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

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

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

General questions Information

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

Arbitrators' skills

(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. ( UltraExactZZ)

A: Moral integrity.

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

A:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: J, I, F, D, C, B, A.

Challenges of being an arbitrator

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

A: I don't see that there is such tension. Whatever is not absolutely necessary to keep confidential and is relevant to the case should be in the open.

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

A: One would hope that there is room to discuss positions and interpretations. Should it become apparent that there is not such an environment steps should be taken to foster it.

(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? ( Juliancolton)

A: We are here to build the encyclopedia, but I don't see that working with facilitating a good working environment is less important than contributing to articles. I can't speak for other arbs but I would find it likely that I would adopt a second account in order to ensure that my experience as an editor will be no different from that of others.

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

A: I have no idea, I do tend to enjoy reading of all sorts though ;)

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

A: If there is inappropriate usage it should be dealt with appropriately depending on the context.

ArbCom and admins

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

A: I think it would be healthy for the community as a whole to be more involved in reviewing problematic behavior as a whole. Admins are as vulnerable as any other user to blocks and bans should there be consensus for it. I also think that a venue vested with the ability to desysop could be beneficial to the project.

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

A: In my opinion desysopping should not be seen as a particularly harsh 'penalty', after all, if the editor in question still has the support of the community then regaining their adminship should not prove difficult.

(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? ( Finn Casey)

A: I think that by bypassing community input there comes a loss of trust which is unfortunate, in general I hold that users become Admins only by the consent and explicit vote of confidence by the community.

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

A: I see arbcom as the venue of last resort, I would see it more appropriate that a proper venue for such cases is established.

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

A: This would primarily be restricted to behavior which could indicate a compromised account.

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

A: User bans should not be taken lightly, and banned users are able to appeal and if they show understanding of, and remorse for, their transgressions they are (hopefully) welcomed back. Circumventing such mechanisms shows a severe disregard for the community and no less does the enabling and abetting of such subterfuge. The loss of community trust in an admin or user who knowingly supports the sock of an unrepentant banned user in an rfa could be absolute. I would likely support desysopping and more.

ArbCom's role and structure

(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? ( Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply

A:

(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? ( Davewild)

A: I agree with the general premise. I also believe that it is within the purview of arbcom to interpret those principles in order to reach motions which hopefully resolve the issue at hand.

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

A: I do believe that some cases have had that effect and suffer from what you have outlined, I do not believe that this holds true for all or even the majority of them. I can only promise to address each case on its merits and do a thorough job of investigating the context and conduct of such cases.

(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? ( Camaron/ Majorly)

A: I believe that arbcom is quite important to en-wiki, as others have pointed out, en-wiki is markedly different from other wikimedia projects.

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

A: I believe that those projects were created in good faith, would I have preferred that they were created by the community rather than Arbcom? Yes. I believe that it is within the remit of the community to abolish these new projects if it sees fit. There is no structure that is not granted its power by the community and its willingness to abide its existence.

(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can the committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? ( Heimstern)

A: Repeated content policy violations constitute conduct violations. Per consensus can change, it would be against policy to make such binding content resolutions; I would not like arbcom to feel fit to state that some version of an article is the 'right' version. What arbcom should address is whether all the players in the process abide by our expectations of reasoned and constructive discourse and argumentation. Ideally, and perhaps naively, I believe that following such a process would lead to an article which naturally falls within content policy.

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

A: There are many controversial topic areas and the ones you mention tend to be some of the most heated, I believe that arbcom has shown itself willing to issue such sanctions and I think that it should continue to play an aggressive role in doling out topic and revert restrictions, on a case by case basis. I believe that topic restrictions that induce the editor involved to show themselves as constructive editors outside of such problem areas would be beneficial to the project and the editors themselves. I do believe that the community should play a greater role, I am not sure how admins, with the tools available to them, can do much more than block for particularly egregious breaches of conduct, this tends not to defuse the situation in the long run.

