behavior for whatever reasons, has not repeated. If it did, then maybe a different decision would happen, but I lack a crystal ball to know that for sure.

Footnote: stance of Jimmy Wales - I have not sought to rely on the words of Jimmy Wales on this subject, although he has spoken about it. More on that here...

Argumentum ad Jimbum is an approach that has its supporters and detractors. I am going to forego this view on this occasion, since

1. The community seems able to solve problems and make up its own mind in many cases,
2. The community gains benefit by having to make up its own mind, even if this is difficult and heated at times (parallels how sometimes good NPOV articles can result from argument by editors with strong views), and
3. It would be fairly disturbing and a sign of poor operation of our dispute handling processes if arbitrators (15 of our most experienced dispute handling editors out of many thousands) were still unable to make up their own minds on cases without relying on "Jimbo said".

In simple terms, I think we're more than able to learn as a community how we want to run in order to best produce encyclopedic content, and if not, we should be :) It is in this community's long term interest to do so.

If Jimmy acts, so be it and that is his complete prerogative. But where Jimmy has not chosen to act with executive rights, the discussion is best resolved by reference to our established norms and process, and if that's a difficult call sometimes - that's what Arbcom are there for. Ultimately, the Wikipedia community is almost entirely self-governing now, in almost every way, and that means Committee members must be able and willing to play their role in its operation by actually making - and standing by - their own decisions on the conducts that reach Arbitration. That's commonsense.

That said, for those who do want insight into Jimmy's view, his stated stance has consistently been - roughly speaking - that

1. Editing is a privilege not a right, and earned by good conduct,
2. A congenial editing environment based on civility is crucial (words such as "sincere loving good behavior in and out" have been used), but
3. Editors who genuinely and habitually engage in disruptive behavior should be expected to change or depart, even if their encyclopedic work is otherwise very productive.

He has also stipulated that should he and Arbcom disagree in certain cases (bans in this instance), then Arbcom's view will be deferred to.

See (6) above, which covers incivility in more depth.

It's a well established principle both from policy and arbcom practice, to everyday editorial conduct norms and admin handling, that preventing people from performing disruptive activity and dampening behavior that inflames and disrupts, are legitimate uses of blocking policy to protect the project from risk of harm. Even for incivility there is strong precedent that a block is protective, for example this block decline by a current arbcom member, stating (to another editor):

"You were indeed warned to be civil; you chose to ignore the warnings. Preventing you from being incivil for 24 hours is a legitimate block".

The protective use of blocks, and the damage caused by persistent incivility not being inhibited, is emphasized and re-emphasized in policy pages and community norms.

And so, the question. My first thought is, in principle yes, but it's not the same. 3RR is factual, anyone can test it. It's ideal for a bright line rule. Civility is interpreted. One person's civility or incivility, is another's misunderstanding, or humor that backfired, or cultural difference, or curtness, or terse "fed up" comment. We need to therefore be a lot more careful about how we handle incivility, since unlike 3RR, in many cases it has a very significant interpretation element.

In other words, the point where style of speech touches upon "incivility" is probably much more open to individual interpretation compared to reverts (which are pretty much readily agreeable by all) -- there may be no such thing as "obvious incivility" we can expect everyone to agree upon.

One obvious answer is to be stricter regardless, and block much more readily for incivility. The difficulty with that is, it's valid for handling certain kinds of conflict and edit war. It is useful to deter, protect (by prevention), and get attention that a continuing behavior is not acceptable when nothing else works. It's also a low burden to apply, and taken seriously. So it can be both attractive and effective as a solution. But used generally and without careful forethought, we'd risk becoming "block-happy" and building resentment. Witness the effect of firm enforcement of copyright and fair use on images, where users who run bots that enforce a reasonable policy very strictly, actually build up resentment that's counterproductive. We don't really want admins to become "policemen" as such; our communal structure aims more for "editors who help" than "editors who indict". Their symbol is the mop, not the gun. So I think block-happy is a symptom we want to avoid.

Another problem is that civility goes hand in hand with " assume good faith" - it's much harder to procure more civil behavior without also being more willing to ask and assume good faith instead of bad faith, and perhaps, mentor and explain on occasion.

In addition (as noted at (16)), an attempt to clamp down on incivility, seems merely to have led to the development of more civil edit warriors in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 clarification case. According to one comment, all we have allegedly achieved there, is that our nationalist edit warriors are merely trained to be more civil when they edit war(!)

So we're aiming for education and deterrence, but at the same time we want to be firm in some cases, and coax good behavior in others. I've used all of those at times - no one solution works in all situations. Warnings will be a definite component of the answer too, but so at times will other measures such as supervized editing, parole, mentoring, perhaps. Perhaps the best result of a stricter policy would be to foster a change of attitude concerning incivility, as 3RR has changed editorial attitudes to repeated reverting.

That said, there's no reason in practice why we can't have some kind of summary "3CR" type of approach, paralleling 3RR, and leave it to individuals (as at present) to identify what they consider incivilities. But unlikely a 24 hour timeframe would be so useful. We could probably be quite a bit more tight on "obvious incivility" before problems of misunderstanding arise, since we're fairly easygoing right now. We do want to take incivility seriously, and 3RR has been very effective in creating "zero tolerance" for extended revert warring. But I'd want to see more discussion on the ways we might do that if it went further. The tighter you are on incivility, the more one must consider the risk of summarily deeming incivil comments that weren't intended that way. That's a problem that doesn't exist in 3RR. Incivility is a different kind of problem, and needs careful thought to ensure fairness and consensus on any measure agreed.

I don't know if it counts as 'proud', but the following list is a sample of recent article work from July - October 2007.

1. It is not a complete list.
2. The aim of the items listed was not FA standard but "a strong enough standard to be encyclopedic and solidly written".
3. Items in bold were authored or close to rewritten.
4. Details and diffs in detailed (collapsible) table below

Summary

I've answered (or will shortly answer) a fair bit of the "how should Arbcom look at administrators and should they treat them differently to non-administrators" ( above (7) and - when posted - (12)).

I may well expand this but it's likely to be well covered by other questions already answered.

Take a look, and if you want me to expand on any part of that comment, do let me know, I'll be glad to :)

Why are nationalism disputes an issue - I could speculate several suggestions 'why':

1. The more people are invested in a stance on a matter, the more you'd proportionatelty expect to see them here (or on any forum). There are typically tens of millions of people in nationalism disputes. And they are already fighting without quarter for their view to win everywhere else, and on all other media. (Ditto religious disputes, territorial disputes, and so on)
2. A lot of the groups involved in such issues are relatively new. Many of these states and groups only gained a public voice in the last while (historically) and many are still gaining it, or harbor historic grudges. The need to massively demonstrate "I am here!" is non-trivial.
3. A lot of cultures and groups have little familiarity with concepts akin to NPOV. "Own point of view" is the norm, and in many places much more strongly than others. I suspect culturally that view is stronger in many ethnic dispute areas.
4. The "pile-on" factor, flavor of the month, and a bit of flash mob effect. Once word spreads, interested parties attend.
5. The usual logic "they'll find something else if ignored" doesn't work so well, when a number of the people involved have one core focus (their group's representation to the world), so the usual disippation of focus, drifting, "move on to something new" doesn't happen so easily. Some drift, but if you're into your Latvian/Estonian ancestry and ethnicity dispute, or Palestinian/Israeli dispute, or Greater Armenia, then no, you stay round to fight for it against all those who are doing the same basically, on the other side.

I do think that nationalist disputes are a phase. We'll handle them, because we'll learn how we want to handle them; then it'll be something else. Some will linger (see "perrenial edit wars") but things change, and I expect this one eventually will too. In the end, though, it doesn't matter "why". It happens, we need to address it.

Principles of handling - Treatment proposals vary as widely as people. The basic principles described in other questions (eg, #(5) edit warriors, #(6) uncivil editors, #(7) use of desysopping and #(12) should some editors be considered 'more equal' than others?) hold, and it's important to recount those before addressing such a heated area, lest we overlook them by accident:

1. All editors capable of working productively with others (and not doing harm) are welcome to edit.
2. Many of our stable neutral articles got there due to strong views hammered out the hard way, and lessons learned. As well as articles, entire processes, adaptations, and approaches emerge from difficult problems. (Wikipedia is a learning community, we expect to have problems, that's how we learn, if we're good at it.)
3. Core communal conduct norms (No personal attacks, no edit warring, etc) are ultimately, like NPOV, non-negotiable. We expect civility, good-faith actions, non sock use, no attacks, working with others collaboratively, respecting others even if views differ, and so on, and editors who consistently can't get these ideas (despite all our efforts to help) may not ultimately have a place here any more than those who can't get the hang of NPOV.
4. Before diving into extremes, we try and accomodate, and we try to keep and encourage the good, whilst deterring the bad. We already have a great toolbox of ways to help this happen.

In addition it's important to remember, we can freely innovate.

Handling these disputes - What seems to me is the case is, we have the tools we need; we may not yet have worked out a consensus on using them and editing within these kind of disputes. They are part of a more general group, perennial edit wars, which we need to consider how we'll address in future. It's unrealistic at present to try and have a credible article that reacts like a snake held by head and tail, and hope it to lie still. We have a wide range of perennial edit wars, a number of which predate the nationalism ones, and rather than focus on the nationalism ones only, it is better to look at a solution to the kind of article that inherently will attract dedicated warriors, and ask how that kind of article can be brought into line, given stability, good editorship, neutrality, collaboration, even though we know it will attract this kind of attention for the foreseeable future. There are many obvious ways, each of which has pros and cons.

Commonsense says if an article attracts this kind of user on a regular basis, then we need a means which helps more rapid handling of problem editors without many months in dispute resolution. If dispute resolution is going somewhere - good. But often it is used as a stalling technique. (For example this comment by a virulent edit warrior and sock user.) That's an example of gaming: for example, mediation should be where people discuss how to accomodate all significant views, not a means to stall progress. What we ideally want is to make the debate productive and able to reach a conclusion, rather than kill it dead - to not lose the benefit of these debates, in trying to resolve them. ( Community enforceable mediation is one such attempt.)

Established norms may be up to the task, used appropriately and well - My gut feel is, established communal norms that exist, are actually more than adequate. We may need to learn how to apply them, or have to "grasp the nettle", but we have highly supported norms which can, in principle, and used with insight, handle such issues.

To pick one example of how existing norms might be useful: I have noted many times when working on pov warriors, that edit wars actually require considerable attention and involvement by the warrior to dominate a page. It's really hard to run an edit war if the substandard conduct might result in even short-term loss of access to the page concerned. Two 24 hour blocks on DPeterson for re-adding points against concerns of others and failing to respond to others' concerns, then re-adding again after the block expired, were perceived as a welcome sea-change on the Attachment therapy edit war, during arbitration. That was all it took to 'break' the actual edit war there which had been running a year by then. This suggests that one approach to perennial edit wars may well be require a more complete level of policy/norm compliance on certain heavily warred pages, failing which remove editing access briefly. (eg, keep blocks shorter but be willing to use them more within edit wars for repeated low-grade tendentiousness, too.)

That may be all that's needed. Perhaps on those pages, if we brought a number of more experienced users into the frame (rather than just leaving it to existing parties), and we also insisted upon real NPOV editing, good cites, no attacks, no incivility, no stonewalling or other games, no lines of discussion that are evidently intended to subtly prevent progress, users willing to learn when something's not okay... and we accepted sincere earnest editing, aimed at encyclopedic content only... perhaps this would make edit warring harder. Maybe one remedy or ANI decision we might reach more often is to endorse a stricter editing regime regarding editors' constructive involvement on these articles. Maybe we could also make it easier to obtain closer supervision of editing on an article, by deciding it at ANI instead of Arbcom. Bans are routinely handled at ANI, perhaps ANI might also be used for the community to decide to establish a supervised editing/probation regime on a problem article, without needing to route it via Arbcom? Perhaps we might restrict all users to the talk page, place the article under the control of a group of experienced uninvolved editors for a month, and they rewrite it based upon talk page discussion, to set a direction free from interference, before handing it back. Draconian, but would a year long edit war driving away others, be any better? Maybe if we remove or handle the warriors, their place will be filled by non-warriors. At the least, good quality contributors will be less deterred, and less driven away, or may come back.

There's many approaches the community might experiment with; some would work, some really wouldn't. This would have to be a community decision, not a sole editor's or even Arbcom's, and would probably emerge as a practice over time (gaining 'consensus by vote' on such would be difficult at best). But right now, just noting here that we haven't even begun exploring options how such wars might better be handled..... that I'm happy to do.

At present it's remarkably easy to edit war, as witness the current Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 clarification case. According to one comment, all we have allegedly achieved is that our nationalist edit warriors are merely trained to be more civil when they war(!). Also various other "slow motion" or stalled edit wars. It is even now, remarkably difficult for most editors or administrators to take action against someone who is merely unhelpful and unco-operative, rather than outright hostile and flagrantly in breach of policy, or to justify removal of a borderline editor who does no explicit wrong, and especially if (like many difficult editors) they make occasional good edits. Perhaps we need some way to address edit warriors who merely make matters difficult or tiring to engage. Again, this disruptive behavior would not require a new norm to handle, merely a new appreciation of these norms. Flagged revisions (when implemented) may mean that warriors can war all they like but can't get their versions in front of users. Lastly, we may simply get better in handling them just by passage of time.

The bottom line - The conduct principles that we must always come back to though, are those listed above and in answers elsewhere. Articles belong to the community and are written by them, not by any one group... anyone (with limited exception) is welcome to edit... collaboration and collaborative "buy-in" on decisions is crucial... heavy-handedness and sanctions are not really desirable except in clear and obvious cases where they help protect the project, in exceptional cases, and when other routes have been tried and failed... seek dispute resolution... keep NPOV... and so on. For every edit war there are literally dozens or hundreds of articles with broad consensus. The bottom line is, we have community principles with immensely high buy-in, related to communal management and authorship of articles, communal consensus (and many eyeballs), and communal acceptance of diverse (often strong) viewpoints which may clash or come together to find a neutral point of view. Throw that stance out or get too one-sided in the rush, and we might as well all go home. The rest is an inconvenience and a problem. Even now, we're surviving these wars. They're intensely irksome, but not fatal, and we'll learn. By contrast, a general agreement by the community upon NPOV, valid research, and that even if tough, we endorse communal open collaboration in presenting these, is Wikipedia.

I don't claim that any of these would be 'right' or would magically fix it. I suspect edit warring is a long term problem. These are simply examples, showing we do have approaches we haven't tried yet.

I think everyone can think of some item they would like changed or improved - at least now and then.

