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:

General questions: Editors submitted these from 27 October through 10 November; they appear first.
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

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: Patience - to read through all the material, to sift out the salient points and to handle enquiries from affected users.

(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: In terms of article writing, I'll refer to Robert F. Kennedy assassination, which is an FA. I understand that you want more policy/dispute resolution examples: For the former, I'll highlight Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), which is a guideline that I authored. For the latter, there are some discussions in the archives of WT:ARS where I (unsuccessfully) attempted to mediate a dispute, and there are several efforts on other editors userpages. I would not like to highlight the editors in question or the disputes/problems they were having simply to garner favour in an election, however. I generally think my writing style is generally understood, and in the event that I have been misunderstood, I have always been willing to go back and rephrase my sentences, since even the best written passages can easily be misinterpreted through the unforgiving medium of text.

(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: I'm going to answer these as a list: (A) Yes, but only after a couple of cases, when I'll be more confident about the internal drafting procedures. (B) Yes - I shall have time for this, given that I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia reading anyway, I can simply address this to cases. (C) Yes, this is particularly important given my desire to set case scope early on (see my statement). (D) Yes, this is an important activity that shouldn't be overlooked, but I won't necessarily comment on every single one. (E) I'll happily undertake tasks in this area, but think it more likely that I'll concentrate on A-D. (F) Yes, assuming it is a shared task amongst members of the committee. (G) No. I will not request checkuser and I will not use it as I do not belive myself to be sufficiently competent in its use. We have enough qualified checkusers to assist with any enquiries. (H) In emergencies only, where no other oversight is available, this could be a possibility. But in general, now that we have separate elections to grant these permissions, I'm uncomfortable taking them on simply on the basis of being on the Arbitration Committee for a term. (I) Yes, in conjunction with other Arbitrators. (J) Yes, I'm very comfortable with this. (K) I think the above covers everything I could think of. Just to note to those reading this, that I expect my time on-wiki to increase substantially if elected. I already spend a lot of time here reading even if not writing, and I would extend it in order to fulfil the duties required of this role. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: That there is tension on this issue is understandable. I think the Committee needs to justify internally the need for confidentiality, so that material is not unnecessarily suppressed. I also think that where confidential evidence is used to justify a particular decision, the link should be explicit: that is, "there was confidential evidence that influenced this decision". Otherwise decisions based on such evidence will be of arbitrary appearance.

(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: I gather from comments by Cool Hand Luke, as well as others, that this year's committee have had a number of disagreements, which is healthy. I think what is needed is to prevent the appearance of groupthink, and this is a difficult balance when discussions are necessarily held in confidence. Some more candour between Arbcom and the community on the level of dissent from the majority opinion - I don't think we need to get to the stage of issuing a dissenting opinion, but just a little more candour during the general public discourse would be effective in assuaging many of the doubts in this area.

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

A: Yes - my problem in this area is I am a "big fixer". I tend to do massive changes after I accumulate many sources and plans, sufficient to rewrite articles in a short series of edits. Given that, I think I can maintain such activity in conjunction with any arbitration duties. I think staying in touch with the article space is important, to keep arbitrators grounded and to limit accusations of groupthink based on arbitrators never straying for certain areas.

(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 will subscribe to all, and read all. The level of reading intensity will vary - I'm likely to prioritise immediate issues like an unblock request over evidence submissions for a lengthy case. I can't help you on the quantity or my exact prioritisation strategy, however, until I can see the lists and the type of traffic generated.

(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 an arbitrator is a participant in a case, then access to related materials should clearly be restricted for the duration of the case. In the case of simple recusal, then access is not necessarily an issue. I would hope that other arbitrators, being aware of the declared bias of a recused arbitrator, might weight their comments accordingly during a discussion. I think the method of dealing with alleged abuse would depend on the circumstances, and I believe that, by-and-large, inappropriate activity of the kind you describe would be the result of error rather than malign intent, solvable by a careful reminder. I'm not going to tie my hands now by stating a mechanism for handling the more hypothetical extreme of abuse, but suffice it to say that I believe infractions of a severe nature should be made as public as is appropriate when it is clear that there was malicious intent.

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'd rather the community took on some of these roles, with unresolvable cases referred to Arbcom for decisio-making. By its very nature, Arbcom trying to act as a substitute for the community in matters of trust is going to be very awkward. By and large, we should try to limit these issues, reserving case of abuse and unresolvable conflict for arbitration.

(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 numbers, roughly right, although in some areas desysopping has not happened where it should have, in others I think desyssopping (or the reason given for it) was an overreaction. On balance, however, I think they've got it about right.

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

A: I think Arbcom should not be in the business of restoring priviledges in this manner unless it results from a successful appeal to overturn or amend an Arbcom case. I can understand why this is done at present, but I am uncomfortable with it.

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

A: If you look through some of my other answers above and below, you'll find that I'd like the community to take a more active role, and allowing this by reforming some of the DR steps like RfC to have a bit more teeth and limit the role Arbcom has to play in such matters. In general, if it is obvious that additional discussion is going to prove fruitless, I see no reason why we should spend a lot of time forcing people to jump through hoops to get a swift outcome.

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

A: Obvious socking, clear abuse of tools that poses a risk to the encyclopedia, apparently compromised account, and anything else that threatens the integrity of the encyclopedia. I'd like to say other things, like after a well-attended community RfC requesting removal of sysop access, but such matters are not yet within Arbcom's purview.

(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: This appears to refer to the Law/the_undertow case, and I talk about my feelings on this specific matter in other questions further down this page. I would not like to generalise, and give you a specific answer, since I think the response should be formulated by the community and what violations the community believe have been made. I think it would be best if Arbcom were uninvolved (that is, there could exist processes for desysopping at a lower level) but that in such exceptional circumstances, in the absence of community-level procedures, Arbcom should be guided in the main by the community.

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: To keep this short, I'm going to refer you back to my candidacy statement and invite you to post any follow-ups from that. But in summary, I'm going to push for a scope to be determined for each case and to engage more actively in discussions of evidence and in the workshops. I think that there are doubtless some structural amendments required, but the ball on this one has been successfully set in motion by the present Arbcom.