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

A: As I interpret civility broadly, see my response to Avrahams question, I believe that Arbcoms concerns itself primarily with civility, civility is the way by which we can work together amicably and constructively. Depending on the nature, context and attitudes of the editor regarding their breach of civility desysopping, banning are all valid recourses in order to protect the integrity of the project. Ideally incivility is mitigated by nothing, reality is complex however and I would have to form an opinion on a case by case basis.

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

A: For myself I will endeavor to research and present quickly and diligently and asking of the opinions of fellow arbcom members so that we may have something to discuss without too much delay. I am of course very interested in suggestions from the community how we might make arbcom more efficient.

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

A: I think it is critical that the community takes the view that arbcom is the venue of last resort and that a case coming before arbcom constitutes a failing of the community to deal with problematic issues on its own. I would be happy with a situation where no cases come before arbcom for the community having dealt with it appropriately and fairly.

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

A: From what I have read :

The 2009 Arbitration Committee is working to reduce or eliminate the the tasks that we do that that are not related to directly to Arbitration. While many users are not aware of the tasks that past and present Arbitrators do behind that scene by virtue to being elected to the Committee, there are quite a few. As we re-organize these tasks, we need to interface with the Community to discuss how to evolve and transition the work that we do. This new group will be asked to consider some of these questions by us. We are discussing them in other places too. Such as RFCs started by ArbCom. And on the discussion page of the new draft of the ArbCom policy.

Accepting that in good faith, I have no problem with such a council, anything we can do to streamline arbcom and allow greater community participation should be welcomed. It strikes me however that way it was initially presented raised some eyebrows and hackles. This is unfortunate. Hopefully the community will step up to fill the void in terms of projects which might relieve the workload of arbcom, community facilitation could be a place to start.

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

A: As arbcom works from the basis of policy and by looking over the case history and arena of dispute, I do not believe that a lack of article edits necessarily disqualifies them from interpreting the evidence. I would find it more problematic if arbcom was both backlogged and its members where at the same time spending their time away from arbcom business.

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making

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

A: I believe that the loss of confidence in arbcom from not banning the sock of a previously banned user would have been absolute. The decision that the block should be of the original duration less the 3 months span it took for 'The Law' to have been created is within the norm of what I have seen, often it is simply reset or even added to. I am not familiar with the context of the original 9 month block so I can't comment on if that should have played a part.

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

A: There seems to be no clear rationale given for that discrepancy. Jayron seemed to have achieved some clemency for answering a direct question honestly, I do not know if the same did not hold true for jennavecia.

May be helpful to research the cases when answering. I answered every question honestly from the very beginning. Lara ☁ 06:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree, I have stricken my comment above and I hope that Jennavecia accepts my apology for having worded my response so thoughtlessly. Unomi ( talk) 04:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

A: I think that they owe to the project to act consistently and with integrity. As I stated above I am not aware of the context of the original ban, but it strikes me that there are a number of users and admins which felt it was not consonant with the transgression, otherwise how could they defend their decision to hold their hand over the sock? Whatever their beliefs they went about it the worst way. Their actions showed a lack of trust in the community, a willingness to deceive it and act against its will such as an uncontested ban would be expected to be. In short, I would have thought it would be proper for them to be sanctioned and ask the community to reiterate their support for them being admins.

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

A:

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

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

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007

A: Support, if the communication was meant to be public it would have been made 'on-wiki'. That said, I do believe that should such communication be pertinent to an arbcom case it should be disclosed to arbcom.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007

A: Support, wikipedia requires transparency and accountability.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

A: I agree that it is preferable to avoid language which might be construed as a legal threat.

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

A: Support with the respect for the following caveat Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately disrupt and subvert official dispute resolution, and the Mediation Committee will not allow its policies to be abused to protect bad-faith actions.

(v) "Outing", June 2009

A: Support, privacy rights should be respected and waiving such a right is a choice a user is free to make.

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

A: I think it is very unfortunate that such intentions were not made clear before the vote, and that arbcom should have been more careful and not attached such outcomes without community input.