If I feel a policy genuinely would benefit from changing or introducing, I tend to do it, or ask for communal consensus to do it, rather than ignoring it. Policy changes - like much of my work - are prompted by some thing that makes me realize a policy is not completely doing its job and the community has not drawn correct understanding from it. A list of my recent policy page work is given below.

If a proposal isn't accepted, it usually means the time isn't right. Policies are the community's work, and added to help the community, so that gets respected. However, I've generally been successful at choosing changes that the community endorses as sensible, and wording them well, so in fact a sizeable majority have been accepted.

So as a editor familiar with policy development over several years, my first thoughts are two possible answers, and they are tempered by experience and forethought:

• There are many things we could improve. But policies and practices evolve by finding what works and what doesn't, so any change must carefully weigh up the potential to be on the whole, unproductive or counterproductive (the community sanction noticeboard's demise was one such case, for example).

• Likewise, we could write better content by changing our ethos on many things. Citizendium for example tackles socks and trolling by removing anonymous access. But our ethos is something important to us. We value it (as a community), we have immensely strong buy-in to many parts of it (and the principles backing all core policies). We have these even when they cause us problems (eg not instantly banning all problem editors), because we communally have made the decision it's what we feel will serve best in the long run. So ultimately, we keep many practices that we know cause us trouble in some areas, despite the degree of difficulty that the decision will engender, because communally we believe they are right ones for the project, even if they do sometimes come with a price in terms of stress or headaches. So any change must consider not just "what would functionally improve the project" but also, what would fit culturally with the ethos (or spirit) of the project, too. We are a community that produces an encyclopedia, and our culture and community, varied though it is, is an integral part of that.

What these mean are, changes to policy are best to arise organically, out of editors actual experience, than conceptually.

I've been involved in an unusual degree of core policy editing; if I was aware of a policy that genuinely needed improvement or change to better reflect how we work, I'd be considering whether to raise it for consensus. I tend to work on policy when I notice in passing that editors are facing a genuine problem and that a problem with a policy page was part of that. As such, my policy work has included fixing of points prone to misunderstandings or misuse ( RTV, BLOCK); clear wording, explanation and focus ( NPOV); howto's ( BANAV, GOOGLE); explicit attention to loopholes used by edit warriors ( GAME, NPOV, POINT); core pages that are widely viewed ( ABOUT); pages where a community concern is evident ( BLOCKTEXT information); and other useful information which is of confirmed relevance to editors.

The following are some of the main ones in the last few months (full list here). Note that as you'd expect, most of these are small improvements rather than drastic ones:

Page	Modification	Motivated by	Date	Before / after
WP:CEV (Confidential evidence)	Proposed following "sense of community" - Use of so-called "confidential" evidence as the basis for blocks and other allegations.	User discussion took place at WT:BLOCK in the wake of the Durova/!! affair, which seemed to be calling for a proper policy rather than a subsection. It's still under development, being new from scratch in the last week; time will tell if it is used or rejected.	Nov. 2007	new
WP:COI (conflict of interest)	Nutshell rewritten to be more useful and less BITEy, and actually sum up what we want people to do.	OTRS 'quality' queue email, which I would have directed to WP:COI except the nutshell was too 'BITEy' and didn't in fact explain COI when I went to check it was suitable.	Oct. 2007	talk diff
WT:NPA (no personal attacks)	Following tentative agreement by the community on a resolution to the notorious BADSITES case, proposed the final edit adopted to fix WP:NPA.	A BADSITES draft consensus was reached on WT:NPA - but as an outsider visiting the decision, it seemed the policy already contained the seed of the proposed addition and only mild clarification rather than extra section was needed.	Oct. 2007	diff1 diff2
WP:RTV (right to vanish, 'meta')	Authored. Approved at meta as the current stable version	OTRS issue, regarding common problems, misapprehensions and flawed expectations of RTV, plus deletion of evidence, and the need to restore pages if users return. RTV policy was a poor explanation.	Oct. 2007	before talk after
WP:WBE (Wikipedians by edit count)	Rewrote caveats to partly address the WP:MFD concerns on this page	Page had been listed at MFD due to concerns over "glorifying edit count", seemed that part of the problem was it didnt explain itself (or edit count issues) firmly and well.	Oct. 2007	diff
WP:BLOCK (blocking policy)	Correct definition of "indefinite block" drafted and (after some discussion) added	Noticing emotionality/stress in some block case, which had arisen due to policy not explaining what indef blocks are actually used for, leading to the very incorrect (and widespread) misunderstanding that they are equivalent to banning.	Sept. 2007	diff
WP:N (notability)	Added important definition of "presumed" which made WP:N policy consistent with WP:NOT (sourcing is evidence but the existence of sources alone is not conclusive - announcements, transient media, and so on being examples. WP:N gave the impression that sources were enough, leading to misunderstandings and incorrect contention at AFD.) Also cleanup of footnotes.	AFD case in which this important qualifier was not understood by one party, leading to endorsement at DRV and the observation that the guideline used the term without explaining it.	Sept. 2007	talk diff
Arbitration policy/Case handling	Authored this arbcom information subpage.	Hand-holding and supporting arbcom parties through multiple cases where there were long delays, attacks etc and no clear explanation why, leading to avoidable stress for users.	Sept. 2007	new
Mediawiki:Blocktext (User interface, block message)	Resolving the mailing list concern whereby blocked users were not given good directions regarding email and appeals. (I'd previously written much of WP:APPEAL)	wikien-l (email list) discussion of unblock problems, whereby users were told to email admins who might never reply or might not have email set, before using the unblock template. Seemed to me that the problem was the page should say both are options, not "one then the other".	Sept. 2007	Discussion
WP:BAN (banning policy)	User not to be described as 'banned' without good basis for it. After various discussions, policy changed to add "and the block has received due consideration by the community" in two places.	Some ban review or other, where a user was described as "banned" when in fact the ban was only being discussed or pushed for. The premature use of the assertion in such debates to imply the community has already decided, might have a pejorative unfair effect due to "crowdthink".	Aug. 2007	before proposal current

Prior to this I also wrote two pages in July/August 2007:

• WP:GOOGLE, a comprehensive guide to search engines and search engine tests on Wikipedia, motivated by problems in Google use seen at AFD,
• WP:GAME, prompted by many serious disputes where good-faith parties would have been much better able to argue edit war cases at dispute resolution or ANI, given a good description of gaming which would let them say with certainty, "user X games the system".

and also previously, wrote WP:ABOUT and de-crufted/restructured WP:NPOV.

There are some things I think would help us to look at. But we have a complex community with a lot of interacting and fluid aspects. 'Magic wand' answers might end up just a bit too much like the failed community sanctions noticeboard or Esperanza for comfort... they might help us one way but prove a year later to harm us another. Innovation is important, but I wouldn't actually put forward a novel idea without a lot more thought if it genuinely fits with what we have, meets a need, would be valued by the community once implemented (ideas that are commonplace now such as checkuser access were somewhat controversial when broached), and above all, where we as a community want to be.

There are many ideas that would be nice. Experience of what has worked positively on policy editing, though, suggests strongly that 'measure twice, cut once' is how I prefer to do it.

FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC) reply

A good question.  If it's okay, I'll answer the question itself, and also answer directly, the implied question behind it, which is about handling of one's own views in a conflict, and open-mindedness to others.

As a rule, I like to use a combination of commonsense and communication, which surprisingly often, others find agreeable. I tend not to jump straight to conclusions on matters I don't know about, and I keep a level head. So a lot of communication is about being able to realize and state what's important to say, draw lines if needed, but also having a sense of reason and perspective, and listening to how differences arise.

I spend a lot of time working on disputes. I handle conflict and disagreement well enough that my RFA nomination was a result of my approach being noticed in exactly the kind of matter you describe, one where I had a strong opinion, and was met with strong opinions too. It's hard to be sure whether this is useful, or "blowing ones own trumpet"; however here is the nominators comment, and a couple of others, relating to how I conduct myself in a heated discussion:

"cares about the project, does not mince words, is proactive in finding common ground with others, does not hesitate to give credit to his fellow editors when due".
( Jossi - Jan 2007 - RFA nomination)

"[has an] overwhelming degree of sanity and levelheadedness ... has never lost his cool".
( Premeditated Chaos (PMC) - Jan 2007)

"[One of the] few admins who could work with [near-banned user Vintagekits] despite his flames, and also understand the need to protect the community".
( Alison - Nov 2007).

So in a way, it's hard to pick out specific times I "changed my mind" because most of the time I'm listening for what's going on, and how that affects the situation. If one thinks clearly and is honest, then it's all about exploring what's best.

That said, here's one AFD nomination where I have changed my view to recognize a possible consensus during the course of a debate (sort of), and one article disagreement which is almost a classic answer to the question.

1. AFD - Kevin Eggan

Appeared to be a "puff" bio mostly, on a bioscience researcher who has some minor press notice, one award... and everything else both online and in the article was essentially expressions of hope of what he might one day do. Very questionable lack of substance. Notably, its author was also caught running "pay me and I'll get you a Wikipedia page" type adverts on Ebay. ^[14]

On reviewing the article, historic notability ( WP:NOT) seemed fairly uncertain, WP:PROF wasn't evidenced, and when examined in depth, most of the notability claims seemed to have a disturbing reliance on WP:CRYSTAL. The article cited papers, but nowhere seemed to document if they were important (having written papers doesn't imply notability either). It could hardly seem more one sided. Having solid reasons for skepticism and little/no real evidence of anything notable that stood up to checking, I nominated it for possible deletion.

The AFD reception was mixed, with emphasis placed on the nature of the award given. I felt that emphasis was being given to what was actually for the most part, just well presented smoke. I wasn't convinced, but by the middle of the AFD it began to look like there might be a consensus forming anyway, or a perspective on his award, and so on. Or at least, it might get kept.

As a result I decided the right thing would be to revisit the article and rewrite it from scratch, further research and add missing information, and focus on his present work rather than speculative hopes, and see if that would help. The reason being, he had not seemed to have evidence of notability on checking previously, hence not worth a rewrite before AFD, but if the community would decide he was notable then a rewrite became essential to at least refocus the article on his actual work as a proper biography for future, not just puff, media soundbites, a papers list and a speculative future. Even if borderline kept only. So I did. before after. The AFD was finally closed as "no consensus", which signifies "keep", which in retrospect is an appropriate view. The current article is visibly focussed on past and present, rather than speculation, and is more obviously reasonable and valid content as a result.

2. Article - Casino Royale (2006 film)

One clear case where my mind was changed in the course of an article disagreement was the plot summary for this film, between March 26 - April 8, 2007. Because it's spread over four pages, I've summarized it here:

[15] - I edit the plot section, which is missing some serious gaps and therefore doesn't actually explain the plot well.
	[16] - Bignole full-reverts the edit with the curt comment "Wiki is not a substitute for watching the film". I disagree with both the opinion and the full revert - a quick check of the previous edit shows that the changes were small, select, reasonable, and focussed.
[17] - I drop a note on Bignole's talk page explaining that the edit was small but crucial details, and that his revert has 1/ left the article not explaining the film, and 2/ in general blanket reverts are a poor idea since they give the impression the edit was not in fact reviewed. I ask him to re-review the diff, and reconsider.
	[18] - Bignole responds, citing 300 extra words, and excessive detail added, and ends by suggesting "Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot for a better understanding of what should be in the plot."' A minute later Bignole reposts, explaining: "Also, the blanket revert was not an attempt to make it appear that your contributions are not appreciated, only that this plot was trimmed from an excessive length by several editors months back."
[19] - I post and ask Bignole a second time to review the original diff. I state that "There are some significant plot jumps in the original. I take your point on what is and isn't excessive detail, but don't agree a 100% blanket revert was the best way to proceed", and cite examples of these.
	[20] - Bignole responds, this time beginning "Plot should not explain everything to someone" and following with a large number of carefully described examples of style and detail issues. I decided that he's almost certainly right, and learn a fair bit about ruthless conservation of words and better focus on film plots, which stands me in good stead for future work. I apply the lesson in future, earning comments such as this edit summary on later plot edits.
[21] - I re-edit, taking note of these points, to fix the plot gaps in a style and approach indicated by Bignole's comments. [22] - I also drop a brief bullet point list on the talk page, listing the 11 edits, so that if there is a dispute we can discuss them point by point. [23] - I post to Bignole's talk page, "Generally, I agree with your comments on plot detail and length of section (thanks). So I've kept to a minimum this time, and to make it easy have summarized the edits on the talk page in a short list." In case he isn't happy though, I also state, "Please let me know your comments, but can we discuss rather than revert if you have concerns, since this edit looks good to me."
	[24] - Bignole responds, "I went through it. It's fine. I didn't revert anything so much as I just reworded a couple sentences." [25] - Bignole responds to talk page list, noting "I'm fine with most of it" and that a couple of things have been reworded for further improvement, which I'm happy with.

Answer amended Dec 3, to clarify possible ambiguous points. ^diff

Unusually, this will get into personal reasons rather than on-wiki views. I'm okay with that if you are. I stated that see myself as accountable and I value transparency, and this is part of that.

If the main question is whether this is some kind of afterthought, then no. There are several people (including 2 crats, a few checkusers, and a number of other candidates) who I'd discussed it with and knew it was confirmed well before nominations opened, and who know the reasons for it. Several others had wanted to ask as well. If you need confirmation let me know, I'm sure they will.

In terms of effect, unless a user literally self-nominates with a day or so to go, then it's probably either neutral, or slightly adverse, since it would remove time for answers, and cause absence during the early days when attention is more widespread. This is easier seen if one looks at the aim of this process - to find the people that are felt best to fill the roles. A period for questions is part of that. As it happens, in this case 1/ most people's "stock questions" are drafted and can be repasted, 2/ individual questions and examination of track record can be drafted in a day or so, and 3/ even 7 days is considered ample for other searching examinations and discussion of candidates (RfA/RfB). A candidate who nominated (hypothetically) on November 28 would still have 5 days of Q&A time before the election and probably be fielding questions for several days during the 2 week election as well. Perhaps one might shorten the nomination period to 26 days, and then put a week (rather than 3 days) between last nominations and first votes to guarantee at least that much time for questions and reflection, but overall, I don't think it makes much difference in practice. Users who want to assess a candidate are still very much able to do so, users who don't, won't. But for the actual reasons, see below.