(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 - some editors seem to view Arbcom as a quasi-governance body, but that is not its purpose. Its purpose is to finally resolve disputes that cannot be resolved through other means. I do think that the model for making decisions and policies on-wiki is presently flawed because we have become too large for our early systems to function, but Arbcom cannot resolve that and should not try. This is not only because it lacks the authority to do so, but also because those that enforce rules should not be in the business of writing them.

(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: To an extent I agree, and certainly agree that it can have that appearance. The reality is that Arbitration decisions are never going to satisfy all parties, and more often than not they are going to be disappointed. I don't think that Arbcom should administer "punishment" (see my candidacy statement for more on this) and I do think we could do things to make the process quicker so that editors aren't held in limbo, but there is nothing that can be done to make sanctioned editors feels better about it.

(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 think we're on such a different scale here that we need some body to take the responsibility (and the heat) for finally ending a dispute. In a discussion I was having with Jehochman and SandyGeorgia the other week, the thing that stuck out for me is that the Arbcom part of the dispute resolution scale is pretty good - not without problems, but ok. The problem is all the intermediate steps - RfC/U is presently a bit toothless for example - and so disputes end up at Arbcom that could probably have been better resolved at an earlier stage. Without those being fixed, we need an Arbcom in order to make binding rulings, and if they are fixed, one will still be needed to take the truly egregious cases. Hopefully in the latter scenario, the number of cases would drop off substantially enough to reduce the size of the Committee.

(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: In the case of the Advisory Council, I think the problem was presentation. It appears with hindsight that Arbcom was trying to get input of some sort to help it determine some community desires/norms that would be helpful in case handling. But the title and presentation of the Council as some sort of "Council of Elders" did look like a power grab and is not something I would have supported. BLPSE doesn't share those attributes in my opinion - it was simply giving teeth to administrators to enforce our existing policy on BLP and to log such actions. At worst, it added a form that admins were supposed to fill in. Your more general question of how to deal with concerns of these nature is interesting and I think there are two methods: 1) Prevention: by talking about these things publically with the community, or at least with them able to see the discussion, we can prevent concerns from arising in the first place. 2) Being responsive: when questions are raised, we should simply take the time to understand the question and respond to it. There is generally no special rush in matters like this that would mean bypassing legitimate queries.

(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: I think it is generally good that Arbcom stay out of content disputes directly, but I think the committee can (and has) instituted processes separate from Arbcom such as binding RfCs, votes, etc. to determine a final outcome of a content dispute. In the absence of another binding process or reform of the remaining DR structure to have a "final arbiter" for content in the same way as we have for conduct, this is the best possible mechanism at Arbcom's disposal. Your sanctions questions appears to pre-suppose that content policy violations are a) not handled at a lower level by normal mechanisms or b) not related to conduct problems, such as not being able or willing to work collaboratively, in which case Arbcom would focus on this and not the content. I can't imagine a situation that would arise without one of these criteria being met, in which case I would hate to generalise an answer to your question. In short, Arbcom has no remit to directly adjudicate over content disputes, and will continue to have none unless it is given to it by the community - enforcing binding structures to determine an outcome and end the core of a dispute is a desirable action within the purview of the committee.

(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: I was a referee on the RfC following the "Macedonia 2" Arbitration. There were three of us and we controlled a discussion and established the consensus of the RfC (which was on how the Republic of Macedonia article should be titled) in order to end the dispute. This was a nationalistic/ethnic battle and I think the method of solving it, that is empowering a group of neutral third parties to oversee discussion and assess consensus in conjunction with community norms, was an excellent way to solve it. The best thing would be formalising such an approach outside of an Arbcom ruling to prevent it escalating that far. In general, in addition to this kind of remedy which solves the source of the dispute, topic bans and other restrictions should be fairly liberally applied since such conduct is clearly to the detriment of the encyclopedia as a whole.

(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: "Civility" is a problem - people try to have hard and fast rules of what is civil and uncivil, and the result is reams of text at AN/I with no-one really knowing what the outcome is. That is the admin side that you allude to, and whilst it wasn't the thrust of your question, I tenderly submit that it's the same for Arbcom - what is civility? In Arbcom case, what is typically sought is evidence of a pattern of behaviour and whether the editor is heeding any form of feedback. In my mind, in all but the most extreme hypothetical scenarios, evidence of this kind would have to be coupled with some other problematic behaviour and act as a means of highlighting a worrying picture of an overall editing pattern that might be best controlled by sanctions. Civility restrictions are not a good idea - they are essentially unenforceable because no-one can agree what they mean, and that means they waste more time than necessary.

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

A: Given the volume of questions, I hope you will not object if I refer you back to my candidacy statement and other answers here relating to by objective of setting specific scope for cases when they are accepted.

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

A: In the overwhelming majority of cases, very - there are many steps in DR before Arbcom, and these should be reformed and better applied to prevetn cases reaching this very time-consuming and stressful level. The caveat is that if an effort at resolution is causing more heat than light, then Arbcom should be willing to step in earlier to fix things before too much time is wasted. It is a balance, but one that can be better implemented if the community starts to make better use of its existing non-Arbcom DR processes.

(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: I'm going to refer you to my answer in question 19 - please feel free to ask me an individual question if I haven't answered to your satisfaction.

(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: Yes, because Arbcom can only indirectly influence the content issues (see question 20), and poor conduct is poor conduct regardless of the underlying dispute. Yours is a good argument against Arbcom acquiring specific authority over content disputes, but provided that part of the dispute resolution continues to be delegated in a controlled-fashion to the community, I see no problem with the situation you describe, although, as I state elsewhere, I would prefer to "stay in touch" with the content creation side of things over a term.

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: This will not be popular in certain quarters, but yes if we're to try to move towards some semblence of consistency. Users who evade their bans routinely have their bans reset and that's what has happened here. It cannot be one rule for them and another rule for us. I think the problem people have with the decision is the appearance of inconsistency in approach to other ban-evading users, but that is no reason. At the end of the day, if we have a body like Arbcom to issue sanctions, those sanctions have to be enforced. I take on board the issues that the_undertow had with getting the appeal, but coming back under a different name to deceive people in order to get the tools is not acceptable. I'll answer any more specific follow-ups to this.

(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: the motion regarding Jennavecia probably passed because of her vociferous defense of her own actions. Her resignation (if I have the timeline right) came after she realised and understood the vocal nature of some of the opposition to what she had done - would that some other admins would do the same in other circumstances. I find the proposals to desysop problematic in general - Arbcom historically desysops for abuse of tools, not for apparent loss of community trust, which is always difficult to gauge in such a heated scenario. I would have been tempted to instigate a binding RfC-like structure to ascertain whether Jenna/Jayron32 still held the trust of the community-at-large, not just those who were arguing at the Arbcom request. The devil would have been in the detail, and the community's acceptance of a de facto recall request used to advise Arbcom. On balance, Jenna probably did not hold the trust of the community and so the desysop was appropriate, but the incident did seem to be on the fuzzy line of the powers of the Committee versus the Community. the whoething strengthens my belief in the need to be able to recall admins by a community procedure.

(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 have had a look through and cannot find any indication that the Community has lost trust in either MZMcBride or Iridescent over this affair and nor can I find any related abuse of sysop access. Accordingly the Arbitration Committee should have done exactly what it did: nothing. Now, this may sound quite arbitrary given my answer to 28, but the arbitrariness arises from the lack of a recall mechanism for administrators. Arbcom, in the case of the admins taken to a motion, took the role of the community to determine if the behaviour was unbecoming of an admin and so to determine the sysop status of the individuals concerned. This isn't because Arbcom sought it out, but because there is no other mechanism for an admin to be deposed. Since the community doesn't appear to have cared about MZMcBride or Iridescent, Arbcom had no mandate to care either unless the case were brought before them. If this is unclear, please feel free to ask a followup.

(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: I think the Macedonia 2 case seems to have been fairly successful, although my involvement in the later stage of enacting the decision may make me bias. I can't point to a least successful, although there are cases whose results have annoyed me and whose handling could have been more swift.

(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: Agree - even ignoring the copyright issue, this is simple courtesy.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007

A: Agree strongly - an administrator must be accountable for the decisions they make. Without that accountability, there is no hope of a system of checks and balances.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

A: Agree - the written word does not convey the same subtleties as the spoken word. What may be intended as an exaggerated term may be read by others as a threat, and so terms like this should be avoided

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

A: Agree - in mediation, editors have to feel able to say what they think without risk of it being referred to later.

(v) "Outing", June 2009

A: No, this is worded too awkwardly - it risks being interpreted as "reveal enough personal info for me to identify you and I can" on the one extreme. On the other, it suggests that if I identify myself as being from the UK on my userpage, someone sees it, I redact it later and the other person mentions it in a conversation on-wiki, then I've been outed somehow. Granted these are not interpretations I would personally apply, and I think I see what they're getting at, but this is just too vague and woolly for me.

(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 should point out that I have a great respect and liking of MBisanz, and supported him in the recent election. I think in this case, however, the wrong decision has been made by the arbitrators. When participating in an election, people rightly expect to know in advance how their vote could influence the outcome - this post-election alteration to include alternate members appears at best to have been poorly communicated and at worst to have been made up afterwards. I don't know where on that spectrum this decision lies, but the appearance is poor - a lot of the time with all matters of administration and arbitration, the appearance of impropriety in some form is as damaging as it actually occurring. It isn't fair, but it is the way of things. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: Whichever one is clearest and most appropriate. Bit of a cop-out answer, but it's true. Sometimes the case may involve two editors only, and so a Party 1-Party 2 approach would be best. On the other hand, cases revolving around a single area such as Highways are probably best titled by something more descriptive. Using the party vs. party format also lends the appearance of a more adversarial approach that we should be discouraging.

(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: The policy itself is broadly good and essentially encapsulates the concept of "do no harm". As a document, however, it is simply that: conceptual. What we lack on Wikipedia are substantial mechanisms for enforcing its provisions. I am not going to be able to tell you which mechanisms we should have, as there are a myriad that could be selectedsuch as opt out, Flagged revs in some form, semi-protection for all BLPs, etc. The problem is we haven't picked any and don't seem to be willing to try things as a test run - we desperately need to find a way of enforcing BLP, not so much on the high profile articles that will always be heavily trafficked, but on the little watched biography of someone who had enough fame to pass WP:BIO but is so unknown as to never attract many protectors. This kind of biography can (and has had) real-world consequences for the subjects where inaccuracies and defamatory statements have crept in. I do not know the right method of enforcement, and our current governance model means that it is ultimately a matter for the community - but I am utterly convinced that we as a community need to do something. Being an arbitrator won't make that any easier for me to achieve, however. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Apart from this account, I shall declare User:FritzpollBot and User:Fritzpoll2. The purpose and function of the first is hopefully obvious, whilst the latter was created to use in public places and for a sorting project that stalled for technical reasons. Casting my mind back prior to my registration, I made a couple of spelling corrections as an IP - I think I have some inadvertent edits to my talkpage as an IP as well, which I've rapidly corrected but the edits were not substantive. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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:As you say, it depends. If the infractions are light, I would favour a second chance, but no more than that. If the same problems came before arbitration, I would be in the camp for strong sanctions. In the case of administrators, actions should be scrutinised more closely and more severe sanctions considered earlier, simply because of the trust they have been bestowed with and the potential damage of misbehaviour with the tools. In both cases, I would look for a pattern of behaviour and the level of willingness to rectify the problem. The length of time over which the pattern should be observed will vary from case to case, but unwillingness to conform to reasonable requests for change and repetitive patterns of poor behaviour would make me consider severe sanctions.

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here.

Questions from AGK

In a case, after voting has finished and the decision has been finalised and published, enforcement in matters of article probation and discretionary sanctions remedies are left to a small group of project administrators. Three questions:

If elected, what would you do to make it easier for these administrators to, so to speak, remove the bad apples from the barrel?
Do you think that the arbitration enforcement process as it presently stands is conducive to effective enforcement of arbitration decisions?
If not, what adjustments could be made?

If your response to the first question addresses the issue of the effectiveness of the AE process, then please do not feel compelled to repeat yourself under questions two and three. Good luck with your candidacy. AGK 19:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement is key to the aftermath of arbitration, since the remedies can only be effective if enforced. Whilst improvements at WP:AE in structure (courtesy of Jehochman et al.) have made the judgement easier, the issue is low participation. An administrator making an enforcement action is taking on a potentially stressful and fraught situation, to the extent that I think few administrators want to take on that role. I cannot give a firm answer on what changes need to be made, but I am aware of the problem: I think part of the solution lies in talking to the current AE regulars and finding out what Arbcom could do to help, which may involve the way it frames decisions. Other possible solutions include division of responsibility - that one admin alone cannot make the call, but that responsibility (and thus the associated flak) is shared. The most important thing Arbcom could do is offer support to administrators working in the enforcement arena: it provides difficult tasks that someone needs to do, and must be willing to offer support in some way. That has to be done without crossing the fuzzy boundary into becoming enforcers of their own decisions, but I think there is scope to get direct assistance from arbitrators in clarifying particular points. I'm sorry this is a little vague, but I think trying to propose reform without taking the proper time to talk to people who do this regularly would smack of arrogance on my part!

Questions from User:Novickas

Could you explain how you came to be chosen as a referee in the Macedonia naming dispute case? Good luck, Novickas (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the case coming to an end, because I spend time on Wikipedia reading through lots of things and saw the final decision voting. Seeing that there was a need for referees mandated by the decision, I e-mailed the Committee (I think, or possibly one member - my memory fails me) and volunteered to help pointing out that I had no particular axe to grind. Basically, I saw an opportunity to help mediate a dispute, and I leapt in! Hope that helps, but feel free to ask more if I've left out crucial details. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kirill Lokshin

Is the purpose of arbitration to resolve disputes, or to uphold policies and community norms? To what extent can, or should, the Committee ignore policy if doing so allows a more effective resolution to a particular dispute?
How should the desire to be fair to every individual involved in arbitration be balanced with the need to expediently resolve disputes?
When presented with groups holding two competing visions of what Wikipedia ought to be, should the Committee strive to maintain a balance of power between the two sides, or espouse one in preference to the other?
Should every infraction discovered in the course of an arbitration proceeding be sanctioned? Why or why not?
Why did arbitration decisions shift from individual, targeted sanctions, to general sanctions, and finally to discretionary sanctions? How did this trend change the editing environment in affected areas, and to what extent have those changes benefitted the project?
Are admonishments, reminders, and warnings effective as arbitration remedies? Why or why not?
Is the shift away from informal decision-making and consensus and towards formal procedures and rules of order in the Committee's day-to-day business desireable? Why or why not?
To what extent should individual arbitrators bear collective responsibility for the actions of the Committee as a whole? Is it acceptable for an arbitrator to undermine a decision he or she disagrees with?
Arbitration has been described as mixing the characteristics of adversarial and inquisitorial systems. To what extent is this correct? To what extent is this desireable?
Over the past several years, a number of cases (notably C68-FM-SV, Date delinking, and Scientology) have taken an extremely long time to resolve. What are the primary causes of this, and how can they be addressed?
Are the main systemic problems with arbitration a result of the Committee's failings, or consequences of the environment in which the Committee functions?

Good luck! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of arbitration is to resolve disputes in such a way as to improve the collaborative atmosphere of Wikipedia for the greater benefit of our content. Policies and community norms will naturally guide this, because they are ostensibly the operating principles of our collaboration - where a given implementation or interpretation of a policy would conflict with the first sentence, I would consider ignoring it.
By focussing on the core of the dispute, and not allowing the scope of the case to potentially encompass all contributions of the involved editors. That way the best outcome is achieved and editors are not placed under a lot of pressure for a long period of time answering general questions from potentially their entire range of contributions.
Neither. :) It is quite feasible to hold completely opposite views of how Wikipedia should be to someone else and maintain a civil and cordial relationship with them. What matters is their conduct - whilst in that case the root cause of the dispute could not be fixed (philosophies are not subject to Arbcom sanction!) the causes of the conduct problems certainly could be. So whilst it is important that Arbcom be aware of the ideologically driven nature of a dispute, it should not pronounce on the merits of one philosophy over the other.
Individual infractions should only be used to establish patterns of behaviour, and should not be individually sanctioned, but may form the evidential basis of applying more general sanctions on an editor.
I imagine that they changed because the types of case changed - cases on individual disputing parties did (and still do) attract targeted sanctions, but in recent times cases covering larger areas of Wikipedia have come before the committee requiring general or discretionary sanctions. General sanctions have the advantage that no individual in a topic area is disadvantaged, can feel aggrieved or be baited since all editors, old and new, are affected by the sanction - at least in theory. Sometimes, however, this can simply cause enforcement problems and without an improvement in the enforcement side of the arbitration process, sanctions like this run the risk of causing division.
As a "first offence" sanction, yes. They mark a formal warning that behaviour must cease, and can be used in themselves as evidence of a pattern of poor behaviour if the behaviours recur.
This kind of formalisation is good, and should continue to ensure consistency, efficiency and effectiveness. Whilst the work has yet to be completed, good headway has been made by the committee in this area over the past year.
I don't think an arbitrator should undermine a decision, but would suggest that this is distinct from merely disagreeing and that there is no problem with an arbitrator making the reasons for their disagreement known.
An inquisitorial system is preferable here, since the committee ostensibly seeks the facts of a matter - I do think the current adversarial component, often consisting of opposing parties in a case, needs more controlling to form a more fact-gathering process upon which to base a decision. The adversarial component cannot be entirely eliminated, but by asking direct questions and seeking answers from anyone rather than relying on reams of randomly ordered, often slanted evidence, inroads in that direction can be made.
The causes are various: the complexity of the underlying dispute, the quantities of evidence presented and disagreements between everyone on what actually needs to be done. Encouraging reform of the lower levels of DR would help to allow early resolution by the community, as would my plans for determining scope of a case early on to prevent the cases expanding into all sorts of new territory on a whim. In large complex cases, splitting into smaller cases, referring portions of the dispute back to the community to resolve, or using community processes to seek input on parts of the case could also help move things along quickly.
It's not really the fault of any individual - the committee can't do more than it is mandated to do, which causes friction because a sizeable chunk of the community seems to want it to. Part of the problem lies with ineffective use of the lower levels of DR, resulting in the expectation that only arbitration can ultimately resolve disputes. Even if I am not elected, I would work to fix these lower levels of DR and would encourage the Committee to be more radical in passing disputes, or even parts of disputes, back down to the DR chain.

Thanks for the questions, Kirill, and good luck on your own candidacy! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754

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 next question determines your ability to go through evidence. The last question is a bit open-ended.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
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?
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?
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?
Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
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) When the story was made public, do you believe that the editor you chose handled this situation properly in stepping down? Were they forthcoming enough with information?~~
~~Tell me as much as you can about User:OrangeCounty39. You may refer to any page on the Internet except for other ArbCom candidates' replies to this question.~~
What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

Thanks for the questions - taking you at your word that the first ten are short, I accordingly offer short answers. If they are inadequate to you making a decision, ping me.

Far too long - four months for a case is quite insane, even if there were issues :)
I believe they can enforce standards on articles, although collaboration may be necessary when these conflict with the standards of another project. I don't think that they can enforce their own inclusion criteria, however - generally, I view Wikiprojects as places for editors to collaborate over the content and style of articles to improve them as a whole.
It depends on what else has been tried - your example suggests many avenues of action have been explored to no avail. Ignoring of consensus is a violation of policy, and if all other efforts to make the user work collaboratively fail then blocking must be considered.
I don't think such conduct is conducive to building an encyclopedia and it arises from the ever-increasing perception of a power-gap between admin and non-admin. In both the examples you cite, however, I generally find that such users are ignored by others - if the activities become disruptive (excessive comments to a single debate etc.) then sanctions or an RfC should be considered by the community
My first reaction to this question was that you'd go and discuss the problem. At the end of the day, though, if the user doesn't understand English, yet is continually damaging the encyclopedia then a block may be necessary. But trying to communicate the problems with the user both before and after a block are essential as the edits may be in good faith.
Of the three: The first and second would seem logical for community discussion to determine if the community's patience has been exhausted. In the third case, I doubt it would come to a full discussion and would ultimately be a de facto community ban (that is, no admin willing to unblock) if the user could not be made to understand the issues
Three reversions made by a single editor to restore their preferred version of an article in a 24 hour period. The rule is that more reversions than this are not permitted and are to be enforced by block, unless the reverting was to remove vandalism, copyvio, etc. It represents a "bright line" to identify edit-warring - generally, I have no problems with its enforcement, except that the sequence can make it easy for one edit warrior to "get away with it". For instance, two editors A and B revert war in the following pattern B(initial change)-A-B-A-B-A. B now reports A and A is accordingly blocked per 3RR. I think administrators should also consider warning or blocking B for breaking the spirit of our anti-edit-warring policies if the circumstances of that sequence warrants it.
A borderline provocative username is one where people would not agree that a given name is provocative. An example I can think of involves you, actually: there was a user, IIRC, that I blocked who was harrassing you by having a username one letter out from your own and generally stalking your contribs. Generally, that is borderline provocation and as such was not an explicit violation of the username policy that would be readily identifiable, but I relied on a knowledge of the individual and things written on their userpage to block indef. Generally in most borderline cases, a suggestion to the user to request a change will probably do, and if not a bit of discussion with other admins would be my preferred course of action.
When those edits are not productive or are actively disruptive, especially when they relate to the behaviour for which the user was banned. I wouldn't like to try to con you that I have some hard and fast rule in mind for this, but we should avoid cutting off our nose to spite our face - our goal is to build an encyclopedia, so if good content is added, let it stand. Edits to any other namespace could be reverted on sight, or edits to the mainspace that are unhelpful or may lead to disruption.
I'm going to pick Casliber as possibly the most positive example I can see in your list. Casliber resigned following his free admission that he was aware of the connection between the_undertow and Law, and following feedback from the community on his position. Ultimately, given that Arbcom were willing to desysop admins in similar, albeit not identical, circumstances, I think Casliber did the honourable thing here both in admitting the mistake and taking the consequences without a huge fuss.
This user was a sock of a user User:Freewayguy blocked by you for adding incorrect information to articles following attempts to get him to understand the problems. Has also been block from a number of Wikimedia projects for harrassment and intimidation as well as poor additions to articles. I particularly note a set of threats relating directly to you, with further details available here. Have probably missed other stuff - will search more and update as necessary before 1st Dec
That it has no coherent system of governance. I say a "coherent" system because the trappings are there, but none of the authority. Ask a cross-section of the community who is "in charge" and you'll get a mixture of answers including a) admins b) Jimbo c) Arbcom d) the community and e) noone. The community is now too large to govern itself under our existing structures - it can barely agree on what a "consensus" is, let alone arrive at one, so clearly the community is not "in charge". Admins are certainly not in charge - they are more akin to police officers, and the ones who overstep their boundaries to try to make rules or do more than police existing ones are quickly put in their place. Jimbo isn't in charge - look at the drama when he actually tries to do something. Arbcom isn't a governance body - it is what passes for the judiciary on Wikipedia, able to enforce and interpret rules, but not write them. So the correct answer is "noone", which for a project of this magnitude and prominence as a top-ten website is a little alarming. The major problem in all this, however, is when editors think the answer is somewhere between a-c because they are waiting for something to be done by people that cannot do it (or will be severely put down by editors who think someone else is in charge), and editors who think d) when all evidence suggests that for big, site-wide decisions we are incapable of reaching a consensus as it is traditionally defined here. Phew. :) Thank you for letting me get that off my chest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from John Carter

These questions are being asked of all candidates.

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

A. I think I can manage my time effectively, in order to get cases attended to as swiftly as is required. I have some grand content plans that I have not yet completed, and I imagine it will be a relief to do something else around here when caseloads get too much. Since I anticipate spending more time on Wikipedia if elected, I actually imagine I will have more time to complete some of the article work that is underway. I am dimly aware of the seedier side of Wikipedia already, although I imagine it is nothing compared to what I'd learn upon being elected! I can't guarantee to you now how I will feel in two years but I would hope that I would return to article editing as a form of pleasant "retirement" from my arbitration duties. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:mikeblas

Wikipedia has gone from being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but only successfully if they're aware of a morass of overlapping policies, recommendations, suggestions, procedures, committees, and teams". I think some of the questions you're being asked during your trek towards serving on the Arbitration Committee demonstrate the surprising complexity of the systems that are in place.

My questions surround your role in that bureaucracy, and your ability to make changes for the better. Thank you for entertaining them, and good luck with your candidacy. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you manage to have the time to learn and study all of these policies, guidelines, procedures, committees, and navigate their politics? How do you think you, or anyone else, could possibly be effective in the complicated editing environment and intricate political landscape?
As an Arbitrator, you will be managing multiple postings, doing check user checks, reviewing cases, analyzing evidence, overseeing oversight and checkuser permissions, moderating a busy mailing list, monitoring a few other mailing lists, working on policy- and procedure-related discussions. This is volunteer work. How much time per week can you spend on all the tasks an Arbitrator must execute? What is your motivation?
It's clear that Wikipedia has the goal of recording and redistributing knowledge. But some of its own policies prevent it from reaching that goal, and it very frequently ends up redistributing information that isn't correct, reflects bias, or has never verified. How can you, as an Arbitration Committee member, help Wikipedia find its goal?
What do you think of the questions you're been asked here? For example, how do you think your opinion of the previous handling of an RfA involving a sock puppet tells us that you'll be any more effective at rectifying Wikipedias multitude of problems than any other candidate?
Do you think the Arbitration Committee's procedures are understandable and approachable by most editors? Do you think conflict resolution on Wikipedia, in general, is understood by most editors, and that it enables productive work on the improving the quality and correctness of content presented here? If so, what will you do to correct it?

My answers:

I spend a lot of time reading. A lot. The trick to getting on around here isn't to read the myriad of policies and guidelines, but just to edit collaboratively, and be willing to take on constructive feedback. If someone does that, then the policies and guidelines will explain themselves. What we need to have more of as a community is patience for newcomers who do not understand Wikipedia in the same way as regulars.
I answer this in NewYorkBrad's question in the first section on this page. I shall increase my time on Wikipedia, but one of the tasks you list (performing checkusers) will not be on my list of tasks to perform. I cannot anticipate how much time this will actually be, because I'm not yet doing the job. My motivation is to help editors resolve their differences so that they can get back to prodcuing content.
I can't. Not directly - Arbcom is not a governance body, and it cannot make decisions of this kind. As I say in my candidacy statement, my aim as an Arbitrator would be the efficient handling of disputes in such a way as to faciliate the resumption of content creation by disputing parties. By helping editors resolve disputes and get back to working collaboratively, it is possible to make an indirect difference.
I think that there are a lot of them! And quite a few that overlap with the issues of the moment - the Law/undertow affair crops up a couple of times for example under different guises. I can't say how it might help those editors asking the questions in making their decision, but I have tried to answer in the general rather than the specific in the hope of demonstrating a more general philosophy.
I'd say the bare-bones "request arbitration" part of the process is well-enough understood to be accessible. The internal machinations and new committees are not necessarily well-understood, but I'm not sure that they need to be. Sure, there need to be external editors scrutining the goings-on, but that doesn't mean we need every editor in the world to understand it precisely. Provided it works, or when it doesn't work, someone can explain to the community-at-large why it hasn't worked. If Arbitration can end disputes that hinder editors from improving or creating content, then yes - it does aid the productive work we are doing here. The important thing is to do it efficiently with the goal of an improved encyclopedia set above everything else.

Question from Sandstein

Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention at [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 until the case became moot days later 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 23:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of this is answered in my response to AGK above - I asked you about whether this was ok on your talkpage. In your response you asked for a few additional points, and I'm happy to supply them. I think that Arbcom could have been clearer in that situation that the actions taken by you were appropriate, and I assume that it was simply the "being overtaken by events" that meant they did not. Sanctions against administrators who undo actions undertaken in the name of enforcement should always be considered, although I think this needs to be coupled with a more rapid process to challenge such sanctions to make such decisions relatively easy to undo in the event of error. On a more personal note, I hope you will feel able to return to AE at some point - you were very prolific and took on some difficult enforcements.

Questions from Lar

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.

Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

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

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

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

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

Answers: With the obvious caveat that Arbcom can make no land-grab in imposing these and as an arbitrator I'd have no particular sway:
a) We should consider the wishes of a marginally notable individual and weigh them strongly in considering the outcome of an AfD. To an extent, this is enshrined in policy already, although it could be more consistently applied. Beyond this, further codification of "opt-out" is probably undesirable because there is no "bright-line" of marginal notability, and is something that can only be determined following discussion. It's the details of implementation that let this proposal down.

b) Yes. A "no consensus" result (from a properly closed AfD with socks etc. discounted) is to me the ultimate definition of marginal notability. Not something that can currently be applied in policy, but something we need to have a serious, calm discussion about.

c) I saw your scheme, and I support the principle that BLPs deserve more protection, simply based on the cases where real-life damage has been done by work on Wikipedia. I do, however, question the extent to which this will be effective, since the autoconfirmed threshold is a blunt instrument - as such, I would favour a combination of other measures.

d) / e) Answering both in one. During the votes for the various recent flagged revs/flagged protection trials, I campaigned relatively eagerly for trials. I think there is exceptional promise, particularly in the passive flagging feature of Flagged Protection which I think could be used as a stream for a Huggle-like app. The thing I would highlight is that: I don't know if it will work - the BLP problem is real and I agree we need to do something, and my scientific training tells me that the experiment will provide better evidence than a paper-based exercise, which is why I favour trials. But I'm not going to lie to you and say that these mechanisms will work, are the only solution, or even that they must be implemented. Again, the devil would be in the details. I'm happy for a follow-up question to this, since my position is not in either of the traditional camps of this debate.
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.

Answers:
a) Given a choice, policy. All those questions relate to the handling of a specific class of articles, their inclusion, deletion and protection. These are all policy matters.

b) I think that the measures were responses to a failure to apply existing policy rather than creating new policy. I think the presentation of these made them look legislative, and that can make them ineffective or under-used.

c) The thing to do is to develop consensus slowly, suggesting small changes that incrementally improve the current situation. A "big bang" approach may be all that satisfies the most ardent supporters of BLP reform, but the only pragmatic road to change is now for it to happen slowly, taking the majority of people with you. The best and most efficient thing would be to put that effort into general governance reform to allow this and other problems to be addressed much more quickly.
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?

Answer: I refer you to my answer to Rschen's question 12 for the bulk of this answer. I think some governance reform is required to enable us to make the big calls more quickly, which will probably mean delegating certain forms of decision-making to some body. Consensus works fine for most content decisions, but not for the direction of the project and its implementation.
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?

Answer: As I say above, a trial is essential, else we will never know if it works. Arbcom has no role in this matter, although if accepted by the community, it could feasibly form the basis of remedies. The delay at present appears to be a technical one, and a test of the new extension is underway on the test wiki.
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)

Answers:

a) No problem with it, really - I have seen the arguments for and against, but the reality is that some people won't want their editing activities attached to their day-to-day work. Provided there are means of effectively checking and handling edits and a means of undoing the undesirable ones, pseudonymity is not an issue.

b) Doesn't appear applicable, given a)

c) I don't think there's anything formal for a solution to the scenario you describe. Generally, we should individually respect someone's wishes not to spread it around, but if it has been revealed, it will be impossible to enforce across the editing space if someone unaware of the retraction mentions the outed identities. The best solution is to remind people that once you release information, it is difficult or impossible to completely eliminate.

d) In general, I would say so, yes. If we accept pseudonymity on Wikipedia, then only that particular editor should make that connection if they wish to.

e) Not at present, although I'm pretty open about it via e-mail, etc. Whilst I think it's a choice for each individual to make, I will reveal my name if elected.

f) Yes, the WMF makes it clear enough in my opinion, and there is nothing they can do in reality to prevent its loss. I don't see how Arbcom can have anything to do with a general issue outside of a specific example.

g) Sanctions are appropriate in such a case when it occurs on-wiki, but the type will depend on the exact circumstances. Off-wiki, there is nothing that can be done, but the community will doubtless handle this in an appropriate fashion.
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?

Answers:

a) I'm all in favour, if only because it is an important lesson anywhere on the web of linking to your real information.

b) Cooperation with real-world authorities is as far as it can go, but I don't see how it would be practically possible for the WMF to act as policemen in this way

c) I think the only practical thing to do is remind people of the inherent risk of connection between online and offline personas, and allow them to make the judgement of whether editing her is worthwhile. We cannot act as guardians for editors.

d) Enforcement of our BLP policy per my prior answers would handle much of this problem, with notification of/cooperation with the authorities where appropriate. In the case where the stalkee is an editor here, then the options of RTV, CLEANSTART and simple cessation of all editing must be presented. Again, we cannot choose for the editor.

e) I can't say. I think this question demands too much generality for what would be a judgement call based on the specific circumstances.

f) Almost certainly - handle the issues pragmatically and make sure clear evidence is established for the accusations. The best way to nip these in the bud is to act decisively and come to a definite decision about whether or not stalking is taking place
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?

Answer: This is mostly answered in my response to Rschen's question 9. Blanket reversion or unreversion are both undesirable - the edits should be reviewed and their benefit to the project determined. We should not be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
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?

Answers:

a) Criticism of Wikipedia is healthy, and having it occur both here and in more independent venues is desirable. How much heed is paid to such criticisms, however, is dependent on how constructive it is.

b) No.

c) I have an account at Wikipedia Review, called "Fritz" with a massive 16 posts - I wanted to be able to read all the criticisms and having an account with some posts facilitates that. I think that it is degenerating in parts to a sort of AN/I-like grievance board, but some of the participants there (who are not "burn it to the ground" types with no realistic visions of what will happen) have some genuine and fair criticisms, with some solutions that are worth trying. It is a shame that so much of that gets lost when digging through the minority of grudges, conspiracy and other nonsense - but I think that will happen with any independent site. I welcome any constructive criticism from any source, because it is easier for outsiders to see the faults with our system.

d) I see no problem with it (see c) and think it can have the benefit of keeping off-site participants grounded in reality, able to see our perspective and so come up with more effective criticism. That said, I do not anticipate increasing my participation in such sites for time purposes.

e) see my answer to c) where I also disclose my lowly 16 post account and probably earn myself some oppose votes. I think being open is more effective, and had my account at WR renamed to more properly identify me when I wanted to participate in a debate over there.

f) My view of specific sites has fluctuated depending on the quality of the criticism, from "burn it to the ground, it is doomed" at its nadir, to "here are a list of things that can be changed for the better" at the peak. The community in general seems more tolerant of external criticism, provided it is not engaged in trying to out contributors, a practice that I think is deplorable and detracts from the critical benefit such places provide.
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)?

Answer: It is a problem here, and frustrates other editors who are not so favourably treated. The way to fix it is to ensure consistency of practice so that editors are not treated differently. Unfortunately, that solution begs more questions than it answers, but I think my repeated suggestion of DR reform beyond simply fixing arbitration is probably the best I can offer.
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
Answer: Green. I find green calming, but not too cold. Unfortunately, English folklore supposedly associates green with devilry, so this may cost me the votes of my countrymen :)

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Avraham

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 bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
1. Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
2. Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
3. How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?
4. What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?
Answers:
I'm going to answer in one flowing paragraph, and I do encourage you to read the answers above since they elaborate a lot of these points. It should be easier to desysop administrators, and there should be community processes to make the tools more easy-come, easy-go. The final say will depend on the circumstances, but will lie equally with the community and Arbcom, although I'd like to encourage Arbcom to institute a community discussion in some circumstances when considering matters of trust. As to who might make the call in a community discussion, I am not sure - bureaucrats seem an obvious choice, but adding responsibility to usergroups by grandfathering existing members in is a tricky business. An emergency desysop should clearly be handled differently to the run-of-the-mill approach by its very nature - little prior discussion, etc. In the event that it affects an ongoing process, then the coordinators of said process should be advised and allowed to take the appropriate course of action. It is my understanding that voluntary relinquishment of sysop tools under no pressure allows a bureaucrat to make a judgement call upon a request to return the tools - it is not a right, but the crat will often choose to re-grant the tools with no further process. If the matter is "under a cloud" then an RfA is normally required.
What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
1. What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
2. Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
3. Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
4. Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
5. Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
6. If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?
Answers:
1. It refers to a core policy - a pillar of how editors should collaborate to produce the encyclopedia and not spend hours denigrating others. It also refers to the most difficult to enforce policies and this is reflected in the vast number of ANI threads devoted to it.

2. I think in the time I have been here, civility levels are broadly the same, but the efforts at enforcement have increased, increasing the drama level considerably.

3./4.See my comments on Vested Contributors in response to Lar for these questions

5. There needs to be better enforcement, or a better way of handling it. Our current mechanisms are inadequate.

6. There is nothing that I can do as an arbitrator to improve this situation that I cannot do as an ordinary editor, apart from say that I am very much against the use of civility restrictions in Arbcom cases. More details on this in earlier questions.
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?
Answer: I'm going to refer you to Lar's questions for this to save the load time and repetition on the page. I will add that I think "expectations" is a better term than "rights"
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.
Handling content disputes, the BLP problem and governance. The last is the most significant, since in theory it could be used to solve the others. All these things can be handled through enhancing community decision-making processes, and I believe experience on the Arbitration Committee will help me assist in making necessary reforms of the other DR steps. As to governance, I can do no more than anyone else, but I think we need incremental reforms rather than trying to do it "all-in-one" - a big bang approach will not find consensus, but incremental steps might.

Questions from Piotrus

How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?
How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
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?
Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
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?
Answers:
1. In general, responding to all communication is extremely important to lower stress. Even a simple acknowledgment of "I have received your e-mail" can be helpful, followed by a more detailed reply at some later time.

2. I think it depends. I say in my candidate statement that I want to be more of an active arbitrator, but sometimes it can be beneficial to sit back and watch discussion unfold. Clerks should take care of heated or irrelevant discussion - but I think Arbitrators need to be mroe proactive in discussions than they are at present.

3. Just doing it faster will probably help, and being aware of the stress it places parties under. If nothing else, updates and timetables from Arbcom where appropriate and possible to show that things are happening would help keep editors aware that progress is being made. I'm not sure we can eliminate it entirely, but we can try to alleviate it in little ways.

3. Will return to this - it is a long essay and I want to digest it thoroughly before commenting

4. Late addition - will return to this in due course as well.

IRC Question from Hipocrite

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.

Answer: Yes, I have used #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins, and watch channels such as #wikipedia-bag for alerts and updates. In terms of log postings, I have no fundamental objection, since I don't believe anything I have said in these channels could be characterised as problematic - I would only ask that any published comments were viewed in context, which would require permission of the other participants of the channel.

Question from NE2

Have you read War and Peace?

I'm actually partway through it, having finally bought a copy a few days ago. Of course, this could be a clever reference to the contents of this page :) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from FT2

1. You write that "I would not hesitate to impose sanctions, but they must improve the collaborative environment that we strive to create on Wikipedia.".

This is a statement capable of a wide range of interpretations; from strictness, through to avoidance of action; many people could interpret them in many ways.

Can you say a bit more about what you mean by them, and your stance in this area, perhaps in a concrete way or with simple examples?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Apologies for the vagueness - an inherent problem with a word limit! What I was trying to say here was an extension of my theme that arbitration is not punishment, and that sanctions must be applied to benefit the encyclopedia. I don't believe the avoidance of action is beneficial - quite the opposite, since such an arbitration result leaves the parties in limbo with no further means of resolving the dispute and this is not ultimately an improvement. The key is to apply sanctions that allow editors to get back to work building content, and no more; to end the problems, but not drive editors away with punitive sanctions; to allow editors to contribute but not allow problems to fester. If you will permit me, I will sleep on this question and come up with a hypothetical example - alternatively, if you think I'm going off track from your question, post as many followups as you like. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Smallbones

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) 22:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, short answers: Jimbo does not make policy - the community does, be that for better or worse. Paid editing is not directly against policy per se, except where such editing causes a conflict of interest. I cannot conceive of many scenarios where the COI policy is not violated in this case, but I will not discount their existence.

Questions from Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Under what conditions would you consider recusing from a case?
Under any conditions where I could be perceived to have a bias or a conflict of interest. Generally, this will include cases where I have had significant involvement in the underlying dispute or been involved in a significant dispute with any of the parties. Fortunately, I don't have many people who would fall into the latter category. The important thing is to avoid the appearance of partiality and that has to be judgeed on a case-by-case basis.

Questions from Vecrumba

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

This is a difficult question to answer. I think the best way to maintain objectivity is to be aware of the potential bias that one carries, to be open to various interpretations, and to effectively engage with other arbitrators in deliberating. Part of the issue with "surface appearances" as you put it, is that Arbitrators presently rely on the evidence as presented to them by other editors. To my mind that makes it very easy for the bulk of evidence about particular conduct to be slanted by sheer weight of numbers - my plans for more active engagement during a case will hopefully alleviate some of that problem.

Questions from Sarah777

A major concern of mine is the use/abuse of WP:CIVIL to silence editors by Admins who are often less than objective or neutral. Have you any concerns about the enforcement of WP:CIVIL?
Related to the above; I believe that there is cultural difference in the acceptability of robust and frank language between America and Europe. An illustration of this is the censorship of "bad language" on US television, words which would pass unnoticed on TV in the UK or Ireland for example. How do you react to the charge that US standards of "civility" are being imposed on Wikipedians from places that happily embrace forms of expression that some Americans seem to find "uncivil"? Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Civility, in the dictionary definition sense of the word, is desirable - to be uncivil is not conducive to collaboration. The problem, which I believe you rightly highlight in your second question, is that everyone has a different interpretation of what is and is not uncivil. I wouldn't try to divide the standards on the scale of countries, I just think it varies from person to person. I think the enforcement of civility on Wikipedia is generally arbitrary and, more often than not, excessive. I think accusations of incivility against a user are allowed to accumulate in such a manner as to justify hair-trigger sanctions for questionable infractions of a poorly-defined set of rules. I think civility is used as a handy club for users to run to admins and demand some form of action against a user with whom they are in a general disagreement.

To respond to your latter question, the closest thing I remember in my experience was trying to calm down a very heated argument where an editor viewed the British use of "bugger" (which is mild in everyday parlance) as a sexuality-related slur - I believe order was eventually restored and the editor went away much happier. The best enforcement of civility on a day-to-day basis is simple communication, if that: most of the time it's all to do with the limits of expression in a text-based environment where most people write as they talk. In the case of my example, the best thing to do was to leave an explanation of what the term had meant, give them time to calm down about it, and they realised for themselves that the whole thing had been blown out of all proportion. No blocks, no sanctions, nothing. Civility, to my mind, is virtually impossible to "enforce" - unreasonable behaviour can normally be sanctioned for other reasons. Sorry for the length, but your thoughtful question demanded a lengthy response! Fritzpoll (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate: Fritzpoll

Candidate statement (create)
Questions for the candidate (create)
Discuss this candidate (create)