Other issues

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

A:In general I believe that one should avoid framing the case before it has even begun. I would favor a name which in line with the view that arbcom is charged with looking at the larger picture of what has forced the case before it. If it is later found that there is a core cause for concern that warrants a name change then that might be considered appropriate.

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

A: I hold that perfection is impossible to reach yet worth striving for. I think that we should look at how we can encourage editors to work together constructively to allay BLP concerns, but I have yet to be convinced that 'default to delete' has merit. I would certainly prefer to look at solutions such as flagged revisions before we tear down the buildings to prevent graffiti. Note however that as an arbcom member I intend to follow community policy and I do not hold that my inclusion on arbcom would empower me to affect such policy in greater degree than now.

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

A:I have had no other accounts than this one, I have made no substantive edits from IP addresses.

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

A: It would very much depend on the type of transgression and the level of remorse the parties express. Repeat offenders who have been through but ignored the various dispute resolution processes, confronted with evidence and criticism of their behavior yet continued unabatedly to tax the resources of our community would be unlikely recipients of lenient sanctions. In general though I do believe in second chances and I do believe that successful arbitration leads to parties owning up and asking for them.

Individual questions Information

Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here..

1. According to this, you have 161 article edits (as compared to 369 edits to Wikipedia projectspace). Policies are not prescriptions to be obeyed, but rather descriptions of best practices. Do you think you have sufficient experience with the article-editing process to apply policy to complex disputes here? (I ask because I was certainly not ready to do so after my first 161 article edits).
2. Do you have any examples of how you've "defended and fostered an atmosphere conducive to cooperative and constructive enhancement of our shared project" in the past?

Thank you. MastCell  ^Talk 19:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

A: Thank you for your excellent questions.

1. As you know my first few edits to wikipedia were to articles which I later found that other editors considered controversial. As a result of having to deal in such a charged environment I had to spend most of my time studying policies, guidelines and essays. I have been engaged in all dispute resolution venues and involved on many of the noticeboards. As a result of what I have learned my editing practice now revolves mostly around discussing on talk pages working towards constructive consensus so that articles can be improved. I do not particularly care if I personally am the one to make the mainspace edits.

Article edits do not necessarily enhance ones ability to understand or apply policy, whereas working towards talkpage consensus and engaging in project space discussions hopefully do.

2. I hope that most of what I have done on wikipedia has been just that. From my first interaction on Aspartame controversy to opening up discussion on Denialism I have endeavored to be forthright about my stance and tried to bring about constructive discussion. This has at times been frustrating, and my comments have at times reflected this, as it can seem as though the unofficial 'best practices' in some circles revolves around stonewalling and policy shopping, but often all that is needed is a third opinion or an earnest round of WP:MEDCAB. When these venues fail it is the duty of ArbCom to investigate why and how to resolve it.

I hope this goes some way to answer your questions. Unomi ( talk) 21:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer the subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi ( talk) 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 1. What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki? reply

1.1. Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?

A: I do believe that there should be more explicit guidance from the community in terms of what should lead to desysopping.

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

A: I think that there is room for more options than just a 'final say' but if there were such a final say it should be from the community.

1.3. How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?

A: Apart from the issue of timely attention, I see no reason why it should be handled differently.

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

A: My understanding is that at the moment those who wield those tools can give them up temporarily if they are under scrutiny in order to ensure that those tools cannot be taken from them. It strikes me as gaming the system in the extreme.

2. What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"? 2.1. What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?

A: This is a great question. I hold that civility means that you are engaging constructively in the process. While calling someone names is generally understood to be a breach of civility, the more prevalent and problematic issue of stonewalling, intentional employment of logical fallacy and gaming, which often lead up to the more obvious breaches of civility, are often not confronted. I believe that this needs to be addressed.

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

A: I believe that the breaches of civility have generally shifted towards unconstructive participation in the process, this form is harder to decisively judge and by extension tend to lead to longer term disruption of the editing process. Calling someone shit for brains is not particularly disruptive as that player is then removed from the process by way of sanctions, but stonewalling and ignoring arguments can delay and discourage participation for a much longer period.