Two main factors: -

1. I had emailed the OTRS list early October (Oct 3) to comment that I had visitors for 2 weeks that month until Oct 20 and would be unlikely to be able to do much OTRS work in that time. For example whilst Aug 22 - Oct 4 averaged 20 - 50 edits a day, Oct 5 - 16 were around 5 - 10. After catching up on matters arising in that time, I arrived at early November with an exceptionally unusual 3 weeks behind, and made the decision to prioritize four serious matters. One of those matters was an email correspondence with Jimmy Wales related to the general future of the project, that I'd promised him a reply on, and another was three well known disputes that had all been through WP:ANI and needed careful addressing: the AWeidman and sockpuppet community ban issue following the user's renewed use of personal attacks (AWeidman, DPeterson), another was verifying and blocking the latest sockpuppet ring of community banned vandal HeadleyDown (Spoctacle, Realbie, Lingorama, Arlen Wilps), and another was the Chidiac dispute (Achidiac, Rdpaperclip, T3Smile). These can be seen in my logs for Oct 31 - Nov 5, ^link although some have continued to need dispute resolution off-wiki via email with the users. I was also wrapping up several peoples' help and advice. It seemed right to conclude these previous commitments before engaging in new ones. Alison and James F will both remember the volume of subsequent dispute resolution work by email, between myself, Chidiac and Rdpaperclip, following their blocking, from having sought a 2nd opinion on the matter, for example, and the care needed due to the volatility of the case and the related legal matters.
    
2. Secondly, I like to write neutrally and fairly, which needs exceptionally care when writing about oneself for others who may make a decision in part on that basis. Case insights and judgements are easy. Writing about oneself takes - if a person has integrity - a certain additional degree of reflection, consultation, and caution.

An ability to choose priorities is important, and at that point, I felt that dispute resolution I was involved in handling and advising on, had to take priority over elections, since the former are part of my present role and capable of present disruption, and therefore a present responsibility to the community.

Concerning myself, I often apply a stricter standard (as witness my first RFA's withdrawal comment ^[26]). Apply to Arbcom... it simply took time to bring up to date the pages others might reasonably expect to be able to check, relating to article and project work, and a statement that I felt comfortable with the wording and that it represented me reasonably, with evidence diffs for statements made, which in turn required locating. I caught up on the outstanding dispute management around Nov 5, the user subpages around Nov 11-12, the email to Jimmy Wales on Nov 14, was away the weekend 16-18 (booked months ago), and then was free to attend to the arbcom statement, posted 3 days later.

If you need further detail on anything, please do let me know.

First off, it might be worth taking a look at my views on what I'd look for in an administrator. That's going to give a pretty good indication of my approach to "what I look for" in an arbitrator, too. Especially, it covers what I look for in terms of experience, and why.

I'd look for more in an arbitrator. For better or worse, as an administrator is a role model, so an arbitration committee member is a role model of a role model. As administrators have fewer excuses for poor decisions and actions, so arbitrators have fewer still.

Their suitability needs to show in everything they do, and do not do, connected with the project. A list of the sorts of qualities and characteristics in no particular order, and no apologies for being demanding, if that's the right word:

1. Integrity. I place this over trust. Integrity is the inner attitudes; trust is the external perception. A trusted person can turn out a bad apple; a person with integrity less often will. Integrity is closer to trustworthiness than trust.

   Within this I also include: neutrality/fairness, avoidance of COI, doing what's right (in the wider sense) and soul searching even when tough, honestly facing and trying to correct own (and often others) errors even if hard, not passing the buck, taking a stand when genuinely appropriate, and doing some things that perhaps aren't strictly needed and may never even see the light of day, because they're right. Integrity isn't always easy. But it's essential.

    

2. Insight. Insight into our ways, norms and spirit, insight into what we're trying to achieve and why we're doing it as we are, insight into disputes and personalities, insight into judgements and implications, sharpness of mind. A huge part of what we do relies on an ability to read the unspoken "sense or spirit of the community or policy". Fancy words for being able to reliably have good insight into how others feel and what lies unspoken behind the surface of words, actions, policies, and comments.

   Within this I also include: independence of thinking, combined with respect for the collaborative process.

    

3. Transparency/Communication: Pick one. Transparency is communication with integrity; communication is the way a person of integrity seeks to be transparent. The willingness and ability to communicate, seek commonality, understanding, disclosure, to recognize others needs to know and to wish wherever possible to help meet that need honestly, to hear what's said and interpret it, ...

   Within this I also include: disclosure, judgement as to when a perception may need special handling, reading between the lines, dispute resolution skills, empathy, ability to lay down a line in a firm way that's not an attack, to communicate what has to be and what is likely to happen if matters persist. And knowing when not to say too.

    

4. Track record - (See my RFA views for this.) I place track record on the list of criteria, rather than experience, because in general, experience is covered by other attributes: - insight, competence, evidence of focus/durability/involvement etc. In fact, we don't directly need the experience itself; what we really need are the skills and insights they got from the experience, and the reassurance of attitudes they showed through it. Track record is not "needed" in and of itself, but it is the main evidence that all other characteristics are genuine reliable long-term strong qualities, and the main evidence of possible weaknesses (or their lack). Here's how I analyze it:
   
   It is hard (for me anyhow) to imagine someone getting those to a level necessary to be credible at Arbcom without deep experience. So as a pure attribute, it is seemingly redundant - what matters is what you got from the experience that you use within the community - did you get competence, did you get insight and so on - and that's covered elsewhere. But then again, suppose a user existed who had insight and competence but no experience... would one trust their alleged abilities? What if they seem to have good attributes but have not chosen to use them on-wiki, what concerns would that raise? The acid test of good dispute insight is dispute work. The acid test of involvement in arbitration-style work is a track record of similar work. So the resolution of this is: a person actually needs insight, competence, and track record, and experience is the usual way to get it. But even if they have those attributes, one would want to see a lot of relevant experience as well, to allow 1/ evaluation of the fact, 2/ examination how they do apply it, 3/ what their "style" and approach is, 4/ how focussed they are on doing arbcom-relevant tasks and jobs, and so on. In that sense, experience/track record has an innate value all of its own, and I would expect to see it as part of the "picture".

   Within this I also include a track record of: wide and deep experience on the project generally, good quality decisions in multiple areas or levels, gaining respect from many others, good personal qualities that are habitual and consistent, consistent positive impact on the project, and other abilities elsewhere in this list, and demonstration that the other qualities on this list are enduring and backed when needed, and not transient or shallow or easily let go.

    

5. A good heart - to see the trolls, good users, dramas, and progresses, the endless wars and the excelent articles, and not be cynical or jaded but still want to help the next person, and see the project go well. The rest are all clinical, ethical.. this one is about genuineness of caring.

   Within this I also include: good faith, good will, the extra 10%, sincere actions, genuine care not just politicking, non-cynical (but clued in), slightly idealistic/optimistic about people (but realistic too)

    

6. Appropriate focus - As an editor, ones province is anything one wishes (so long as it's non-harmful). Edit or not, as you like. At RFA questions such as focus come up. Where does one work, how consistent, what activities. As an arbitrator, one is answerable to individuals, but moreso to the community. To step back and see the community's needs as well, the currents and pressures unspoken within the major cases Arbcom will see in a year. In principle all users can and might do this. For arbitrators it's crucial.

   Within this I also include: lack of interest in status, or power, focus on the community as being what is important not arbcom, focus on the job being done well.

    

7. Competence for the role - Which has two aspects. Competence by itself does not merely mean skills. It means the ability to deploy them with judgement, balance, and expertize.
   
   In wiki terms it also covers relevant experience, that has gone to good use - dispute experience, dispute rulings of high quality, sense of when to IAR or find a novel answer rather than just what's gone before. It also includes the ability to apply skills to new questions, which requires and is a step beyond having good skills in many areas. It's important to have a wide range of "hands-on" experience and be competent in many areas, to have made judgements and stated views and broadly been found competent at them, since Arbcom handles messy disputes that may span almost any conceivable area of the project. (I place this below the previous two items, to emphasize the importance of those, lest anyone think they somehow carry less weight or something.)

   Within this I also include: balance, scope, good judgement, ability to use what's known well in new areas, knowing when to take a stand and when not to and how strongly, good working knowledge of the many features of the project (as a project, encyclopedia, community, set of norms, and such).

    

8. Stamina/durability - Arbcom burns out even good editors at a scarey rate. By the middle of the arbcom year, fades are common. There is no point appointing the best person in the community if they won't be able to handle the load, pace themselves, manage it and still smile. They need to be there ongoing, since arb work is a treadmill. They need to be able to repeatedly work on the difficult cases and meet the high expectations and needs for which they were appointed. Its tough being on this panel. By whatever term one calls it, the ability to endure and not burn out, is crucial. Unfortunately if it were easy to gauge this, as I noted in question 21, we'd make our fortunes in executive recruitment. But nonetheless that inner ability to cope well, is crucial, even if hard to assess.

   Within this I also include: reliability, consistency, stability of circumstances and all other factors affecting ability to undertake the role over the medium/long term.

    

9. Credibility - all these are useless if the community doesn't feel they are reassured on the matter.

   Within this I also include: trust. Which some would put first, a place I cede to integrity. If all the above are within a person, then and only then is the next essential attribute for them to have people believe they are right for the role, and trust them to do it.

I was asked also to sum these up casually by someone else. The "off the top of my head" thoughts were:

1. not wanting the job
2. being right for the job and able to do it
3. integrity to know this
4. competence to do it well because it needs doing

But each of these involves integrity. The integrity to not want "a position", the integrity needed to be right for it, the integrity to know and accept if it's right or a "fit" anyway and one can best serve there, and the integrity that's part of competence. I liked user:Hildanknight's word "incorruptibility" too. Its stronger.

Editors with a history of dispute resolution - a quick further comment on this question: a "history of involvement in dispute resolution as an involved party" can mean either as a presenter of evidence, or an accused party. I'm assuming the question means the latter (the former is probably a positive trait). I'd be tempted to take it case by case, but some general thoughts:

1. I usually do my own fact-checking rather than rely purely on say-so, no matter what source. That way I know precisely what I'm basing my views on, which is essential to fairness. This is shaped by experience that everyone - myself, friends, respected others - can make mistakes. Personal responsibility for a decision I make, requires some consideration of the merits of that decision, not abdication of it to others. That's so in a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia, or any context. For example, my own standards may be stricter in some areas, as in, things that I would have a concern over others might not (simple example: ability to be calm and fair even under pressure would be very important to me, but unless it results in actual misconduct may never have been criticized by arbcom). Or indeed, I might be more willing to reconsider if I feel a genuinely poor judgement was made, or there is not actually a basis of genuine concern. Either way if my view differs, I usually consider carefully what that means rather than make hasty assumptions.
    
2. Whether arbcom has sanctioned or cautioned an editor, or not, is not necessarily an overriding factor. There will be people mildly sanctioned whose actions (taken with others) show a trait that's a concern. There will be people sanctioned or cautioned for behavior that had not occurred before, nor after inquiry seems likely to recur again. It would be a concern, and something to take seriously, but not preordained. Again, it's best to check what it signifies.
    
3. A person who has made a mistake and visibly learned and changed from it, is wiser than one who has not learned. Some editors - maybe a minority I grant you - change radically and can renounce previous ways. For example, a user who was involved in personal attack may learn to use dispute resolution or ANI, and then have no further problem at all in that area. I wouldn't like to generalize that others always get it right, nor I. It needs careful consideration, and often, questions to be asked.

No universal "right answer" exists on either of the above, but the above should get within close distance of the kind of person we'd benefit from having on board. I still feel part of this answer could be organized a lot neater though :)

Last year I didn't focus on the arb elections at all. Like RFA, I figured it had enough eyeballs, and I pretty much as normal prioritized the focus on the range of work I was doing (dispute handling, content, and so on).

To speculate now on whether it could have been predicted assumes an involvement in that election which I didn't have. I could make a comment, but "it was/wasn't clear in hindsight" is usually subject to the rule of thumb that hindsight has 20/20 vision.....

A better question is to ask 1/ what might help in future, and 2/ what the arbitrators themselves think of it.

Overall though, since I wasn't involved in their choosing, whatever I might say right now would be of doubtful resemblance to the reality of the statements, comments and questions which faced the community at the actual time. I can make a few guesses though.

Arbitration is a tough role, and makes demands in many areas. Examples:

• Arbitrators will need to be highly experienced, have good insight into the community's spirit/feelings/norms, be tenacious, willing to work hard
• Arbitration work is demanding in time and energy. Cases are intense and often thankless, there is an unknown amount of private work too.
• Users have a private or working life too.
  (Which may also be routinely or unforeseeably busy at times)
• Arbcom burns out even experienced users.

My guess is that some of these are easy to see. Credibility, experience and "the right words" are easy to see. But how deep is the inner determination to ride the wagon if appointed, and take it in stride? How well judged is the unknown workload against personal abilities?

The ones who are still active a year or more later... we need to identify those a year before. And there isn't an easy way to do that. Maybe we could make it easier, but really we're looking for exceptions, people who are not only excellent as editors and dispute handlers, and respected, but especially, people who can take this kind of workload and handle it, and can keep doing so.

People have real lives... it's easy to forget how demanding cases can be, how much extra work goes into the role, that even arbitrators may not always find working together easy, and how long Committee members handle it for. It's possible some do a lot of background work, but arb cases is how the community gauges their activity, and a major role, so it's a fair means of assessment.

I suspect a lot of the patchiness is because an election process foregrounds somethings at the cost of others, and even those who are close to someone can't always read this kind of question well. We have people of credibility, experience, impeccable records (when appointed), widespread confidence (85%+ in 2006). But we don't have the same sight of how they'll handle life once appointed. And "popular and can do the job" does not always mean "will handle it from a time, effort, and focus perspective".

I think that's what's missing - and the thing is, it's not obvious how to gauge it.

(And if we do ever work out a way, it'd make a fortune in executive recruitment...)

Questions 20, 22 and 31 all center around qualities, characteristics, experience, and wiki-background desirable in arbitrators.

You can see here my views (not 'critieria') what I personally like to see in an administrator, which might be a good starting point for any position of higher responsibility. And above (see (20)), the qualities I feel I would like to see in an arbitrator (just my own views!). I don't feel that it would be right to say any given background must be the case, because so much of arbcom's work relies on skills that are not directly editorial in nature.

It's a similar question to the common criticism of Wikipedia: do you need to be an expert to write a good article on a subject? No... because the skills of collating experts views neutrally and in an encyclopedic style, assessing the value of reliable sources, is more useful, in a way. Similarly, the skills of insight into disputes, clarity of thinking, neutrality and fairness, respect of peers, and intuitive sense of communal approaches, attitudes, policies, precedents, and "ways of working" are critical to arbitration, more than the specific task/s it was gained from.

That said, it's harder to gain a good appreciation for how things really work if you haven't ever got into content-writing, and likewise one may have a lot to learn about socks if one hasn't worked with puppetry much. Anyone, article writer or not, can judge an edit war well... but perhaps someone who's started off being the good faith party in an edit war, writing content collaboratively... perhaps such people might have a deeper understanding of the disputes they are trying to arbitrate. And indeed, perhaps not. We have some exceptionally insightful admins who are excellent at judging disputes, who are not especially mainspace focussed too. And we have a committee rather than one person, allowing for shared expertize by Arbcom as a whole.