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

A: Yes.

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

A: No.

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

A: Yes.

2.6. If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?

A: I think we need to recognize that disruptions to the the process by which we interact is a serious concern. We need to send a strong message that the cost to the project is one we can no longer bear. For myself I would look very carefully at the techniques employed by the participants and try ensure that we highlight problematic argumentation patterns.

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

A: WP:OUTING represents my opinion. We are to take any such breaches very seriously. There may be times with sock puppets, 2nd accounts and so forth where the user has themselves made their identity public, how to handle that would depend on context.

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

A: Fostering and maintaining a positive working environment;

1. One which emphasizes quality discourse and rational arguments.
2. Is editor friendly, newcomer and oldtimer alike.
3. Tries to diffuse and mitigate the dangers of factions and empty !votes.

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

A: I honestly do not see it as being particularly important that they reply directly, other than to ask the writer to direct their correspondence to arbcom proper. As I see it an individual arbcom member has no authority beyond that of user, parties should direct their communication to arbcom as a whole, not singling out arbcom members. That said, I strongly believe that arbcom members should articulate their opinions and rationales as a part of the arbitration process. Hopefully doing so would obviate such 'off arb' communications.

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

A: One would hope that participating arbcom member do just that per my answer above. On the other hand there could be times where it might be educational to see the parties interact without interference.

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

A: I think that civility, broadly construed, should be enforced more overtly. Please see my response to the question from Avraham regarding civility. If you have suggestions for how the process might be made better I would be very interested in hearing them.

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

A: I agree with the essay in all but the statement that it is 'simple maths'.

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

A: Yes, I believe that we should strive to retain editors while pointing out behaviours that we hold to be problematic. It would be easy to reach a formulation which alienates editors from the project, this is however antithetical to our mission. Unomi ( talk) 05:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

   A:Too long. While there may have been cases that were felt to take priority and it is undesirable to give short shrift to any one case 3 months was too long.

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

   A: Not in and of itself as it were, those participating in a WikiProject can reach a local consensus and have such a consensus reflected in WP:MOS or simply reach consensus on a per article basis by virtue of their relative numbers. But generally speaking WikiProjects do not have any inherent authority, or better, constitute more than the sum of its parts.

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

   A: Going just on what you outline it appears that this user is not a constructive member of the community and would be unlikely to be able to work under a framework of consensus building.

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

   A: I would look at their specific arguments and ask for their reasoning. It has been my experience that reasoning such as too many administrators currently, for example, is readily ignored and that such a solution tends to lead to less drama than making an issue of it. If such activity becomes a disruption rather than a minor distraction(if that) then it is up to the community to discuss remedies via RFC/User or the like.

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

   A: I am slightly uncomfortable with the comingling of lack of intelligence and inability to understand English. In the case of a person being cognitively challenged to the point of not understanding that their actions are unconstructive and having them read the documentation regarding the use of templates, sourcing criteria has proven to be to no avail then the user would be unlikely to prove to be a constructive member of the community. In the case of a non-english speaker attempts should be made to have a user conversant in their primary language discuss the situation with them. In both cases should the community be unable to find a satisfactory remedy then blocks for disruptive editing could be in order.

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

   A: That would depend on the community. My own view is that as wikipedia is about building an online encyclopedia of some standard, editors who are deemed unable to take a constructive part in the process would likely constitute an undesirable drain on our resources.

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

   A: The 3 Revert Rule describes the policy of not allowing a single user to perform edits that change an article to express their preferred content more than 3 times within a 24 hour period. It does not apply to clear vandalism or blatant BLP violations. Generally speaking it is enforced via short term blocks and persistent violations may invite 1RR, topic restrictions and more. I believe that it is necessary to look at the background of the dispute as 3RR violations can be signs of editors being frustrated with the progress on the relevant talk pages.

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

   A: I would have to look at it on a case by case basis, but in general we should strive to have an atmosphere free of provocation, this includes usernames.

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

   A: I believe that the edits should be judged on their merits. It would constitute a loss for the encyclopedia if otherwise good edits that have the support of the editors to be removed simply for who made the edit. The edits should be removed if they are unsound, unjustified or express a POV which is not consonant with the sources relative to weight.

10. During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. b) Question removed
11. Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
12. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

    A: Wikipedia has in a number of ways become a victim of its own success. It has been very difficult to experiment with solutions, the perception has been that any change to wikipedia will be permanent, consensus can change should be seen as applying to all facets of wikipedia. Because of this perception of changes being immutable, there is a tendency to have many similar yet subtly different options which unfortunately can serve to dilute consensus. It can be easier to garner interest and get a good number of !votes for a particular resolution, but harder to maintain the attention of the community for working out later refinements. At times it also seems that some areas of wikipedia function as though WP:LASTWORD, WP:ABF and WP:WINWAR are to be taken literally.

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

Thank You :) Unomi ( talk) 04:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

When I first started editing wikipedia I sought out the irc channels in an attempt to get assistance and guidance, I have not spent much time there the last few months. If you have logs you wish to present I will not object, as long as they are indeed, in full and you have the consent of who might also figure in such logs.

Is it appropriate for you to be agressively opposing other candidates as you do at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/William M. Connolley? Why or why not? Hipocrite ( talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

My initial comments on the other candidate were made before committing to candidacy. While I accept that it could be perceived as a transparent electioneering ploy, such was not the intent. I think we all have the duty and responsibility to speak our mind and to air our grievances in the open. WMC's interaction with me on the 3rr board was one of my very first experiences of a wikipedia admin 'inaction'. I do not think I would consider myself a legitimate candidate or participant if I did not speak out against those that I believe acted in a manner inconsistent with our principles. Yes, I consider it appropriate.

Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in a 2008 motion. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention, as suggested by the 2008 motion, at [2]. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it (e.g. by reblocking or sanctioning the unblocker) for 15 days until the case became moot because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks,  Sandstein  18:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As there seemed to be consensus that unilaterally reversing an admin action without discussion should be dissuaded, and further that arbcom seemed to agree that the initial blocking was correct apart from regarding its duration, it should have been reinstated immediately and the wider community should have dealt with it from there. Unomi ( talk) 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Have you read War and Peace?

Not yet. But the first few pages certainly make it likely that I will.

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

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

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

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

   A: At this point I do not favor such a solution, if the subject notable enough for inclusion, it is included, if not then there should be no such article. That said as an arb I will honor the consensus of the community as captured by policy, whatever it may be.

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

   A: No. If there is no consensus it can be relisted for wider community input if applicable. Defaulting to delete doesn't solve any real problem as far as I can see.

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

   A: I don't have a major problem with this for truly problematic articles, though I do see 1 year semi-protection as being somewhat excessive.

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

   A: I do think we need to experiment with various solutions and I support that we test it out.

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

   A: At this point I support this for BLP only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   A:

   a) I don't see any harm in making such disclaimers, this is something which editors should already be aware.

   b) Apart from what is already enshrined regarding WP:OUTING I don't see that what WMF could do. I would assume, as with death threats etc that WMF cooperates with law enforcement in situations where it is applicable. I do not believe that privacy policies extend to protecting those that are engaging in unlawful activity, but what constitutes such activity is not something that admins or arbcom can reasonably be asked to decide.

   c) I would hope that our policies protect everyone equally and satisfactorily.

   d) There should be no need for special provisions, such activity would likely be sanctionable already.

   e) The line is that which is dictated by the applicability of the arguments used in such conduct or content discussions that spring from it. No one is exempt to have their contributions scrutinized, but everyone should be spared from specious argumentation regarding such contributions.

   f) Perhaps, depends on context and level of disruption it engenders.