As regards myself, I like cleanup work, which includes content, and a list of my article work can be found linked from my statement. I don't do some tasks, and therefore I'm regularly appreciative of the range of tasks others find interesting and fulfilling, which I notice happening whilst I'm doing "my stuff".

We need more work done than any one person or focus can do... and we need a healthy mix of that. In the background bots hum, helpdesk questions are dealt with, RFA's are reviewed, proxies are detected and blocked..... as things stand those tasks are essential as well to the credibility and scope of the project.

As a community we respect and encourage the range of interests, focus, approaches and perspectives that thousands of editors arrive with, and we hope the newcomers who visit will in turn find an area to branch out from, to which they can add positively in turn. If one of these users seeks to help at Arbitration, let's look at them individually and assess their qualities, character, capabilities, and so on, rather than have a mold we're expecting such people to fit. If we start with a pre-defined concept, we'll miss out on the growth that we might get from people who are of good character and ability, but also have experience a little different from the rest.

Or put more tongue-in-cheek, Arbcom is best when it's not made up of clones :)

This was a common question last year, so I disclosed it in advance this year. It's already out there, at the top of my nomination statement, under 'real life info'. ^link And to the second part, yes (at present and for some years).

I manage my focus, and part of my management is selecting what to focus on, on the wiki, to ensure that I'm active where I can be of most help. (For example, I'm active on serious disputes and 2nd opinion work, because these confound many administrators so a clear analysis can be exceptionally valuable, but I don't patrol RFA which is well attended by many equally capable editors.)

Having undertaken heavy duty dispute handling and examination at others request, and ruled on a great many complex disputes and taken several virulent and difficult warriors to arbcom, I have a very clear understanding just what to expect such cases to be, and a fairly realistic experiential idea what I'm getting myself into. I'm virtually doing arbcom-style casework already, in all but name, and have been doing these tougher cases a long time (since 2004). I've also been tracking this highly sneaky and virulent vandal's reincarnations since 2005, for the project. If you look into the evidence in Attachment Therapy (2007) for example, which was a very complex case of sock evidencing across 7 accounts where checkuser failed, it's thorough, self explanatory, and "tight". And obviously, a lot of work. So its a workload I'm very familiar with. It'll be tough, but managable. The latter is what counts.

By coincidence, I have an admission to make here. I was the user who worded the description of SPOV vs. NPOV, and (after gaining consensus) added it to the NPOV policy. That was 1st August 2007. So I would hope I can give a good description of these for you now.

Involvement in NPOV policy development - I've been a significant policy editor on WP:NPOV for 18 months since June 2006, and in that time undertook its refactoring into its present structure, together with several wording edits, and section removals and additions (it was in quite poor condition back then). I also spent much of late 2005 in talk page dialog and dispute resolution with the now-banned vandal warrior HeadleyDown who POV warred for destructive goals on the basis of (spurious but intense) scientific skepticism. So my understanding of our policy on NPOV is probably a good one.

The focus of this edit was to improve the wording of "list of biases", to note that when a pro- or anti-scientific viewpoint becomes so excessive as to no longer treat notable viewpoints neutrally, then there is a problem. The existing wording had also omitted anti-scientific bias and scientific skepticism, which are essentially under the same umbrella.

See original edit.

The only criticism when I made this proposal was that I'd used the term "scientific orthodoxy" (technically a correct use of the term, to mean "that which is accepted as mainstream by scientists") whereas consensus felt this had negative, religious and dogmatic implications and felt a change to "prevalant scientific opinion" would be a better term, which I agreed.

This version was then agreed, edited into policy, and remained in WP:NPOV untouched from Aug 1 (when added) until Nov 4 (3 months). In November, the entire 'types of biases' section was moved to the article on bias unchanged, the edit being done in order to brevify policy, rather than in objection to any part of it. ( descriptions are removed from policy, which is wikilinked to [[bias]], and then added to [[bias]] verbatim)

So on the basis that the wording I proposed was accepted (except for one change of word) and remained in policy by community consensus, until the entire section was cutpasted (still intact) to a linked article, I'm going to stick with the description in that diff, as a good policy-based explanation.

What follows is therefore a further explanation of the difference, and a more full description of the issue and our handling.

Explanation of NPOV vs. SPOV - NPOV/SPOV is a conflict that can arise when scientific views on a matter exist, but are not the sole significant view.

In describing matters, we give each view on the matter its due prominence, or weight (" WP:WEIGHT"). When a view is 'mainstream', - ie, widespread, highly accepted by reliable sources, propounded by authoritative voices that themselves are well respected, and non-controversial (there is little authoritative dissent in reliable sources) - then this means it will usually have a significant prominence, or even at times be the sole view stated.

Scientific views often have this standing on subjects they touch upon.

Therefore when articles touch on scientific matters, the most usual result is that the scientific view gains a high prominence where relevant in the description. In many cases this may end up being the sole significant view, in which case it is the sole view described. (eg, the sole significant view why rocks fall down that I am aware of, is in fact the scientific view - gravity. The sole significant view why people catch 'flu is the scientific view - micro-organisms)

The critical factor is, we do not in fact give science this prominence because "science says so" (SPOV), even though it may seem that way. We do it because the scientific view is the sole, or supermajority view on the matter in this instance (NPOV). In other words, although it may look as if we do it because "science says so", in fact we are doing it because it is also a neutral encyclopedic representation of the significant views, for this specific subject.

NPOV is mandatory in all cases. So although the two often agree, NPOV does in fact takes priority (in all cases on Wikipedia articles) when there is doubt. For this reason, when there is more than one significant view, we do not just state one view only, or disparage (or flatter) the alternative. Each is neutrally described and given its due weight, as is the balance and mutual perspectives between them.

Practical implications - In practical terms, the main implication of this is that the extent to which the scientific view is given due weight in articles, does not extend so far that there is an actual failure to give due weight or fair mention to significant other views (when they exist), or imply we therefore represent them non-neutrally. If this happens, then there is a NPOV problem, and we need to address it.

No matter how widely respected and correct the scientific view may be, or how much one does not consider some other view or notion to have merit, NPOV is still non-negotiable and mandatory (highly quoted words), and we still give fair and appropriate coverage with due weight to the various significant (ie non-tiny) views. The article needs to describe each significant (non-tiny-minority) view with the following at least in mind:

• Neutrally - neither too much nor too little emphasis and mention.
• As views worthy of being documented and described in their own right as opposed to "through someone elses eyes". (This signifies how we present a topic or viewpoint in the article: even the article on homeopathy must leave the reader able to understand how homeopathists see it, as well as how and why scientists disagree. Likewise, descriptions of the topic by notable proponents, critics, or commentators, or significant other views, are each given neutral balanced presentation also. We present each view in a way that correctly represents the view or words of its speaker, so to speak. We seek to attribute the words of notable proponents or critics to those people, rather than imply they are "the truth" or "the voice of Wikipedia", so that at the end of the article the reader has a good neutral grasp of the topic, not just of one viewpoint's description of the topic.)
• Without disparagement or flattery, whether visible or subtle
• Without selective representation or citing to make it look deliberately worse than is fair (eg, by choosing weak positive cites, or strong negative ones, or juxtaposing them in a way that deliberately makes the viewpoint seem more flimsy), or deliberately better than is fair (by doing the reverse).

NPOV covers both what is said, and how it is said, since both are important.

The sections "fairness of tone" and "let the facts speak for themselves" cover this more fully.

Last, and briefly, it's worth noting the arbcom case on pseudoscience contains useful clarifications, covering experts and subjects requiring expertize, different types of "alternative view", and other topics related to the use of scientific and other views within NPOV. The main principle stated by arbcom in interpreting NPOV was again similar to the above:

"NPOV requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."

And thanks for the question!

Glad to answer :)

FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

No.

FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 05:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

These were both cases related to US road naming conventions and related disputes, and the titles of articles about them. Salient observations:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

The issue here was edit warring, and not actually article naming. The titling and designation of articles became the subject of ongoing edit warring, revert warring and move warring as I remember it. These are neither helpful, nor how we agree matters. A ceratin amount of heated discussion and protracted debate with strong points being made is useful if constructive, but overt edit warring is disruptive and never helpful. In the end, as I recall, a poll (below) was taken, and agreements reached. This might be a good model for solving the problem if it happens again in some other WikiProject or guise. The case was described even at Arbcom by some, as a 'lame' (or unnecessary) edit war, or equivalent terms. I'm inclined to agree. The arbitration approaches and decisions on the case seem reasonable.

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll

Following the above case, a poll was taken, and this was well run. It was well set out, independently (and multiple-) supervized, and seems to have reached a consensus. It was civil, effective, and did its job. Doubtless some on each side feel that it was "the right" or "the wrong" answer anyway.

Wikipedia naming conventions do not always reflect formal official ones (though we do note the latter) - rather they are a result of consensus and discussion and may take into account common references, usual Wikipedia styles and norms, and so on. The poll seems on the surface, to have been a utter model of its kind, and credit to all who helped run it. It was step at a time to be fair to all, with discussion of each stage - who would oversee it, what principles apply, and so on. I am impressed; it is a model to use elsewhere to save other WikiProjects from similar tough situations. It is clear that much effort went into ensuring all views were part of the discussion.

(And if I'm wrong in any aspect, it's though not being familiar with this specific extended edit war)

Disclaimer - not a specialist on Roads and Highways. The following is based on my understanding and reading of the relevant pages and discussions.

Purpose of WikiProjects - A WikiProject is broadly, any themed collaborative team endeavor within Wikipedia. WikiProjects exist for article topics, code scripting, and many other areas. Their purpose is to provide a space where editors working on multiple items (usually articles) with some connected theme, , can co-ordinate work they do such as completeness, quality assessment, stylistic thoughts they may have, tasks to check off, and the like, and they also benefit the project socially since many people are more productive or work better in a team than alone. It also may help encourage contributions to specific areas by allowing a central place that such work can be discussed and prospective new editors in the field greeted and brought up to speed. Anyone can start a project; however realistically a minimum number of articles or sometime to justify a project, is likely to be expected.

Wikipedia:WikiProject states that WikiProjects are "a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work", as well as a way to "help coordinate and organize" work in an area.

Authority of WikiProjects - WikiProjects do not have authority per se over either child WikiProjects, or articles. Ultimately (long term, over the years) that may be the direction we go. But if it is, it's not where we are now. Right now, WikiProjects are organizational for groups of editors to collaborate, but have no more or less standing than any other collaboration. Contributors may have expertise (as may be obvious in their project focus), and may make a good case for consensus on many articles, but that is part of the usual collaborative process, not just to ignore others and 'dominate'.

But the fact a WikiProject may exist does not give it excessive leverage over articles. For example, at least one WikiProject ( WikiProject Kurdistan) was raised as a problem due to a perception that it was being used in part as a vehicle for pov warring. The concerns described included the contentious labelling of certain places and things as "Kurdistan" (including parts of Turkey and Iran, I gather) rather than "Kurd culture" or "Kurdish", and using quality gradings to reflect pov issues as well as actual quality.

I should emphasize that I myself have not checked the latter; nonetheless it is a salient lesson as to the risks of WikiProject dominance. If a project were to have automatic say over all articles it deems to be in its purview, than we can expect warring over control of some WikiProjects, and also warring over different conflicting agendas for some articles, both between editors and between perhaps projects. None of that is necessary or useful.

Additionally, since anybody can start a WikiProject, the idea that starting a project gives automatic authority would raise concerns when one considers the stances and approaches of some of our less collaborative editors, and it is possible that projects may operate "closed doors" which only allow in an unrepresentative selection of editors, excluding other wider opinions, which would be unsatisfactory from a WP:CONSENSUS viewpoint if they attempt to then impose decisions and directions elsewhere.

So no: - ownership is often likely to be unhelpful. If a design is good, and supported by an active project though, it will probably endure unless good reasons come by. And Wikipedia has at present, a way of surviving inconsistencies between articles, even though some consistency is useful for stylistic and reader purposes.

Ability to set standards for articles and child WikiProjects - Regarding parent and child WikiProjects, as it stands, it usually isn't the case that a parent WikiProject can enforce the actions of a child WikiProject, although as above that may change if the role of WikiProjects were to change in future. There are two main considerations:

1. In general, we dont restrict one article by what another does, nor do projects "own" articles. So for example at AFD we have principles that are widely accepted enough as norms and practices to quote by shortcut: WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/ WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, and so on. Different articles are often edited by different people, and consensus wouldn't just mean "consensus of people in one possibly self-selected group" (to take a negative view on it). Whilst I haven't seen anyone formally trying to apply NOTINHERITED to sub-projects, it's not inconceivable that it might be so applied. The main reason one might not see it often is that most subprojects are probably set up by people who are already involved in (and supportive of) the work of the parent project.
    
2. Against that, some consistency is useful. Usually we do this via style guides (including guides on specific topics). For example, it would be helpful for conventions in "Roads in Florida" and "Roads in Missouri" to match, or "Roads in the USA" and "Roads in Canada", in a broad sense. They don't have to, but our long term focus is encyclopedic use, and for readers, its undeniably useful that some kind of sytle consistency is visible.

Over time different WikiProject and WikiProject areas will develop, and different articles might usefully develop different styles, which will eventually be contrasted and a consensus grow organically. Or indeed, not. Wikipedia most definitely allows inconsistency. The approach shown at Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll is a good start, because it indicates a genuine concern by many editors to find a consensus that a number of people would consider suitable for many similar articles. This is exactly how most conventions, policies, norms and standards arise on Wikipedia (as witness subject specific notability guides, for example)

The answer therefore is something like this: A WikiProject doesn't have the right to "impose its views" per se, whether on another project or articles in general. That's not how it works. WikiProjects may propose standards and style approaches, but are not authorities for "officially setting them" for the community. A WikiProject may (and often will) propose a style or convention, and seek its endorsement, but this is not owned by the project, and those not in the project have a voice in their setting, their approval, and their changing, but not an exclusive voice. As it stands, all content and style decisions are owned and amenable to discussion by the community in general, not by a sub-group of it, even if not all members of ther community are involved in a given decision.

More specifically:

As a community, we routinely create specific style guides, have polls to agree a specific approach when suitable, and discuss in future if that should change, and these are all commonplace communal methods of agreeing a norm. Style conventions governing a range of applicable articles can and do routinely exist on the Wiki. This was done at WP:SRNC, and at many notability guidelines, and indeed most of the manual of style was created this way.

But these conventions and stylistic approaches are actually agreed by editors/the community generally, not just by "a WikiProject" or "members of a specific Wikiproject", and that's a crucial difference. They were decided by a poll or discussion that was widely discussed, to which any editor could contribute, and that any editor could seek change in future, whereas a WikiProject might have restricted membership or be unrepresentative. The standard was therefore communal, decided openly by all who cared to give a view, rather than just by "a WikiProject", even if (obviously) editors on the relevant WikiProjects played a major part in their decisions. The difference is a crucial one.

(By coincidence, I have an admission to make in regard to meat-puppetry and solicitation, both of which are aspects within any discussion on canvassing. I was the user who worded the description of meat-puppetry and solicitation issues, and (after gaining consensus) added it to the WP:SOCK policy. That was in March 2006 and July 2007.^{(Main edits: [28] [29])} So I would hope I can give a good description of these areas for you now.)

Definition and view - In neutral terms, canvassing is "letting people know". It can be done fairly and neutrally, or unfairly and with an agenda/bias in mind. It's often used to indicate a situation of concern, when it's done not so much to neutrally inform, but with a view to gaining extra views and representations from people with a likely given viewpoint, or to influence a debate improperly. A related term, "forum shopping", means to go around possible venues or users until one is found that gives the answer sought.

(Regarding forum shopping - whilst seeking multiple opinions is often wise, seeking them with the goal of finding a specific answer, is rarely if ever acceptable, though often hard to identify when it has happened.)

My view is, that if a discussion is well run, canvassing is usually fairly ineffective. It's more of a problem in some cases:

1. Cases which may not get many eyeballs.
2. Cases which close based on opinion rather than policy-related points.

For example, as a regular closer of contentious AFDs I regular see sock and meat and solicitation header template warnings. But I always end up noting that the solicitation (if any) didnt achieve much. What counted were the points raised, whether reliable sources existed, and how the views exemplified communal norms and practices, not "how many people raised them". At other debates it can be far more of a problem.

In some cases a modicum of "letting others know" is allowed. But the community seems to hold that this should be neutral, ie, advising people a debate is going on, rather than just soliciting people to support one side of it. Off-site canvassing (meat-puppetry) is especially never acceptable. Even posting a general note to a place where it is known people of one viewpoint will see it more than others may be seen as improper.

To answer the question:

Community's view - Broadly matches the above. Simply making it wider known that a debate is going on, is valid. But when it's done with an agenda to one side or another, or to an audience which is likely to take one side or another, it's a problem.

A difficult situation is when there are legitimate views both sides.

For example, a situation that has arisen several times: - an RFA where the candidate has gained the ill-will of many editors on some content topic where strong POV warring was known to go on. Is it fair that some editor posts a note to that topic, on the basis "People on this article might like to know the user is seeking adminship"? The editors on that article have a legitimate right to know, and yet it is possible their view may be either well informed, but could equally be quite one-sided or unrepresentative. Suppose the candidate has attempted to quench problematic conduct in a nationalism debate, and the post is to that debate page saying "Hey, user X is seeking adminship [HERE]". Users may have fair points of view, which might indeed need wider awareness, and yet the effect of "pile-on" voting may be to give a completely false picture of the community's view.

In polls such as RFA, where a small shift can determine the result, and where good conduct may be mis-characterized, this is a particularly contentious and troublesome question.

Personal view - Consensus can change, and decisions are not "owned". Therefore I stand by my original statement. Canvassing is -- if addressed properly -- generally not very effective. Improper canvassing is disruptive, and can cause transient problems, but usually these can be resolved by review, or by good discussion closes, by seeking more eyeballs (ANI, dispute resolution, RFC), or simply by passage of time and revisiting of the debate. The problem is, a lot of the time these measures are not followed up, because editors involved are unaware or inecxperienced, or feel unable to, or cannot get sufficient outside interest. Even so,. passage of time tends to sort out the matter, although this can then take months. That's undesirable but seems to be a feature of some discussions, and a byproduct of our communal decision to operate as we do.

So therefore, I'm reluctant to take a specific view on your second question. Your question there, asks about specific means of letting others know there is a debate. A means may be used well or badly. A post on IRC is only seen by those on IRC; a post on ANI is only seen by those who watch ANI; a post on a WikiProject or Manual of Style page will only be seen by those watching that WikiProject or Manual of Style item. Forbidding specific means would be ineffective, and not touch the actual problem at all. It's the conduct that is the issue, not the means (which may be private, or never identified).

More generally, every day, decisions are made on myriad project pages, that most people will not hear of their making. Policy will be discussed, style norms, and so on. It is the responsibility of the person doing the "awareness spreading" to do so ethically and neutrally as best they can. Of course often that's not the case, but it seems futile to block specific high profile means to communicate, when this will not address the concern at all, and will moreso disrupt legitimate communication.

Unfortunately we sometimes have to make judgements or guesses if this has happened. That's not ideal, but seems the best we can do.

Quick answer:

In general, the same principles hold as elsewhere. If there is evidence the user can be communicated with, and brought to productive editing, we generally try to do so. If their work is by and large destructive or disruptive, and they cannot or will not change despite trying, then as always we aim to judge how best to protect the project and the minimum action needed to prevent an editor doing harm. As noted above ( (12)):

Wikipedia is a complex community. We encourage inexperienced, young or new editors and support their learning of our ways and goals. We protect them with policies specific to newcomers and a communal assumption of good faith, and when they make the inevitable mistake of edit or conduct, we have communal traditions of helping, explaining and warning, where possible. But these new editors in turn must understand we have a goal here, and accept and adopt guidance and communal norms, and work constructively with existing members. Some new users are exceptionally good at their work, equally others have much to learn of our approach. The more naive or inexperienced users can be doing their best, and yet still cause serious damage and frustration; indeed, we lose many very good editors due to the collective impact of well-meaning but naive editors (often impassioned, or young, or who see Wikipedia as a "personal stance" forum) who don't know their present limits, or cannot easily adapt to our approaches, norms and goals. And unfortunately, there also exist newcomers who tend towards the provocative or disruptive as well. Even in good faith, a " green cheese" debate [or other good faith but genuinely unconstructive activity] can be intensely frustrating to any productive person.

We have many means to help editors willing to seek or accept help. We have many good users able and willing to mentor, supervize, advise, or counsel, a new user or one having problems. But a good faith user unable, unwilling or unresponsive, or one who canot avoid the problems and failing to learn, may lose the patience of the community as much as any other problem user. One can sense the tension sometimes, when a user is a problem and yet not wilfully damaging. One has to hope they can be reasoned with. It's much more clear-cut when a user posts 'obvious' vandalism. But ultimately, if they cannot then we are not a nursery, nor a social training center, and we have other alternatives for the purpose.

We have a range of these, beyond blocking, including supervized editing, editing restrictions (eg talk page only), and mentorship. If an editor is genuinely seen to be trying in good faith, often one or more of these will be attempted. But in general, even though the degree of patience shown may vary case to case, the requirement to begin to demonstrate learnings, is the requirement that they are measured against.

Questions 20, 22 and 31 all center around qualities, characteristics, experience, and wiki-background desirable in arbitrators.

An effective arbitrator. That's not going to fit in one word, unless its a very interesting word. I just answered jd2718's question (20) about the qualities, characteristics and experiences I'd look for in an arbitrator, which might help, and decided not to duplicate the same wording here as well.

Although Im not much of a Diskworld reader, I'm going to go with one of Terry Pratchett's words, ' Knurd':

"Knurdness is the opposite of being drunk; not sober, but as far from sober as drunkenness in the opposite direction. It strips away all the illusion, all the comforting pink fog in which people normally spend their lives, and lets them see and think clearly for the first time ever. This, needless to say, is a very traumatic experience [though it sometimes leads to important discoveries]..."

This sounds exactly like Arbcom to me. Either that, or a state that long lasting Arbcom members inevitably gravitate towards: tough work, a sense of undue insight and realism, sincerity and a sense of optimism (as in the best stories) combined with a complete lack of illusion, and much coffee for the long hours at the screen........

Short version - I'm going to say right up front it is a point of ethics and integrity to not ever edit policy in the manner you describe. If someone does this in bad faith, it would be looked on as a serious attempt to game the system, and serious evidence that they knew their conduct was wrong or against norms, but attempted to anyhow. And the community will probably have a lot less tolerance for failure to quickly get the point.

That said, the nature of policy makes the question rather more interesting than it might seem.... and merits a rather more considered answer. The ultimate deciding factors (to my mind) are not the most immediate ones.

Policies and guidelines - Policies and guidelines are intended to document consensus and communal norms; they do not create it. In the classic description, when we find a norm that is widely respected and followed, we document it so others know about it and don't slip up. This is what is meant when editors talk about the spirit of policy (ie, what the intention of the community was to achieve), their role as principles, the existance of IAR and WP:LAWYER, and so on.

So there's a real irony in that a user editing a policy page has actually achieved nothing. They cannot in fact "change" policy by doing so, because all policy is, is a codification of a communal norm, and it is the communal norm they are judged against; the codification is merely a shortcut to describe that. What they have done is shown bad faith, and disrupted the process for others. Over time some core policy pages have been watered down by those with vested interests in reducing their clarity ( WP:SOCK is perhaps a prime target for this); even so the norm has visibly remained unaffected by this untoward influence.

On the other hand my own major refactor and occasional significant work on WP:NPOV - perhaps our most highly valued policy - which were all done as WP:BRD edits, gained approval and 18 months on, are still the stable version. Many policy page edits by many users are valuable, or productive (those that aren't are often quickly reverted). So also, some policy page edits are disruptive, some are not. One has to consider this carefully when considering the pros and cons of different approaches to their editing.

Own handling of an identical situation - In my own case, I have actually hit the problem you describe. A quick story:

Policy edits are often suggested by disputes and other events that show the policy is not sufficiently accurate, or helpful, to users. (See for example my answer to #(17) changes to policies, rules, and practices for more on this.)

In July 2007 I hit a problem. I was handling the serious warrior and gamer user:DPeterson, who was at the time at Arbcom (now banned). I was presenting evidence of a year long campaign of virulent gaming and sock warring by the editor. At the time, the guideline Wikipedia:Gaming the system was a short section included in WP:POINT [31], and as such it only covered the couple of aspects of gaming that counted as "disruption to prove a point". To me it was obvious that had there been a full guideline on gaming, the good-faith editors in this war might have seen it, recognized the patterns and found it much easier to formulate their problem at ANI months earlier. So I wrote a full guideline and that was fine.

The problem was, at the same time I was also watching a second situation and it seemed likely I might have to take another edit warrior to arbitration (mediation having been rejected)... and I had drawn in part from that user's conduct to pick the examples added to WP:GAME. So I faced the exact problem described: how would it look if I took an editor to Arbcom, for gaming, having a week beforehand written a guideline specifically identifying his actions as gaming :) Disclosing this publicly would cause conflict; I was not yet certain a case would be needed though.

To ensure no bad faith could be inferred, and that if noticed the user could be reassured it was not intended to be used later against him, I took the extreme measure of writing the following note into the edit of the 'gaming' guideline itself: [32]

... <!-- NOTE: I HAVE A PENDING DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE WHERE THIS IS AN ISSUE. THE ABOVE EXAMPLE IS TAKEN FROM THAT CASE. THIS NOTE IS ADDED TO STATE THAT I WILL NOT BE PLACING RELIANCE UPON MY OWN EDITING OF A PROJECT PAGE, IN ANY DISPUTE RESOLUTION ARISING, AS "EVIDENCE" IN THAT CASE. THIS NOTE CAN BE REMOVED IN AUGUST 2007. NOTE ALSO COPIED TO TALK PAGE FOR VISIBILITY. - FT2 - --> ...

(I think I might've actually forgotten to put a copy on the talk page, which is slightly embarrassing.)

When the DPeterson case looked like being a highly complex one, I went back and modified this note, to read "September 2007" rather than "August 2007" as the removal date instead [33].)

So in brief, I'm indeed familiar with the scenario, both from having been there, and also from having seen it play out - in both good and bad faith.

Personal view, should project pages be open to editing? - The community has a strong view that it might be good, and also strong views that it makes policy "akin to legislation". It has not happened yet. My personal view is, consensus will decide. But I do have a stance.

There is great structural advantage to a project page being able to be edited. As noted above, it allows fixes, adaptations and enhancements that might otherwise never happen due to bureaucracy. It keeps us a bit more fluid, a bit less prone to stagnancy. Whilst bad edits are routinely fixed, however, borderline ones may not be, and policies are so central as to be relied on by everybody and a prime target for agenda-driven editing. A questionable but borderline edit can linger some days in various cases - enough time to misinform many readers. And yet, editability is extremely desirable and so is above average stability.

Overall we cope. It's quirky to be that fluid on your main policies, but in fact little harm happens, due to the number of eyeballs and high buy-in they have. We may communally find in future that more formality and less fluidity serves us well, but (see WP:BUREAU, WP:CREEP) at this time the community has not yet shown a willingness to make that decision.

So given a flat choice, I'd keep as we are -- unless we eventually gain an ability to set finer graduations of control over pages, or flagged revisions arrive for example, which would allow more options. But I'd prefer "open to all" than "locked to all but sysops" if I had a choice. Our ethos of 'equal and open respect' matters more, and if the price is more vigilance and some edits to fix... realistically almost no actual harm is usually done in practice. It's an annoyance, and the positive signs it sends and the benefits we gain, may merit standing some small annoyance in order to preserve that ethos that "anyone can edit" even these, of all pages.

Caveat - (And this almost invariably means we will also be likely to tighten up on problem conduct on live policy and guideline pages more than many others, since these impact more on the project than many others. A user who edit wars via 3RR on WP:OR to get "Their version" in, which is not the community's view, will probably be seen rather more seriously and get fewer chances, than if they had done it on some other page, most likely. But either way the community is more than able to handle it.)

Short answers:

1. I'd try to avoid seeing "arbcom sponsored policy", and I wouldn't be happy with arbcom taking on that role. As described below, arbcom is an interpreter of norms, not a legislature, and should not slip by default into that role. It's important to keep the source of consensus making firmly within the full community itself so far as possible, not within some small subsection of it. Suggesting that the community might beneficially address a policy gap is useful though.
2. I routinely create and propose policy as an editor, and as an administrator already, and do a lot of this. The community has accepted an large number of policy related proposals I've drafted. So I would certainly continue to contribute in this manner in future. But arbitrator-ship gives no extra authority whatsoever to do so. So no, I wouldn't be doing it "as an arbcom member" if appointed. I'd still just be doing it as an ordinary individual editor, in good standing, within normal processes, like anyone.

(For recent policy work, and the kinds of things which prompted these, see #(17) above. For a full list, see User:FT2/Project contributions.)

Role of arbcom - Arbcom can and does (where appropriate) often suggest points for communal attention, and this may obviously include policy based observations. It may see very clearly where problems emerge, and often has the experience to suggest how problems of misunderstanding might be mitigated (avoided or reduced) in future. Also, as part of its role, arbcom will routinely clarify its views on how it feels existing norms can best be applied, and how conflicts between them evidenced in disputes, can be addressed, and these may carry a certain authority.

But 1/ arbcom is not a legislature. Its role is a resource to the community, and a decider on difficult issues and principles, but at present and by design, 2/ arbcom is also not an executive Wikipedia board in any sense. It is a balance to the community, not a dominant over it. See #(3), where I wrote in the context of dispute handling:

"Principle: Where the community can handle it ... [and there is no significant principle at stake needing a definitive view on it] ... Arbcom should not as a rule take the case over, but allow the community to handle it and learn"

Arbcom created policy - I'm fairly sure at present, that I'd try to avoid seeing "arbcom sponsored policy". Traditionally policy has been communally developed; if it is important enough to need more, then it's been created or sponsored by Jimbo directly after discussion. That's not to say Arbcom couldn't, or even that Jimbo wouldn't at some time try to delegate that power as well. It's more that at present it's not a good fit for arbcom-as-is, and if it did happen Arbcom might still not be the best body to actually be delegated to do it.

As things stand at present, the potential for any move in this direction to become a point (do we oppose? Do we support?) and so on, are huge. If it became a norm then I could easily see the situation where people actually feel they 'have to' agree or not, whilst others oppose good ideas as a "protest vote". (For example, protest voting has arisen at this very election.) An expansion of Arbcom into other domains and creation of a top-down body is against everything we presently do as a community, and the current traditional foundation of the Committee. The downside of arbcom becoming a legislature or source of new norms and rules is therefore a huge problem, even though its findings do carry weight.

For these reasons, even if arbcom do come up with an idea, I'd rather see:

1. One or at most two individual arbitrators make a case, and seek views on it in the usual way only, with the rest of arbcom holding off and not making a "pile on" vote or any pressure. If the idea's good it'll be accepted and adopted by the community at large. People'll realize its a joint effort. But it keeps arbcoms job free from sprawl and new scope that ultimately muddies it.

   Or:

2. Arbcom to suggest that a policy might be useful, encourage development of one by the community, suggest it should address at least specific issues/points, but not specify how it should do so. Leave it deliberately open that a policy is probably needed and the community encouraged to develop one that addresses the following areas and needs, at least.

Arbcom's view - In addition, a fortnight ago the Durova case closed. I took the opportunity to check one of its more significant rulings (Principle #3) via a " request for clarification". As a result we now have a current and definitive clarification on Arbcom and policy, from two concurring arbcom members, which confirms the previous understandings above. In simple terms, the salient point is:

• Arbcom rulings reflect their understanding of communal convention, practice and norms, as they stand at the time. Unless Arbcom have explicitly made a specific declaration to the contrary, they should not be taken either to create new policy, or change existing ones, or preclude or hinder new developments, although they can reconcile conflicting requirements. ^{[34] [35] [36]}

Mackensen has also confirmed separately, that the fact Arbcom need to produce a ruling on some policy or process related matter, in and of itself suggests that communal norms were poorly developed, defined, applied, or documented in that area, and therefore implicitly recognizes that they may need to be worked on. But this is again a nudge to the community, and not an actual formulation of policy.

Own policy work - You ask about whether I would propose policy. I've done it as an editor. I've done it as an administrator. Literally, most of the core project pages most referred to, contain work I've done - sometimes small sections and clarifications, sometimes the entire page, and these are usually well received by the community. I take great care to respect the community when editing a policy page, as these are summaries of communal views, and if they fail to capture the sense of communal perception and norms, they should not endure. I see no reason why that would change as an arbitrator. Policy can still be improved and if it isn't helping users as best it can, then it's good to discuss and try to do better.

But whether acting as administrator, or arbitrator, the rule would be strictly the same: - policy pages have validity only by communal consensus (or rarely, by Jimmy Wales in his role as project leader). They are not imposed on the community by individual editors ... or even by institutionalized select groups of editors. As stated above, "being an arbitrator" is not relevant to the process of making policy proposals, it gives no extra standing whatsoever. I did the exact same even before RFA. A part of our traditions that I favor.

Personal view on policy proposals - I would be in favor of proposing sensible ideas, because sometimes that can be very helpful. Knowing that Arbcom have a view might be quite useful to cut the Gordian Knot in some kinds of perennial problems. But the down side is a really bad one: - think block voting, perception that one "ought to" agree, or "ought to" make a point by opposing... the problems and tensions could be bad if Arbcom started trying to make policy for the community rather than interpret norms and offer insights for it.

If one were to see arbcom proposing policy, then one must be very careful to ensure it doesn't come across as "Arbcom have proposed it so its right". Swapping Argumentum ad Jimbum for Argumentum ad Arbcom and reinventing arbcom as our unilateral policy creator would be a horrible mistake and one I'd use an arb position to actively oppose if it came up (unlikely), to keep the source of consensus making firmly within the community itself so far as possible, not within some small subsection of it. We have a delicate system of balance. So if a proposal was seen fit to make, I would be very careful to see it handled so far as possible not as a formal arbcom statement.

This can be done several ways, for example, by describing how Arbcom see the problem or issues (but don't push "one specific pre-given solution"), if there is an active problem then make a minimal ruling to address its worst parts until the community can develop an approach of its own - and encourage them to do so. Then let the community take that into account. And so on. Offer views that others can build on, rather than pre-packed "solutions" that must be decided upon. That's a lot better as a sustainable process.

A good question - thank you!

FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

This proposed finding relates to the Durova case, in which a number of users had a mailing list on which they did 'sleuthing'. Sleuthing in this context appears to have been discussion of who might be a sock-puppet of whom, based on behaviors, coincidences and other editing patterns allegedly spotted by its members. Whilst it may have had effective results in some cases (for all I know), the present case suggests that the self-declared sleuths were too willing to assume, too simplistic and self-sure, and easily swept along by their own views without thought for cold outside checking by uninvolved level headed reviewers, or that the community might have wiser voices to listen to their findings. As a result a long term user !! ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was briefly blocked on what arbcom described as a serious lack of good evidence.

Arbcom case summaries aren't law, but they will be accorded a certain respect, quoted if useful, and looked at by users. An item like this would be in the principles section - a finding that is a generally usable and useful principle that can be relied upon. So a finding like this needs careful construction and consideration.

Unfortunately there are a number of serious problems with this proposal, and I would oppose it. Most were evident on a moment's reading:

1. The use of the word "protected" is very ambiguous. It is unclear how exactly meta activities would be "protected" and what from, for example. It's unclear what the word means in this sentence: "Voting in an arbcom election is 'protected' by registering"? What other "meta-editing activities" are being "protected" by registering? This would be unhelpfully unclear to many users. If it has a useful meaning, it needs a rewrite to express it.
    
2. It's conceptually mistaken. Registering in fact offers no "protection" against flawed allegations of this kind. Registering does not appear to have "protected" user:!! in this case, nor is it clear how registering could have been the slightest help in protecting him. In fact, since registering hides information that could be used by any user to test allegations, the opposite may be slightly true for good-faith users.
    
3. It's a poor response to the case in hand. As it happens, user:!! wasn't trying to exercise any "meta editing activities" (another inadequately defined term). His contributions show he was working on Featured Article review, DYK, cricket related articles and biographies in the days previous to the event.
    
4. It's unclear as to subject/object. The proposal ("meta-editing activities are best protected by registering [rather] than by sleuthing") is capable of reasonably sustaining at least three different interpretations by users. (We have seen the problems that can happen due to disregarding the possibility of incorrect interpretation in other cases.) Is the subject (the "thing being protected by registering") in this wording, the "meta-editing activity", the user, or the user's right to engage in the activity? This needs to be better defined. In other words, is it saying that:

   1. Wikipedia meta-editing activities such as arbcom elections (etc) will be protected if people register,
   2. Users who wish to engage in Wikipedia meta-editing activities will be best protected if they register, or
   3. Users can best protect their right to engage in meta-editing activities if they register?
       

5. I'm also hesitant to endorse a finding that might eat away at a core Wikipedia community principle that anyone can edit, even without registering. It's not clear how editing anonymously would make someone more of a target for "sleuthing" or in need of more "protection", and if they aren't at more risk somehow, we shouldn't be implying they are. Arbcom has ruled repeatedly that "All editors deserve to be treated with the utmost of respect by administrators" and blocking should be used with utmost care only. ^{1, see also 2 3} Registering is desirable for many reasons, but administrators are expected to act with thought: "protection" from unthought-out and unjustified blocks shouldn't be one of them.
   
   Comment: A significant contribution in fact comes from unregistered users (see below). A proposal that implies we allow them to edit unregistered but if they don't register they can expect to have more problems or be considered to be 'less valid users' somehow, goes against many long standing Wikipedia communal traditions. We exclude IP users from some activities, but we welcome their editing and other involvement completely.

   • (The source for this is a 2007 academic study of Wiki editing, which examining anonymous editing. It noted that in fact, anonymous editors were some of Wikipedia's most productive adders of valid content, and stated that, "Surprisingly ... we find the highest quality from the vast numbers of anonymous 'Good Samaritans' who contribute only once." ^[37])
      

6. Arbcom tend to avoid unclear terms. I'd possibly look for a better term than "sleuthing" that describes more precisely the activity being addressed.
    
7. It is logically unsound. The essence of this 'sleuthing' was the piecing together of behavioral clues in users edits, to conclude some user was a sockpuppet, either of an unknown user, or some other person. It's not at all clear how the question "are they registered" would impact on (or inter-relate with) that kind of behavioral examination and digging.

   • In more detail, unless some bad faith is assumed such as "sock puppeteers are more likely to use IPs than accounts; registering will tend to protect one against allegations", it's not clear how the two might relate. And in fact experienced sock users are more likely to use accounts, not less, so even that it doesn't make sense.

While this proposal doesn't work for me, if this question means you have a view on what we should be doing on this topic, that hasn't been noted yet, feel free to let me know and I'll take a further look, either here or on my talk page as relevant.

I've merged and covered two issues here, the question above, and also, the further question " (38) arbcom recusals and access to discussion". Both refer to mailing list access and the general principle of access to Arbcom internal discussions. I'll probably de-merge these in a while.

One line answer -- 1/ Clear and strong oppose on principle, to ex-Arbcom members keeping access to the list (or any other arbcom discussion methods) after their term is over. 2/ Clear and strong oppose to non-Arbcom (non-voted) users being privy to Arbcom discussions other than with exceptional and good reason connected with the benefit of the project (eg Foundation lawyer?). 3/ Clear and strong oppose to parties being able to influence, shoulder-read, or be in the frame, in cases where they have involvement, but concerns over the best way to achieve that technically in practice. Arbcom is not a social club. Despite the experience ex members may be able to provide, list members should be the appointed and present-day Arbcom only. There may be a very few that the Foundation determines have exceptionally some genuine, serious, good reason to need to be aware of Arbcom email traffic and general discussion (eg, Foundation lawyer?). But in general, when a user no longer has genuine cause to be on the mailing list, prompt removal without exception is appropriate (and would be sought in my case even if not generally the norm for others, if appointed), as well as removal of access to any other restricted discussions acquired due to the role.

More... - There are good reasons which might be put forward, why allowing such access to the arbcom mailing list might be valid. Some arguments include:

• Past Arbcom members are trusted and have been trusted to see such cases anyway for years
• Past Arbcom members can advise and help
• There are non-voted users who have good reason, and non-voted users are rarely appointed without good reason. (Mike Godwin, the Foundation's lawyer, might be one example of a non-voted person who might be argued to need sight of a mailing list that may have to handle controversial conduct and oversight matters. Jimmy Wales himself is another)

I can see the merit that a small and restricted number of non-arbitrators might need access, for legal and other reasons. But we should be open who they are, and the nature of their involvement, it should be kept small, and their stance is at most, input on their specific areas of interest. Thus (for example) I'd endorse a legal overview, because I can see the case for it - arbcom deals with oversight and conduct matters some of which may be legally serious. They may not realize a matter is legally significant, so leaving it to them to seek input might result in a serious matter being misjudged through ignorance. But if allowed access, that person is there for legal overview as needed, and to judge a user's conduct or proposal in legal terms, for example..... they are not there to be an auxilliary arbitrator.

But overall no. A clear and strong oppose. When my term is up (if appointed) I expect to be removed from all privileged access I may have been given as part of (and in order to do) my role. If Arbcom want to consult me, or ask my opinion in any matter, that's always welcome. But it should not be presumed, nor should ex-arbitrators be a dead weight on the shoulders of new arbcom members with their new insights, having to handle the shades of Arbcom past members too. A classic case of travelling light. They can always be asked for discussion/insight on a specific matter or principle any time, if ever useful, like any other editor. They don't need access to the list for that.

Likewise the committee may decide to give some member Oversight or Checkuser access, to view material for Arbcom cases. But when given it should be explicitly stated specified if this access is for the role, and terminates when the role does, or if it is intended to endure, so there is no doubt 'up front'. (Although there is less concern in this case, since the presumption is trust will persist and it is a tool, not a line into case discussions, which is being given.)

(Late added clarification: One issue worth considering, is, ex-arbitrators as a check and balance. I thought about this when first answering, decided it didn't swing the decision, and left it at that. I've decided to fill that in somewhat. Arbcom is elected in 3 tranches over a 3 year period. In any given year, only a third of Arbcom is replaced. Of those, sometimes there may be a re-election of an existing arbitrator. So we really don't replace much of Arbcom each year. The 2008 Arbcom will be 2/3 made up of users who have been there a year or more. The experience doesn't suddenly leave Arbcom in January. It's more likely "business much as usual, with most of the committee intact, a minority leave only". Given that, I stand by my view above. Arbcom is best to thank and respect its ex members - and let them go when their tour of duty is up. The 15 to 18 on the Committee and their experience and qualities - including experience when to seek advice - is (or should well be) its own strong set of checks and balances. Staggered membership and arb experience seriously strengthens that. And again, there's no good need, no essential benefit, travelling light is easier work. Arbcom is a job and focus. We will have an arbcom of 15 to 18 or so including many with long experience - that's a good number for the job. More than enough for good insights and safeguards to arise. 30 to 40 (as it seems it may be in a year or so if ex-members remain) isn't. Not that this trumps the previous arguments which are the main ones for "oppose". It just addresses a "reason to keep" that might be considered, and dismissed as insufficient.)

Arbitrators involved in cases having read access or access to discussion - The second point you raise has troubled me too, enough to have asked advice already on this (see below for details). There are two cases here - arbitrators as parties whose conduct is being questioned, and arbitrators involved in a case to present evidence or views. Both have problems. I don't have answers, but I can name some of the problems.

In the former case (parties whose conduct is being questioned), would arbcom criticize and accept a case against one of their own? How much should the case relate to their work or their (possibly questionable) conduct before they are removed from access during the case discussion? Who would decide (Arbcom? Community (how)? Jimmy Wales?) And can this be abused by people seeking to retaliate or cause disruption? (For example, bad-faith assertions used to 'demand' recusal based on a spurious claim the arbitrator was involved?)

In the latter case, what if an arbitrator is involved because they are presenting evidence or an outside view, or some non-fault role that none the less might be seen as taking a side (ie main evidence or outside view) in a case? This has troubled me too. Evidence might be perceived to be favored because of the presenter, whether or not it was in fact the quality of evidence that was the reason. Certainly a person who states a non-trivial view is unlikely to seem neutral in relation to both parties. So there's a problem. I don't know if recusal would in fact be strong enough to ensure visible independence, but no better answer has gained communal consensus in the several years arbcom has existed. I'm almost tempted to say they shouldn't receive emails concerning that case, in order that their recusal and isolation from it as arbitrator is complete, but that kind of filtering is probably not technically possible, and general removal would seriously disrupt their involvement in the other 5-10 cases going on simultaneously. And in any case mailing lists are only one of many forms of communication where cases get discussed.

The other problem is the effect of "chill". A reader implies a degree of reduced freedom to speak freely of that person. If the reader is a possible "fault party" then if one is strictly seeking integrity, criticism must be without their seeing it. They are removed, their case is discussed, they are told the result and allowed back after (if appropriate). If they are a no-fault party and they are presenting evidence or a view, then harm is less likely from reading comments on it, and criticism probably will be freely spoken, but it's still a concern. But once they choose to present evidence at the case, then anything arbcom discuss related to assessing their evidence or setting it against others, becomes again, a possible risk of undue effect. Since I don't think non-current arbitrators need list access, the risk is limited to just the current members of the committee, pretty much. But that is no guarantee problems and conficts between users as parties/presenters, and arbitrators, will not exist.

These issues arise in the real world, too, except there in general, 1/ a person chooses a career as a bringer of cases or a hearer of them, and this usually precludes being both, and 2/ there are many courts, whereas here any user may open an arbitration case and wide views and evidence are valued, and we have only one source of Arbitration. We'd need to expand Arbcom or have multiple circuits , to create extra capacity, if we went that route. But that would be one option perhaps, a two-circuit Arbcom allowing more capacity, and also allowing an Arbitrator on circuit #1 to be involved as a party, in a case on circuit #2, without disruption. And even that approach would have problems of its own, too.

I don't know what is possible or best here. Trust and integrity is absolutely essential in this; can these alone be enough? But the visibility of it is also important, and non-arbitrators have no way to tell whether (and how well) these things are being taken care of.

Hildanknight used a good word discussing the Singapore elections yesterday: "Incorruptible". I think that's what's needed. Arbitrators so strict in their self-managing, that even if they were able to access such matters they wouldn't use it, nor would others be influenced by them. That kind of belief in human nature of a small group is a question many will find unacceptable, and it's hard to argue; that's a real concern.

I leave the question open, but if you have ideas that might be a practical solution, I'm seriously interested too. A more personal note is below.

Thanks for an important question. I'll get to the others shortly.

FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Personal Note - If appointed, I am already decided on my measures. I will expect removal from any restricted access after my term is over, even if others do not require it, unless the community itself has openly determined otherwise, and I will be exceptionally deliberate not just to recuse, but to avoid all comment or discussion of cases with other Arbcom members, if I am presenting the evidence for a case. An arbcom member cannot and should never be, both case presenter, and also arbitrator/jury. That would be a rather definite no.

In fact it was a situation I took so seriously, I emailed another respected administrator (the person who nominated at my RFA in fact) on November 6 to ask specifically their advice. My email read in part:

"In these cases, I [could not] in fairness both be the one documenting and preparing the case statement and evidence, and also an arbitrator hearing the case. On such cases I would obviously recuse and not participate. The question is, as a possible arbcom position, is that sufficient or should I do more? And does that stance need stating more explicitly or do others take it as read that this would be what happens?"

I am sure the administrator concerned will be pleased to verify this; accordingly I have linked to him above in case anyone wants to have an idea who I asked. The response I got was to recuse.

• Note: I verify that FT2 contacted me on this regard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Non-public evidence can have many facets. It can be completely accepted in some forms, and yet when mishandled, potential to be a source of great division in others. The wide range of scenarios and situations means that when it comes up in practice in a contentious or non-trivial sense, I would want to think carefully, and any resulting decision or proposal would also have to be very carefully worded to be clear exactly what it did mean, and what it shouldn't be taken as meaning.

That said, if I understand you correctly, your question here is more focused on general private communication (ie, "evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature" is not the main issue). The link points to a proposal you suggested in one case: ^[38]

"Proposal: - To preserve the integrity and fair-handedness all parties cease and desist from contacting arbitrators privately or semi-privately (that is outside of the case pages) in relation to this case. Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature or leaving a note at the talk page pointing to a new case development is exempted."

The question therefore seems to allow that genuinely private matters may exist, but focuses more on the possible attempt to "get an arbitrator on ones side", by having private discussions with them, presenting ones case specially to one person (or several), seeking to gain a sympathetic audience by writing and engaging with specific arbitrators, and so on. I'll comment on that type of situation; if you actually meant to include something else or a different focus, then please let me know.

Contact with arbitrators - There are legitimate good-faith reasons why a user (especially one unfamiliar with arbitration) may feel motivated to write to an arbitrator privately. Obvious examples:

1. They are new to arbitration or unsure, and want private advice or a sense of reassuring "personal contact" in discussing the case or its management, from the most clued-in source they can identify.
2. They may have personal knowledge and don't know whether or what is best to do with it, if it's private, what's expected, or how to explain it.
3. They have had bad experiences such as feeling ignored or "trashed" (perceived or actual), or have a bad reputation, and want to be sure what they have to say will be seen by someone who will take it genuinely rather than maybe judge the evidence by the reputation of the poster.
4. They may genuinely feel their evidence was of good value and ignored or not given weight (or may not be given due weight), or other evidence was given excess weight, and want to ask for review person-to-person, or discussion, or explanation privately.
5. In some cases a party such as an edit warrior may make bad-faith accusations against others, sometimes very nastily. Arbcom often does not prevent these, and they can be hard to know how to deal with. Responding can give rise to more "mudslinging" and drama, or the appearance of credibility and acknowledgement. An off-wiki request whether it's allowable, or something can be done, by the smeared party, is not entirely illogical in such circumstances and shows a good intent to avoid fuelling the other party's attempt at drama.
6. They may be frustrated by the low level of communication sometimes visible on a case.
7. They may feel if they write to one arbcom member, they will get a more thoughtful or detailed personal reply than if they write to a committee as a whole, or the wiki pages, that may get a shorter more terse comment that's less helpful for their reassurance and understanding.
8. They may feel other avenues are more of dubious value; for example some people may feel a "clerk" or "random administrator" might lack the insight an "arbitrator" might have to give them the best comments.

and so on. Whatever the best handling might be, these are all common good faith reasons for contact, and a user should not feel attacked for a reasonable attempt to make contact in good faith.

What isn't okay is "forum shopping", or wilfully seeking to gain influence or non-neutrality.

View - In light of the above, I think the answer isn't in policy, nor in user activity. It's in the trust given to arbitrators, that they will themselves give fair replies yet carefully guard their neutrality, and that they will routinely tell people that they are aware but would rather the subject were stated in the usual place on the /Evidence pages, and that they cannot act as general advisor or advocate or take a side.

The correct approach here is that arbitrators themselves are helpful, approachable -- and if the request is one that should be on the wiki pages but has in fact been posted to their user page, or email, or such, or the user is trying to engage in extended discussions or seeking agreement on their view, then they cordially but clearly point out that this isn't something that's best, or that they cannot enter into such discussion in depth due to neutrality, and ask that the user posts to the case page in the usual way. We don't need more WP:CREEP here -- this is basic commonsense, and arbitrators have to be trustworthy that they will not open themselves to being biased (or its perception), that if they have had private dialog they will disclose it if appropriate, that they will separate their private discussion from their arbitratorship case, and so on.

But a complete bar, or ban, on any off-RFAR contact might be unnecessarily strict. We aren't law courts. The bottom line is that user aside, an arbitrator who does not vigilantly and without asking, guard their own neutrality and its perception, who cannot show good handling if questioned (by the community or arbcom itself), has lost possibly the main foundation that their committee membership is based upon.

That is what should matter above all, and my own standards for an arbitrator include being sufficiently clued in to proactively watch their own neutrality, and take steps accordingly, and to be able to tell others if they cannot talk or act on some matter -- not to need some written word to say so.

I've answered a fair bit of the "how should Arbitrators handle cases where they have a degree of involvement" ( above (36)).

I may well expand this but it's likely to be well covered by the question already answered. The answer is Strong support, would do it and expect others to do so as well. Whether or not some formal "prohibition" exists is irrelevant, though I'd support a suitably worded one to make totally sure it's hammered home. This is something I'd expect Arbitrators to figure out, even if it's not formally 'prohibited'.

Take a look, and if you want me to expand on any part of that comment, do let me know, I'll be glad to :)

Arbcom is an exceptional body in Wikipedia's communal self-management. In general, as I've stated in several answers [LINK], Arbcom is answerable to the community, and not vice-versa. The exact terms of that answerability are, of course, important details. But the principle holds. It is worth looking at two aspects of background first, namely, how Arbcom fits in, and how Arbcom came to have its present norms.

Arbcom is a direct appointment and creation of Jimmy Wales. It is his main means to delegate certain types of function into responsible hands, within the community. As such, it is a panel that is in a way, externally mandated as an integral part of the community. It has norms to allow it to do its delegated tasks, which no other part of the community has, including 1/ an election process, 2/ direct appointment, 3/ dual answerability (to both the community and Jimmy personally), 4/ an ability to set unilateral decisions and interpretations without wider consultation, 5/ the right to hear cases in camera where necessary, 6/ the right to self-govern broadly, 7/ the right to keep its affairs private from the community in opposition to the radical openness of most other processes, 8/ immunity from broader communal consensus regarding its operations (ie its operations are not necessarily dictated by the wider community's view), 9/ decision-makers of last resort, and so on. These in turn demand immense trust, which is usually given but has also come under strain from time to time, as is probably inevitable.

To focus on arbcom policy, the functional history as best I understand it, is roughly as follows:

As a result of the above, Arbcom and Arbitration policy stand in an unusual role in the community. There are two interpretations offered:

To follow the logic of James F's explanation, the community dispute resolution policy is that consensus dispute resolution is used and escalated up to a point outside the community, Jimmy Wales, who may make unilateral decisions and is outside the scope of communal decision-making. Jimmy delegates this role to a committee of his choosing, which is also in some ways "outside" the scope of community decision-making too. In commonsense terms, delegating his most serious power is a risk. The policy wording itself is unlikely to be gamed (like all policies it's a well watched page), but the aim and rationale seems to be that one part at least will not be prone to the routine changes of random editors or the community, but will (like Jimmy's own role himself) be externally decided.

On the other hand, "The Committee seeks to be part of the community, and not to be seen as handing down judgment from on-high, divorced from the community's viewpoint",^{[ [55]} the policy amendment regime is still classed as an "unresolved issue" and no "open community vote" on a "final policy" has yet been proposed, ^[56] presumably since no version has yet been clasified as a final policy. Accordingly it may be that arbitration policy has slipped into adoption by tradition, since it is now two (almost 3) years since these events and the March 2005 statement, and both of the "unresolved issues" are not seen as especially contentious items of heated discussion.

So with that as background, my own feelings.

I can see the logic and sense of keeping it outside the community, but I think it's a bit 'overkill'. There's no need to be that impervious to community wishes. And indeed, I don't think the policy is. Jimmy has shown himself willing to listen, and if the community did indeed feel strongly on some issue, and a poll was held with a large number of responses and strong (75/80%+) outcome, I think he'd be willing to consider it. I actually suspect the community would be a responsible set of hands for arbitration policy, and therefore would be willing to trust it with managing that policy.

But I also see the point and concerns above, so I'd probably expect some balancing term in the policy if so, which made clear changes couldn't just "happen", but would need strong consensus, or gave either Jimmy or arbcom a veto, or the right to modify it unilaterally in some circumstances. After all, one of the checks and balances we have as a community is that if things seriously went off the rails, we accept there is an external voice able to say so, that's not just the voice of many users. That voice hasn't been used much, and may never be, but I can see the speculative value of it being there regardless, in any case. After all, Jimmy's entire role in English Wikipedia is predicated on a similar kind of delicate understanding that a power may genuinely be unclearly defined, yet clearly held, but by tradition not much used.

You're absolutely right it's a valid question. It's also either cleverly misworded to catch people out, or has a slight accidental logical slip in it, so the extended answer is an important clarification. The first part of the question refers to the power of arbcom as a whole, but the second asks what an individual arbcom member would do. Communal norms and traditions of consensus seeking and decision-making are expected at arbcom too.

My basic answer is short and simple.

1. I would weigh in without hesitation on overriding Jimmy Wales (or explaining a perceived bad call) if I honestly felt it was right (= for the best) for the project to do so -- and strongly if necessary.   Point blank, and no qualms. We do no good service by not speaking up on a bad (or dubious) decision, or one with unforeseen consequences.
   
   [Late addition to clarify: speaking one's mind is best done with respect and thoughtfulness, with careful listening, always calmly and with reason, and often by simple, quiet discussion and communication]
    
2. There might be cases where a decision was needed to override due to some major mistake or catastrophe, but that would be very rare, and would be highly unlikely to be without discussion even so. Every rule has an exception, and IAR was created extremely early on, like NPOV, as a core principle. But the more important the rule, the rarer the exception. Almost surely consultation and agreement (probably more than one other member) at a minimum beforehand. A "holding note" is usually better in such circumstances, to ask for a few hours patience until discussion can take place. An exception would be rare indeed, I think, where dialog was not the better choice. There are few situations indeed that cannot be handled by a note or email saying "I'll be discussing this urgently, please be patient a few hours". (Example of a case where such override might be needed - a major, immediate, and urgent privacy/personal information/defamation issue, where Jimmy decided not to oversight, but turns out hadn't been aware of the full facts, and now can't be contacted.)
    
3. But the norm is that we avoid riding over others decisions forcibly if mutual dialog will accomplish the same goal.

That said, since Jimbo is highly respected in the community (by me as well), that statement deserves more detail.

Jimmy Wales - Jimbo's role in Wikipedia is near legendary. But he has stated many times, that he doesn't want "yes men", he wants people who are going to feel able to not concur with him if they think his view isn't helping.

His intent to step back over time, requires it, over time has delegated more functional powers, and my answers elsewhere are all based on a model of 1/ the community coming first, 2/ arbcom serving the community by acting as a final panel of resort and picking out the views which best reflect, balance and interpret its norms, practices and customs, and 3/ overview by Jimbo with advice and executive guidance on the "big picture", to double check we stay on the rails. If I'm appointed to act as an arbitrator for a time, it's for the community and the project, and because I'm trusted for my judgement and experience. That trust, and that judgement, will be faithfully given to my best ability, and given to the community.

I value Jimmy Wales tremendously. But if he did something rash, and we said "Jimmy, that's okay" would he really see it as good? Or would he see it as a failing in his hopes for the community's maturity? He's said many times, he will place himself under arbcom's decisions, if they conflict in certain areas (eg on bans). He's said he too can make (and has made) mistakes as well as any of us. He's said he wants to "empower" admins to make good decisions safely. How much more direct can he get, in stating what he wants of us, for the community's benefit?

Put the other way. 2 months ago, the situation nearly did happen. Jimbo and an admin Zscout fell out over a block, and for 48 hours there was an RFC, and questions on it. (Bad memories, quickly fixed). Suppose Zscout had been desysopped and protested. Suppose the block/unblock decision of either had good cause to be reviewed by Arbcom? Should we be biased? Suppose Jimbo had felt it needed handling this or that way, and made clear his view in private? Suppose a difficult judgement happens again with a different person, or a mis-judgement occurs on the sense of the community? Suppose a productive editor was snapped at and told to leave, when calmer moods might have suggested discussion? Lose a productive member because nobody feels able to speak up honestly and with respect? Sorry, no.

Defining Jimbo's 'traditional role' - What is Jimbo's "traditional capacity within Wikipedia"? We aren't lawyers, and it's never been well defined anyway. The traditional role is probably "stuff Jimbo's routinely done within Wikipedia over the years". What precisely that covers - we'll figure when a case comes up, I guess. To me what it means is, there are some things Jimbo has never relinquished a say on to any other body or part of the community. Examples:

1. NPOV is non-negotiable. Jimbo has never said or hinted that this is going to be up for editorial discussion in future. Its his say, and he's kept it as a communal norm, even though it's one with immense buy-in. Likewise...
2. We're here to write an encyclopedia (not a new type of social networking site)
3. Personal attacks are never, ever okay.
4. The knowledge on Wikipedia is public (GFDL)
5. Decisions are ultimately made by the community (consensus based), even if some decisions are delegated to some part of the community to do so.
6. He (even as a member) may not choose to be subject to all communal decisions and processes, even if he does listen and take note of them (RFC was one, ^[99] perhaps others exist too)
7. There is an arbitration committee, and he ultimately chooses its members, and it has a wide range of autonomy and self determination in order to best serve the community's needs in its role

And so on. By contrast, other matters he has:

1. The community can develop its own policies and norms, within the principles that he has established above
2. The community can develop its own dispute handling processes for the most part (Arbcom an exception set up specifically)
3. Admins can issue blocks according to norms
4. Arbcom can rule on bans, including bans by Jimbo, and he will respect this.

Traditionally two ways of describing Jimbo's role have emerged:

• View #1: - Jimbo has the role of 'constitutional monarch', with powers that are largely delegated. Retains all power in principle, but in practice would cause civil war by trying to exercise some of them after this long. User:Thebainer wrote an interesting essay on this.
• View #2 - Jimbo has two roles, as user/administrator, and as project leader. In the former role he will traditionally and voluntarily fit in with most communal norms and most communal processes; in the latter he speaks as executive and decision-maker.

As project leader with executive power, Jimmy can change Wikipedia how he sees fit. He can appoint Arbcom, change Arbcom, do what he sees right, change his mind, change his views, impose, ban, and you name it. He can voluntarily relinquish powers to the community, but it's his word only, nothing binds him to it except that he's said it. Otherwise, Jimmy interacts with Arbcom in various ways: they advise him and he discusses matters with them, and at times, they may handle cases (such as bans and desysoppings) where he has played a role. Also he may be on the arbcom mailing list when cases come up in which he has an opinion. In all those cases, the presumption is, Arbcom are expected to act with integrity.

I don't know any more than you how the arbcom mailing list works in practice (norms, self-regulation and customs). But I would hope the norm is, Jimmy recuses himself from intervening in case decisions to allow Arbcom to do those unbiased by his view. And I hope that no expectation exists that Arbcom will do anything other than treat him with respect -- and that arbcom members show that respect by giving of its best views and honesty, whether those endorse his feelings, or differ from them, and trusting that they are right to do so.

That said, everything Jimmy does, suggests he is someone who hopes to see people be honest, and give good advice even if not always easy, and believes that this is essential for the long term project too.

Arbcom's role - Arbcom has multiple aspects to its role. The most obvious one is arbitrators of dispute cases, and (within that) assessors of non-public information, such as checkuser or oversight evidence when it relates to cases. It has a second role though. When a case comes up, Arbcom is the body that decides how principles apply, and work in the real world, in that specific case. So it is in a way, a builder of precedent; even though these are not binding, they are widely respected and its decisions are often taken (right or wrong) to signal how a given principle might be better interpreted or applied from then on. Arbcom decisions at times have signaled whether a given principle is strict or has exceptions, applies to new situations or not, and so on. In the background, at times, Jimmy may possibly ask advice, make suggestions, or propose his own view on matters, and seek arbcom's view as a "sounding board".

If he does, then the ability to decide against a view or reject a problematic proposal or idea would be a point of principle. The ability to say "no" will count. If the big rule is brought out, "as project leader this is how we're going to do it", then that's completely his right. We can advise in that role, not override. But in general, his preference is to discuss and consult, and he seems to do this habitually. Under those circumstances the override would be of hasty or damaging decisions, and in that case, it's likely someone should say "Jimmy, with respect, I can't agree that was right". Whether arbcom as a whole believe that way or not, is a different matter. Arbcom too must find its consensus.

Arbcom's 'role' (or an aspect of principles) is complete neutrality to parties. The lowest user and the most respected are equal in chance to present their side and case, and equal in fairness. We do not pat Jimmy (or each other) on the back if he's making a mistake, or acted in haste, we note it, advise on it, and/or decide how to comment. Arbcom does not exist to rubber stamp. It may agree that a course of action is wise, and support it, but it isn't a rubber stamp. It's selected with care for its members' ability to decide matters in line with our best practices, and with expertize and insight, and so on.

But the ability for an Arbitrator to say "Jimmy, that's just not the best decision" or ask for evidence to decide matters, or decide the evidence just doesn't support the view, is an important one. If Jimbo didn't believe in the power of more eyeballs, then he surely created a strange way to show it :)

First and immediate thought, we're not police, so we don't rate things as "crimes". There is helpful conduct, and unhelpful, and we try to make positive contributing easy and pleasant, but its rare that a strong word like "crimes" is the best one.

Second thought, this is a complex question that's hard to do justice to. I'll try to tackle what I think you're getting at, but if I'm mistaken, please do clarify or correct me. I think the core question is something like this:

• "An editing dispute leads to a questionable block (by a co-editor or uninvolved user) of a good-faith user with good editing. So they create a 2nd account to respond (or to complain, seek dispute resolution, edit further, or whatever). Maybe they get a bit upset and heated even. Does the circumstance excuse their problematic response?"

Quick answer - There are reasonable and unreasonable reactions to everything. For example, a user who has only ever used one account may need their attention drawn to WP:SOCK, rather than being treated like a "criminal". That is why we look at good faith, and discuss, and warn, and why we have specific policies about biting newcomers. A good quality, decent person who wishes to contribute, and finds something weird happen thats completely disorienting, may well make a bad judgement on handling it. There is a very vivid precautionary tale against administrators making this kind of assumption, sitting at Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats. By contrast some reactions even if understandable, are totally unacceptable and may merit warning, discussion, or other handling. As ever, in a nutshell the issue is always about protecting the project from future harm, retaining the good work they may well do, communication, and assessing the events case by case. Sometimes this may well mean that the best judgement is to not dwell on a problematic but provoked action, and rather, focus on ensuring that the user learns they are understood, but there is a better way to handle it next time. Wikipedia is full of examples of even hardened problem editors being given that chance; we can equally extend it to a good faith editor whose upset due to mishandling is understandable and reaction not typical of their work. People aren't expected to be perfect, is an old traditional accepted truth on the project. Mistakes will happen and within limits, can be lived past.

A good analysis and summary of a dispute will make clear who did what, in response to what, and why it was right or wrong (or reasonable or not) to do so. As always, it's down to the editor to decide to follow norms in future, and down to the community (or admin, or arbcom) judgement how best to handle it in the specific instance where "stuff happened that really shouldnt have".

A good question, with several facets.

The first thought is, these elections are not actually "first past the post on percentage". That may be how Jimbo has taken them in the past, but it may be that (like NPOV/SPOV) it's a misleading impression and he chose the top number who he felt comfortable with, who also happened to be the community's choice. In the latter case it is conceivable that in a different election the two might differ slightly. My own understanding has always been roughly that they are advisory; Jimbo uses them to make his choice based on points raised plus percentages, but in fact chooses for the best (as he sees it), not strictly by the percentages. If he chose by net support instead, that would be his choice too.

There are good reasons for this. For example, suppose there was a pile-on vote for (or against) some specific issue. Giano had a strong pile-on for specific issues; others might well have had too. In such a case, it is possible that the raw percentage or votes might not actually have indicated who was likely to be the best in the role. As I understand it, Jimbo retains the freedom to choose that, which is consistent with his sometimes-use of arbcom as his advisory panel. Again, I don't know if this is a "right or wrong" thing, one can say it shouldn't be that way or not, but it's pure opinion both ways, and whilst Jimbo's opinion usually respects the community's decision, I wouldn't be surprised to see minor differences at some time or other.

There's also a further reason - suppose we had a superb candidate who was supported by many well known and capable users, but also had taken many problem users to ANI or similar, and for that reason picked up many opposes from users who were bordering on removal. Would we rate this the same as a user whose opposes were for more solid reasons? Or one whose popularity stems from never offending anybody which is good socially but may not be good for a project whose aim is to write an encyclopedia. It's a provocative question but a valid one. Little in the community is based on pure percentages (a perpetual argument at RFA), and it would seem strange to assume Jimbo's choice was, either. Should the nature and quality of views (where stated) or the reputation for good wiki-judgement of those casting the views, be taken into account? These are provocative questions, to which I'm not stating a case, but simply observing, they exist and may be factors in the answer, too.

Now, personally, how I would act if I felt a decision was right or not.

At Arbcom elections, an appointee's choice to agree or differ is not entirely without impact. The community and Jimbo go through an intense and complex process of communal questioning, and voting, and final selection, to choose a very few new arbitrators. Would it be a service to the community to impose one's own view of who these should be (eg, that it should be strictly by percentage or such) over the head of those whose final decision it was?

A decision on the results "in general" might likewise not be in accordance with the percentages and yet be reasonable (or within Jimbo's discretion) for all the reasons above. Again, one could say strongly and forcefully with good reason, either in private or public, that they object, or feel it a poor decision, but would withdrawing in protest (the only other option one actually has) really be best for the community as a response? Whilst a completely disasterous appointment might be one example that might (in very disturbing cases) justify a 'protest withdrawal' if all else fails, I'm not sure that just Jimmy exercising a discretion that's been his from the start, would count, if the candidate was actually a reasonable one.

That said, if I did feel doubt, or that I was for some reason the wrong candidate, or a concern was raised by the community that I felt had merit, or a seriously poor decision was made, then that would be relevant, and I would say so, and seek reconsideration or affirmation that the choice was made knowing fully of my own concerns, and I'd raise that specifically, because I'd want to be sure that view and concern had been fully taken into account by those making the decision.

(I actually did withdraw my first RFA, due to a concern ^[100] that there was not in fact a good quality of consensus endorsing it, where I was at the classic 80% "certainty limit". That was about halfway in (3 days). The main concern that was being raised was simply - lowish use of edit summaries. I fixed it via the "force edit summaries" option, but it continued to acquire "oppose, need more track record" views in the RFA. Now, this had been fixed and was already being evidenced. It was also about as mechanical a requirement as one can get, fixed by a single click. Even so, I took the view these were an expression of a legitimate, and valid concern - the wish to have more track record on the matter. I withdrew the RFA at 80% to give that time to be addressed. And as can be seen, didn't exactly feel a rush to get the tools again when I had done so. I would not necessarily hold others to that tight a standard, because it's not consensus to do so, but myself - yes.)

In general though, I tend to focus on disputes and editorial environment; I've therefore as a whole tended in years past to accept the appointments made, whether at Arbcom or RFA, and let the community (plus Jimmy) figure those things out for themselves. There are many eyeballs, if it's a problem I'll hear of it, but overall my focus is on actual articles to write, help or improve, actual editors to support, and actual disputes to resolve. Who sits on arbcom and how Jimbo's final choice is made, has never been a major practical issue for me, in those things.

Discussed by email with the questioner. A fascinating and rich question, which time didn't allow the reflection needed for a real answer.

In a way, I wish I'd had this one 2 - 3 weeks earlier. It's a good, insightful question that deserves a solid answer.

It'll have to be a quick answer, since this one was posted with 5 hours to go, and noticed at 23.45 :)

But thanks anyway!

• Legally - yes they probably can. Fair use, presumption of non-secrecy, and so on ... it would be hard to see a case being made that a log with fair use cannot be fairly published. For comparison, newspapers can publish the contents of letters deemed to be "public interest" too, in many cases. I'm also unsure if legally the recipient of a letter is ever deemed or not, to have the right to publish it, since I'm not a lawyer :) ^{[101] [102]}

• Strict communal norms - regardless of the strict letter of the law, we have a policy that they cannot be published on the open wiki. We do this for copyright reasons, and we are stricter on copyright than perhaps the law requires, in order that we stay safely well within unimpeachable limits, and our content genuinely does remain reusable.

• Morally - views differ. If someone says something, should they be surprised if their words are quoted (if done fairly) to evidence it?

• Practically - we can refactor and precis (summarize) the content of any matter, if it is necessary to refer to it. This was a comment I made at the Durova case, ^{section post} and was accepted. ^[103] Logs can also be faked, and many people see these as improper to show. But if the matter is serious, Arbcom has stated it reserves the right to receive them in private, and will consider them.