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

   A: I stand by WP:PRESERVE, if the edits were not seen as problematic when they were done by a 'random editor' why should they be seen as problematic solely for the discovered source? At the same time if an editor is known for problematic edits then it might be more efficient to rollback all their edits (assuming that this is technically possible) and then they can be reapplied on their individual merits.

2. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

   A: a). I don't see a problem with wikipedia being discussed offsite, but it should not be used for a staging ground for canvassing or undue collusion.

   b) I don't, I never saw a reason to.

   c) I have never heard of wikback, I have read WR 3 or 4 times I don't really hold a strong opinion of the site either way.

   d) I believe that if there are grounds for criticism action should be taken on wikipedia to address it, talk is cheap.

   e) I do not, I don't think there is anything wrong with having such an account, but participating in outing, harassment or the like would be problematic no matter who the editor.

   f) I haven't really been paying attention to such discussions should they have taken place in the wider community.

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

   A: Most communities do, there is nothing for it but to hold our policies to apply equally for everyone.

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

   A: Cerulean blue. Cerulean makes me think of a breeze. A gentle breeze.

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing [3]. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones ( talk) 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

A: Thank you for your questions.

What you link to is a statement within an RfC regarding paid editing. You will see that I was the 11th to support that statement. At the end the RfC ended with no consensus. There is currently a proposed policy and I support a position regarding paid editing becoming formal policy, as much as I wish that it was not necessary. It is my understanding that Jimbo takes part in policy making on equal terms with any other user, apart from that some might listen to him more closely and others may discount his statements more quickly. I believe that all users should take an active part in informing policy.

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

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

• A. Yes I would put in the time to do a diligent job. It is unlikely that I be able to devote as much time to the rest of the project as I might have prior to becoming a part of arbcom, I think this is perfectly natural and expected. No, I hope that we might be able to make things less 'seamy' and thus make contributing a better experience for all, going forwards.

If I asked the ten editors who have viewed your userpage the most times if you were more of an inclusionist or a deletionist, what would most of them say as the answer (this is a limited question, no "well it isn't that clear" answer).

Second, if I asked them to describe why they answered that way, what would most of them say (this is an unlimited question, I'm hoping for a detailed answer).

A: I can't really speak for anyone else, but I would guess they would say, and I view myself as, an inclusionist. The second part I really cannot answer but I would welcome such a poll should you undertake it. If you asked me why I consider myself an inclusionist, or better, why inclusionism should be preferential, then it is simply because we are trying to build a repository of human knowledge.

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

   A: I am a fairly strong believer in the notion of causality, and while I personally hold understanding to imply forgiveness, protecting the integrity of the project and in order to meet the justified expectation of editors to be able to work in an environment free from disruptive and unconstructive elements demands tough love. I intend to play an active role in investigating the background of the case and process by which it escalated to appear before arbcom. This includes querying stakeholders regarding their motivations for utilizing tactics which appear to have played a role in the escalation such as stonewalling, ignoring arguments, policy shopping and breaches of civility.

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

   A: When I first started editing wikipedia I was frequently and unfairly labelled everything from SPA, POV-Pusher, Sock Puppet, Tendentious Editor, Soapboxer, Quote Miner and more. I know too well the alacrity with which editors engaging in a dispute will seek to employ thought terminating cliches with the effect of poisoning the well. I consider myself innoculated against accepting such claims at face value and hope that I would pay them no mind without good evidence to back them up.

1. Can you explain what prompted you to make a contribution to Talk:Redshift?

   A: I assume you are talking about this contribution.

   I took issue with the way Build the Web was being undermined in that particular case. I feel that there is material value to wikilinks in general and that the arguments regarding WP:UNDUE missed the mark regarding a 7 word line. My philosophy is that wikipedia is a repository of information and it should facilitate access to other articles it may contain, when possible. By granting a wide audience to articles they can be improved. It is a shame that you did not see fit to ask me on the talk page that you link to. Unomi ( talk) 04:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Are you in any way related to the account User:Landed little marsdon?

   A: Not that I am aware, apart from as I expect we all are.

ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply