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

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

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

General questions Information

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

Arbitrators' skills

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

A: Consistency. An Arbitrator needs to have a solid set of values and beliefs that should not change dramatically throughout their term, or else their decisions become arbitrary (oh, there's that favorite moniker, the Arbitrary Committee...). Similarly, they need to be willing to stick to their guns on difficult decisions. If it can be demonstrated that the Committee's decision was wrong or excessive on a particular issue, that's one thing, but it's quite another if it is simply unpopular (as many decisions are). Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 06:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: Probably the best thing I can provide here is a guide to arbitration that I wrote at User:Hersfold/ArbGuide - it provides some advice on how to write good workshop proposals, and some analysis of some proposals that aren't the sort ArbCom would use. As for actual experience writing these proposals, I drafted the temporary injuction which was enacted here in the Speed of Light case. If you're looking for something more, please let me know. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: All of the above, to a lesser degree E and to a much lesser degree H. Some of these tasks are not dissimilar from my work as a clerk, and being a checkuser currently, G is not really a major issue. I've recently written a guide to help parties present evidence and workshop proposals, so I have some demonstrated experience in the fields of A, B, and C. For D, I frequently review unblock requests, and this would be similar to that on the grand scale of things; I'm also currently serving as mentor to Betacommand, who was unblocked through just such an appeal process. E I would be willing to assist with, but not in great amount; I'm of the belief that those on the AUSC shouldn't use their tools but for emergencies, and having recently gotten the CU tools I feel less qualified to vet those who wish to use them. As for F, that's not much different from clerk work. G I do regularly anyway. H I would prefer not to do until I am better set within the Arbitrator role; I likely would not request the tools for a few months at least. As for I and J, I believe those are well addressed in my goals at User:Hersfold/Platform. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 06:45, 23 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: Frequent updates on enwiki about what's going on should help to some degree; also conducting as much of the Committee's business as possible either on enwiki or other publicly viewable forum. Due to the sensitive nature of much of what the Committee deals with, that's not going to be a lot, but it's at least a starting point. For example, every item on the Committee's Agenda is of a non-sensitive nature, and can be dealt with on-wiki. Much of these are severely backlogged anyway, and could benefit from public exposure. In situations where sensitive information is involved (by sensitive I don't just mean privacy policy stuff, I also mean things that per common decency don't need to be made public), that of course does need to be conducted privately. There really can't be much compromise at all in that respect, I'm afraid, and the coping mechanism there will have to be working with the community to assure them that we are giving them as much information as we are able. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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 think that this can be a significant problem, especially on particularly divisive issues where the majority can depend on a few arbs sitting on the fence. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much way to handle this, since as your question states, it's an individual's decision. If someone knows the view they want to make will be unpopular, and they know there is a good reason for making it, hopefully they'll have the strength of character needed to follow through with it. If there were some way to make voting on cases anonymous, that would very likely help - anonymity is a unpopular statement's best friend - but this simply isn't possible the way we presently do cases, and would run counter to the goal of transparency we're trying to achieve. Aside from that, the only reasonable step I can propose would be to encourage the community to only elect those users whom they believe will be willing to make a stand such as this when it's needed. I'll also state that I believe I am such a user, and that I believe my history here shows that. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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:Guilty as charged. I've done very little mainspace editing since becoming an administrator, although in fairness I didn't do a whole lot before then. Anyway, yes, particularly for Arbitrators, since as the users specifically charged with handling cases of severe disputes, it's important that they know what it's like "in the trenches." Holding ideals and sticking to them is good, so long as those ideals aren't outdated. Wikipedia and its community are constantly changing, and arbitrators need to be aware of those changes, and handle the cases brought before them accordingly. Some things, of course, don't change (refer to a user by some profane term and it's not going to go over well), but especially in the geopolitical disputes, things can be entirely different a few weeks later. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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 do you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? ( Tznkai)

A:I'm on three of these presently. Between those three (func-en, CU, clerks), I'll usually get over 50 new emails every day, and upwards of 100 is not uncommon. With OS and Arbcom added to that, I'd expect the traffic to at the very least double, if not triple. As for how much I'd read, I'd do what I could to read everything, time constraints allowing, giving priority to those emails which related to something I was involved in (be it a case, investigation, or general discussion). Much of the traffic on CU-l, for example, is follow-up from other wikis, which I'm generally not too concerned about if it's not something I started; if I need the data, we keep archives, as long as I generally know what's going on, that's enough for me. Another note to make is that I hardly ever delete emails, so if I'm not able to get to something, I'll leave it marked as unread and come back to it (again, giving priority to relevant or urgent matters). Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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:An arbitrator who is recused from a case is in effect not a member of the committee within the confines of that case - that's how we handle voting, and that's how they're expected to act at the case. I would expect that this would also extend to areas of private communication as well; the arbitrator in question should conduct themselves as though they have no knowledge of such matters, and should avoid reading such materials as much as possible. For some reason, I remember discussion somewhere about a separate internal arbcom mailing list that should be used in cases where discussion does need to exclude a particular arb, but I can't remember in what context or where this discussion took place. If there is a genuine concern of abuse of private access such as you describe, however, then a separate mailing list could potentially be used for such matters. Unfortunately, I don't think there are any other feasible safeguards that can be used, as keeping records is just as important (for which reason something like personal emails amongst uninvolved committee members would not work). Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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 believe that the community should have the ability to do this as much as is feasible. Admins are selected based on the community's trust. If they no longer hold that trust, they should not hold the tools. That said, I don't believe anyone should be desysopped over a single situation except in very egregious violations, and any such process needs to be carefully set up to avoid it turning into WP:LYNCHMOB. It is one of my goals if elected to work with the Committee and Community to set up a process wherein the community can decide if someone should not be an administrator. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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 general I think it's about right. There are a few cases where I feel a desysop was a bit over the top, which I can elaborate on further if desired, but with ArbCom being the only present venue to address grave administrative concerns, it falls to ArbCom to determine when the community feels someone should no longer be an administrator, or when an administrator's conduct has so severely breached the expectations of adminship that they should not retain the tools. All of the desysoppings in the past year, including those I disagree with, are well justified under at least one of these criteria. There are in my opinion more admins whose conduct should be addressed, but ArbCom is not and should not be a Spanish Inquisition; of those cases that have been brought to it, I think they've done fine. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: Where there is a valid reason such an approach is not feasible, yes. However, I see that being the case in only very limited circumstances, mainly where privacy is an issue. In general, I believe any desysopped admin should go back through RFA for the reasons I explain in my answer to 9. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: Most likely, no. ArbCom is the last resort - if a user has indeed lost the community's trust, an RFC, opened with the intention of addressing conduct and not solely to prepare for an RFAR, should make that clear. One would hope that this would either convince the admin to address their problematic conduct or resign. Should this not be the case, then after an RFC or other appropriate means of handling the issue, I would consider a case. There are exceptions of course, in egregious situations, most of which I'll cover in the next question. However, in the case you describe, I would hope that the community would take it upon themselves to make their distrust clear in an appropriate manner; with the addition of a community desysop process, this should be easily manageable. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

A: Clear instances of abusive sockpuppetry (as result of case or motion). Clear, and clearly intentional, misuse of the tools (talking something on the scale of deleting the main page or replacing a Mediawiki: page with goatse) (as result of case or motion). Clear evidence that an account was compromised (as result of motion or emergency measure). Failure to respond to concerns about conduct (cf. CSCWEM) (as result of motion, possibly case in abstenia). Severe incivility and/or breach of expected conduct (as result of case). Clear evidence of a history of severely problematic conduct, and loss of the community's trust (as result of case). There may be a few other situations, but I think that about covers it. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: In a case similar to the Law/Undertow one, desysoppings would be appropriate for admins, and severe admonishments to all involved (essentially what ArbCom did). Withholding information like this is a severe breach of trust - even if uncomfortable commenting about it publicly, an email should be sent to the ArbCom for further investigation. On a less severe level (say the users had only suspected socking, but had nothing confirmed), then desysopping would most likely be excessive. We can't expect users to act in such situations until they're sure of the facts. In such a case, a less strongly worded admonishment may be in order, essentially a pointer to refer such suspicions, if justified, to the Committee for further review. In either case, blocks or bans would be highly inappropriate, as this doesn't involve editing rights, nor would the sanction prevent any sort of disruption to the project.

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: I've somewhat addressed this in my answer to (4), and I'll cover some other changes I'd like to make in (23). Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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. ArbCom should not make policy by unilateral decree. It's the jurisdiction of the community to make policy and carry it out, by discussing what they want done and how. That said, I fully support Arbitrators participating in that process as editors; as part of having to deal with the wiki's problems, they're in a situation to gauge what the causes are and come up with some ideal solutions or at least some novel ideas on the issue. As a Committee, though, you risk putting in place a policy that the committee does not support, and then you've got the confusion of which policies we do or don't follow and enforce. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

A: I partially agree. Much of the feelings of oppression and disillusion come from the length of the cases, in what I've seen as a clerk. Parties show up thinking "yay, this is finally at arbitration, our problems are over," and then eight weeks later they're ready to kill each other again because nothing's happened. Then we have remedies that are strongly influenced by the conduct in the case (in addition to the evidence presented), and may be much harsher than what the parties were expecting. I do support adjusting remedies in this manner - mooning the jury is a very good way to get a boot shoved up that area - however we don't need to be giving parties enough rope to hang themselves with if we can help it. Were cases shorter, and the core disputes dealt with better, I believe we'll see more effective remedies and less displeasure about the whole process. See my answer to (23) below. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: Yes, because the ArbCom gives us a forum where we can seek resolution on issues that are best not, or cannot be, discussed on-wiki. The EEML case is a good example. It's not feasible to expect the community to resolve a case whose evidence is almost entirely comprised of private emails. That would open up a very large can of worms, not to mention some legal issues besides. As for normal dispute resolution, this is good as "court of last resort." We encourage the community to solve issues if they can, but if it's beyond their abilities, something will get done. To make sure disputes don't destroy the project, we need to be sure of some way that we know a problem will be resolved, for better or for worse. Is it ideal? Probably not. Unfortunately, what is ideal and what works are very rarely the same thing. What we have seems to work, it just needs an occasional tuning up to make sure it keeps doing so. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: As I said before, ArbCom should not make policy. Some of their actions have been perceived as such, and some actions effectively have made policy (BLPSE a prime example). The Committee really only has what power the community is willing to give it - we hold elections every year to rotate the members, we are invited to comment on and discuss decisions at the noticeboard. If, as happened with the Advisory Council, a decision is terribly unpopular, it just won't take off. Obviously this is not an ideal result, of course, so to address that problem, I'd be sure to keep the community in touch with what the Committee was planning, and invite comment on those plans, so that when we went to do something we would know what the reception would be like. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: All that the Arbitration Committee can do in such disputes is rule on the conduct of users. If a user is repeatedly violating content policies in such a way that it is hindering rather than helping articles, some appropriate sanctions may be in order, most likely along the lines of an admonishment to abide by the policies and consensus. The Arbitration Committee is ill suited to do anything further, as in most cases they have no knowledge of the subject matter, and any attempt to decree "this is what the article must say" goes totally against the principles of this project. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

A: Yes, and yes. These disputes are notorious for being unresolvable. Wikipedia is not the battleground for these editors to declare how their country is <insert complimentary adjective> and the country across the border is <insert defamatory adjective>. Such disputes harm Wikipedia's reputation and waste the time of other editors, even those who try to avoid the situation. Administrators could easily take a more proactive role in patrolling the political/ethnic/religious disputes noticeboard ( WP:ECCN) and work with the community to issue sanctions where editors are particularly problematic. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: Egregious cases (comparing others to Nazi leaders was one example from a recent case I clerked) with no effort to improve or even acknowledge the problem would certainly be grounds for desysopping (if applicable) and other sanctions, possibly including bans of some nature. Repeated instances of incivility, again without apparent improvement, could also be grounds for removal of the sysop tools and some form of admonishment or further restriction. Sysops are highly visible members of the community, and are responsible for enforcing policies and guidelines such as civility. As such, they need to hold themselves to a standard higher than we may expect from others, so that they do not compromise their own enforcement actions or those of others. Civility restrictions are a bit of a waste of time in my opinion; it ought to be enough to admonish someone in order for them to watch their conduct and for others to respond and enforce the policy against them appropriately. We shouldn't need to spell out for them what will happen if they're incivil, because ideally everyone should be held to a similar standard. For your last question, I think circumstances like that should be taken into consideration, but likely should not excuse their conduct entirely. In a hypothetical situation where an admin was dealing with a particularly persistent user of this sort, I may be less willing to desysop depending on how long their interactions had been going on, provided the admin had not been previously sanctioned. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 01:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

A: Set up a schedule which all cases are to follow. For a set period of time following the case's opening, maybe a week, the case will focus solely on the presentation and analysis of evidence. Following that, another two or three weeks for parties to propose workshop proposals. After that, the Arbitration Committee has a week to vote on proposals. Those who didn't vote are considered to have abstained, and those proposals without a majority are chucked out. By this, a case is resolved in four to five weeks, and it's very clear when you move to the next phase. For comparison, some recently closed cases took: six weeks, one day (Speed of light); seven weeks, six days (Lapsed Pacifist 2); six weeks (Noloop); eight weeks, four days (Abd-WMC). Of the currently open cases, Asmahan and EEML are entering their tenth week now, and Socionics turns seven weeks tomorrow. If more time is needed for a particular phase, then a quick poll can be held amongst the Committee and parties on-wiki. Some cases will almost certainly need this - EEML and Asmahan haven't gone on as long as they have without reason - but having actual deadlines present instead of the current meaningless target dates should help focus attention to the main issues and causes. It's an idea, and will need to be worked out to make sure it works, but it's something I'd much like to try. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 01:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

A: Very. Even if the community fails to resolve the issue on their own, the Committee at least knows what has been tried so they know to take a different tack on things. Due to the very binding nature of ArbCom rulings, ArbCom should be reserved as the court of last resort, used only for situations that are beyond the community's ability or patience to handle. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 01:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: It was a good idea, and one that several users are trying to independently tackle (for example, We'reSpellCheckers's newbie project (ironic I can't spell the name correctly)). Unfortunately, I think it came on too suddenly, and was not presented terribly well, particularly with the closed membership and invitations. If such a project were to be started again through discussion by the community, I'm sure it would go very well and do a lot of good work. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 01:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: I think I've covered this some up at (6), but as I mentioned there, there's a good bit of conduct that is the same regardless of whatever you're talking about. In other areas where there is significant overlap, the Committee is lacking a bit in the necessary knowledge (and again, I'd be among those lacking). However, this is somewhat mitigated by the manner in which the Committee solicits parties for their evidence, which following some explanation or clarifying questions from Arbitrators can help resolve some of the gap. Additionally, it does provide an additional view point, essentially that of the outsider who is not involved in editing Wikipedia. If something seems objectionable to the outsider, then there's probably something that needs to be dealt with. Basically, this is a problem, but all things considered I'm not sure it's a very big one. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 01:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making

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

A: Yes. While it can be argued that he had clearly gained the community's trust as Law, having passed RfA, the fact remains that he had been sanctioned as the_undertow, continued to operate that account, and failed to disclose this at his RfA, in a clear violation of policies. Had this been known, the RfA would have proceeded much differently, and probably would have failed. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: In Jenna's case, she was unwilling to accede that her failure to disclose was a problem, and her statement at the arbitration request seems to imply that she would have repeated her actions had this particular situation not been the drama storm it was. Jayron admitted his actions, but similarly didn't try to apologize either; his redeeming quality in ArbCom's eyes was that he didn't attempt to cloud the matter by appearing to apologize and not really doing so. However, that doesn't excuse his actions, and I probably would have voted more along the lines of Coren - in favor of a desysopping for all involved pending a successful RFA. Had any genuine apologies been issued, I may have been more lenient in that case. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

A: (Having now seen the statements, I'd missed them previously) I believe that they should have been included in the motions. Neither made any effort to apologize, same as above, and I believe their sanctions should have been similar. Require Iridescent to go through RFA, and desysop MZM again. As I've said above, consistency is important, if in this case for no other reason than out of fairness to those who were sanctioned. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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'll do this backwards. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, I have problems with some of the remedies. The remedy regarding Abuse/Edit Filter 119 seems very much like a content decision, especially since it is advocating the disallowal of a certain type of edit. The Edit Filter works on logic and therefore is not very intelligent; tracking word replacements such as is "strongly advised" there is spotty at best, and gives no consideration to whether the replacement was in fact valid or the merits of the rest of the edit. The other remedy I very much dislike is the temporary desysopping of Future Perfect at Sunrise; if someone has lost the trust of the community, then they should lose their tools until the community wants to grant them back. A temporary desysopping implies that the admin doesn't have that trust for an arbitrary time period, at the end of which it spontaneously reappears as though nothing happened. This doesn't make any sense to me.

Another one that I don't feel was handled successfully was Abd-William M. Connolley, which I was the clerk for. The case went much longer than it should have, and was characterized by repeated attacks and battling throughout, even to the point of edit warring on the case pages. I feel as though the sanctions would have been much more lenient had it closed sooner.

Otherwise, I think the Committee's rulings have overall been fairly successful. Scientology, for example, had a very straight-forward remedy that seems to have been effective (despite the fact it was also on the order of six months). Date Delinking as well, despite it also being s six-month trainwreck, because it did lead to a successful discussion which has made great strides in resolving the problem. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007

A: Support. Technically, anything you write is copyrighted absent a declaration to the contrary, although if it were actually to be tried in court, I doubt too much would come of it since it's extremely unlikely there'd be any financial losses as a result of republishing email. On the other hand, there's a general expectation that a private email will be kept private, and many businesses require confidentiality notices at the bottom of emails to this effect. I'd prefer the "See Wikipedia:Copyrights" bit be removed, but in general this principle is sound on the grounds of common courtesy. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007

A: Support. This is a basic foundation of the WP:BRD principle - if someone disagrees and reverts your edit, you should both be able to explain the reasoning behind your edits so as to allow the formation of consensus and prevent edit wars from occurring. This is especially true for administrators, whose actions are less easy to undo and can have a chilling effect on other editors. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

A: Support I feel as though this could have been worded much better, but this is the general spirit of WP:NLT. I dislike specific examples because that narrows things unnecessarily.

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

A: Support This is an accepted policy of the community, and the Mediation Committee takes steps to ensure that this privilege is not abused.

(v) "Outing", June 2009

A: Abstain I agree with this in spirit, however it needs to be reworded. It's not the most clear, and leaves open some loopholes for problematic wikilaywering. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: It should have been outlined beforehand; changing the rules of an election partway through leads to questions regarding the validity of the election, as was seen. I have the utmost respect for MBisanz and was disappointed to find that he had not made the top three, especially by so small a margin and considering he had greater net support than two of those who were appointed as full members; however the followup afterward was an appropriate response by the Committee. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:14, 24 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: I thought this question looked familiar - I've already answered it last year at User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide/Hersfold - it's number 26, fourth from the bottom of the page. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(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: BLPs are a wonderful thorn in our side. I don't think it's fully correct. The entirety of the problems focuses on a fear of defaming someone who is alive and able to do something about it. This is a valid concern. However, it's totally incompatible with Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, and the pillars on which our policies are founded call for "verifiability, not truth." Despite this, articles that are completely referenced are deleted by community consensus because there is a worry that the article will be targeted for abuse. Our mission is to increase the spread of information. It's not possible to do that if we're constantly looking over our shoulder for some guy's lawyer with a libel suit in hand. To make clear again, I understand why this is done, and agree that it has merit considering the project's present circumstances; the problem comes in when we find that this totally opposes what we're doing elsewhere.

As for how to change it for the better, the way Wikipedia currently works, we can't. The proposed flagged protection, I feel, is the way to go with BLP's. This way we keep the "anyone can edit" mantra as much as we can while still giving due deference to the fear of defamation. Edits don't show up immediately for most editors, no, but we do allow them to be entered once we're sure they're acceptable - we fix the problems that plague BLP's before they truly become problems in the eyes of the public and the press. Should this also fail, then I'm at a loss as to how BLP's and Wikipedia's ideals are at all compatible.

I should note, of course, that ArbCom has very little to do with this. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 21:54, 24 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: I maintain several accounts, those publicly disclosed include:

• Hersford ( talk · contribs) - a doppelganger not used for editing, this account is blocked.
• Hersfold non-admin ( talk · contribs) - an alternate account I use when on a public computer to avoid accidentally leaving my main account logged in.
• Hersfold test sock ( talk · contribs) - an account I've used in the past to see how certain things behave for blocked or non-autoconfirmed accounts; see the block log for an example, and the account's talk page for a log of what I've used it for.
• Hersfold tool account ( talk · contribs) - an account I use with AWB, Huggle, etc., because it doesn't have any javascript stuff added onto it which has a tendency to make Internet Explorer kill itself.
• Hersfold sock1 ( talk · contribs) and Hersfold sock2 ( talk · contribs) - I thought I was on a test wiki when I made these. They've since been blocked and had the passwords scrambled.
• HersfoldBot ( talk · contribs) - a transwiki account between here and the English Wiktionary. More information about its function and approvals are available on the bot's page.
• HersfoldOTRSBot ( talk · contribs) - a bot account active only on the Wikimedia Commons that delivers notices about images lacking confirmation from OTRS regarding their permission.
• I own another doppelganger account whose name I will not disclose publicly. The Arbitration Committee is aware of this account, which does not edit and has a scrambled password.
• I own another account which I use for editing, as part of Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD. Since it seems that ended today, I'll probably disclose the name of the account and the article that was created here in a couple days. ArbCom is aware of this account.
• I've made a few logged-out edits from my university's network, but none terribly substantial and I have no idea what the particular IP address was at the time. I usually do this while on wikibreak to avoid the orange bar of doom. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:32, 24 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 I said in my opening statement, I would lean more towards the sterner sides of things. By the time an issue has reached Arbitration, it has, theoretically, gone through several previous steps in dispute resolution that have failed to resolve the issue through amicable means. If a user is still problematic after all of this and unwilling to change, then they're not getting the point and need to be given more than a slap on the wrist, especially since the community is capable of dishing out such admonishments and blocks on its own. If an editor was demonstrating a willingness to improve on the concerns expressed and ideally had begun to take steps in that direction, I'd be more inclined towards a lighter sanction. The same would apply in cases where there hasn't been much dispute resolution beforehand; some cases do find their way to Arbitration quite quickly, particularly administrative matters. In the case of administrative matters, however, I would not hesitate to push for the desysopping of someone who I felt had lost the community's trust through their actions. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Individual questions Information

Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here. It is not mandatory for candidates to respond to mass questions that are not individualised.

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

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

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
3. An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
4. There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?
5. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they do not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
6. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
7. Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
8. When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
9. A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
10. During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. b) Question removed
11. Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
12. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

1. Cases should not take three months to be completed unless there are some exceptional circumstances to consider. At a glance, this doesn't seem to have been the case, especially since there were only two findings of fact and two remedies (neither of which did much). In looking through the case pages, I'm especially confused about the delay. After January, only eight edits were made to the Evidence page, ten edits to the Workshop page, and none whatsoever to either of their talk pages. It's the proposed decision that took over two months to complete, which from what I'm seeing could have been done in much less time.
2. By themselves, no. Such standards should be proposed by Wikiprojects to the community through an RFC or other open forum, which can come to a consensus on the matter. The reason I say this is because you need not be a member of a Wikiproject in order to edit an article in their remit, and many articles are covered by several Wikiprojects. A user cannot be expected to know how Wikiproject Y formats their articles, especially if they're a member of Wikiproject X whose standards are entirely different. Stylistic concepts should be brought to the attention of the wider community before being put into effect to as to maintain a uniform appearance throughout.
3. In general, and with the limited context provided general is what I have to be, I would consider that person a troll. If they are not a net positive to the project, then a politely worded suggestion to either become one or find another hobby might be in order. Should that not work, then some sort of discussion should be held regarding the user's conduct and purpose here (ideally at RFC/U, but it'd probably happen at ANI since such things usually do), with a block made by an uninvolved administrator if needed. If someone is not here to contribute, then they don't need to be here; users can be disruptive without necessarily having broken the letter of policy.
4. If a user is truly opposing anyone with a sysop flag simply for that reason, then it would be my hope that the community would pick up on this fairly quickly, to the point the user would be painting themself into a corner. I'd say the same sort of thing would apply; if they're a net positive (they do good article work and make useful discussion points as long as an admin isn't around), then actual sanctions probably aren't really necessary (although if particularly problematic in admin areas they could be asked to avoid those). If their disruption outweighs their benefit, see answer 3.
5. Someone should try to identify what language they do speak if at all possible (usually this is fairly self-evident, they'll use terms from their native language, use it in edit summaries, or failing that use an SUL tool to figure out where else they edit). Once that's done, someone can be found who can work in that language to help them out, or in a pinch translate your own comments using Google. These people are generally trying to help and just can't make themselves understood. Of course, we can't really give them a course in English here, so it may be best for everyone if they're directed to Wikipedia in their own language to contribute to. Whatever happens, an effort should be made to help explain what's going on, why their edits aren't helping, etc., etc., as you would an English-speaking newbie. Unfortunately, I'm sure I'm guilty of having blocked someone who doesn't speak English because they don't get the point, just as I know many other admins have, but I've also gone out of my way to help a number of people as much as I was able in this regard. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Most likely not, at least, not an explicitly issued one. #3 in an extreme case would probably end up with an indefinite block, which could be seen as a de facto ban. #4 hopefully wouldn't go that far, but if the editor did end up being a net negative, then as I said, the same course of action as number 3 may apply (but again, it would have to be pretty severe disruption if limited only to that area). Most likely the worst community sanction they would face would be to stay away from RFA and to be civil towards admins if that's the only complaint they have to make. #5 should not result in a ban or lengthly block so long as the editor is clearly trying to work in good faith. If, despite several efforts of the sort I described, the user still is not being constructive, then maybe administrative action should be considered, but a formal community ban would not be appropriate.
7. 3RR is a particular mark the community has set regarding edit warring, and how much is too much. That being, if you revert constructive edits more than three times on an article during a particular 24-hour period, you are at significant risk of being blocked. It should be enforced based on the spirit of the rule, however. For example, I'd be willing to block someone for edit warring if they're reverting edits without discussion across a group of related articles, even if they only do one or two reverts on each individual article. On the other hand, I may only give a stern warning to someone who just made their fourth revert, if they're engaging in discussion, weren't warned about 3RR, and it's clear this was their first offense. The purpose of 3RR is to stop disruption to the collaborative environment Wikipedia needs to run, not to set a hard-and-fast speed limit for editing.
8. Usernames should not be provocative to the point where they are a hazard to constructive discussion; although some context does need to be taken into account with each. I'll use some of the names at UAA now as an example:
   • KKK09 ( talk · contribs) - First thoughts of course go to the Ku Klux Klan, which made that particular acronym infamous and is why it's on the username bot's blacklist. Their userpage says it's actually Kool Kids Klub in this context. I'd still ask them to change it at the very least (if they were making constructive edits in areas unrelated to slavery/racism/social equality/any other subjects related to the KKK), or block them if they were editing in areas where the KKK would normally persecute or has historically.
   • Doggcrap ( talk · contribs) - That's simply inappropriate, and the user's contributions back that conclusion up. I've just blocked this account.
   • IRTehPwnzor ( talk · contribs) - Similar to the last name, I wouldn't expect someone with this username to constructively contribute (and it doesn't seem as though they are), but I'd be willing to give them a chance first to see what edits they made. There's nothing inappropriate about this.

   If you need a clearer response, please let me know.

9. Edits made in violation of a ban should be removed, unless it's clear that the edit actually was constructive and in line with Wikipedia policies. If it's unclear whether the edit was valid or not, it should go. It can always be re-added later by another editor if it turns out it was acceptable. The problem with the idea that "any banned edit must go" is that banned editors can make useful edits; not all bans are for content-related problems, and even if they are, an edit doesn't necessarily violate the policies the editor was banned over.
10. Sam resigned for one main reason; he wanted to return to article editing, which being an Arbitrator doesn't leave a whole lot of time for (as one of the general questions pointed out). At the same time, however, he announced that he had previously edited under the name of Dbiv ( talk · contribs) (later renamed to Fys ( talk · contribs)), and was desysopped under that name in 2006 as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. He began editing as Sam Blacketer a few months after that case closed, and eventually moved to that account entirely in 2007. This was entirely unknown to (apparently) everyone, and it's my guess that Sam was aware that if it were known, he'd have been removed from the Committee and sysop roles by force. It wasn't mentioned as a reason for his voluntary resignation, but I would assume it was a contributing factor.
11. No question asked
12. We're getting old (As a community. I'm only 20. Just so that's clear.), and there aren't a whole lot of new people coming in and sticking around. Or at least, it seems that way. The result, then, is like a big family reunion: you enjoy it for a while, and then you realize why family reunions have such a bad reputation. We get into disagreements over relatively minor points, and then those disagreements expand into huge debates, and then the whole project is at ANI or RFAR calling for bans and the like. Right now, the old crew has been around long enough many of us are stuck at that last level, and as a result the project is having a hard time growing. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 04:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in a 2008 motion. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention, as suggested by the 2008 motion, at [2]. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it (e.g. by reblocking or by sanctioning the unblocker) for 15 days until the case became moot because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. You were active as a clerk in that case – as an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised? Thanks,  Sandstein  06:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

On the contrary, I think that there was a certain interest in some sort of sanction as you describe at the time your request was made - the comments dated Sept. 20-23 are all very clearly supportive of your block and were in favor of opening a motion through which to apply these sanctions. As of September 22, it appears evident from Vassyana's comments that some discussion on this matter had been occurring elsewhere (I'm not sure what was discussed or where, my involvement in this situation was really very minimal and related solely to clerical duties), which (at least in Vassyana's mind) materially affected the usefulness of continuing the block against CoM. By September 30, the date at which the case request would have had to be accepted or declined, the Law affair began and rendered the situation moot. I can only assume during that time the Arbs were discussing in private what motions they would consider posting, but of course I can't be certain. Were I an Arbitrator involved in that, I most likely would have begun such a discussion on or around September 23rd, when enough other Arbs had commented generally in favor of a motion, with an eye to proposing something within a few days, and certainly before the 30th. As I said, though, I'm not completely cognizant of the side details here, so I may be missing something.

Unrelated to my response, however, please do continue your AE work. The comments of the Arbitrators here were clearly in support of your block, and if the Law affair hadn't followed right on this request's heels, I'm sure something would have been put forward around then, especially once us clerks began poking them about the 10-day deadline. Unfortunately, circumstances didn't work out that way. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 05:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Edited 05:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC) for clarity

Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer the subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi ( talk) 15:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

1. What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
   1. Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?

      Less in that I believe there should be some sort of community-based desysop process, although it would need to be carefully set up to avoid lynchmobbing and protect admins from vendettas.

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

      Both ArbCom and the community should have the ability to desysop, although between the two the community should have the final say. That is, ArbCom shouldn't desysop over an incident where the community said not to, however if new information should come up (continued misuse of tools, or something on the lines of the next question), then ArbCom could desysop based on that. This makes sense anyway, since ArbCom allows the community to override them through RFA.

   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?

      I think the current procedures are fine. If it's a genuine emergency, make sure at least a few other Arbs concur, and then get a steward to desysop. If they're treated the same way, then in an actual emergency, you're causing more damage by delaying.

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

      If I were to resign my tools right now, I'm not currently under sanction or involved in any controversial situations, so I would be able to make a post at WP:BN at any time to say "hey, can I get the buttons back, please?" and I'd be back to deleting pages and blocking users within a few hours. If there was currently an Arbitration case concerning me open, then more than likely I wouldn't be able to simply ask for them back, as the Committee would pass a remedy preventing that. While I don't think it's been tested, if I were to resign my tools as result of a voluntary recall process, I would expect the crat corps would discuss the matter before giving the tools back, and more than likely would require I go through RFA again.

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

      In the most general terms, not being a dick. Deliberately baiting someone while still speaking politely in my mind is incivil (although I probably wouldn't call it that), harassing someone (same deal), as well as the usual simple rudeness and name-calling type things. Basically, any form of poor conduct directed primarily at another person.

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

      Not quite sure what you're asking here. Are people looking for more civility between editors? I think so, it's certainly been a big issue lately. It's probably a side effect of the family reunion analogy I used in the last section - the older our community gets, the more tired we get of each other, and so we perceive slights where none were intended. Is incivility more prevalent between editors? I don't think so. There's a few bad eggs, yes, but a lot of the "you're being incivil!" complaints I've seen of late haven't really been that awful, or have clearly been made in retaliation to some other issue.

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

      As much as I'd love to say no, there are a few whom different users have tried to lodge complaints against, and those complaints just spiraled into the Great Black Hole of Drama never to return with any useful result. In general, the objections to sanctioning the editor include "they make good article contributions," "they don't violate policy," "you're just whining because your article was deleted," or something to that effect. These users basically are right on the line between being a net positive and a net negative, and the community has grown tired of debating which, and because we thrive on consensus, nothing ever happens because nobody can agree. And that has simply become the status quo for these users.

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

      Most certainly not. In fact, I feel as though users in positions of responsibility (admins, functionaries, arbs) should be subject to stricter restrictions due to their higher level of visibility around the project and the roles they are expected to fulfill.

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

      I think what we have presently is sufficient, aside from the "untouchables" referenced two questions up. We don't need a "civility police" to go hunting people down for being incivil, as that opens a new and much more ugly can of worms, but neither do we need to reduce what efforts we're currently putting in.

   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?

      I don't quite see how you can answer "yes" to a "more or less" question, but then I think I managed to answer "No" regardless. :-)

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

   You have a right to remain "anonymous" in that you are not expected to reveal any identifying information about yourself, and in that other editors are expected not to reveal it without your consent, provided the information is in fact private. ArbCom's role in this is to act against users who do "out" others in this way, both to prevent them from doing so to others and to discourage others from doing so. To clarify the last part of my first sentence, if a user has a well-established presence on the internet that is connected to their identity, then they should expect their identity to come out here. Say for example I ran a blog at which I posted as "Hersfold", but also had a lot of identifying information on. I then link to that blog from my userpage, but don't give any identifying information. I would not expect a user to be sanctioned who made the obvious conclusion that two plus two was four when I claim they "outed" me. That's my dumb fault for giving them an easy trail of breadcrumbs to follow. Consequently, I think it's also ArbCom's role to continue to advise users to protect their identities so that logical deductions such as that aren't possible.

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

   Sorry for the extremely long delay on answering this. The major concern, as I've mentioned in my response to Rschen's question 12, is the age of the community, and particularly the prevalence of vested contributors, the people sitting on the line between net positive and net negative that the community seems unable or unwilling to do anything about. This is preventing our community from growing further, as we focus more on drama than building an encyclopedia, and this in turn deters what new users do register from sticking around to provide a new perspective on things. As for what I would do about this, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I would seek out stronger sanctions for those users who are preventing growth of the project. They may be here in good faith and doing good work, but if their actions are disruptive enough to the point they are on the positive/negative fence, then those users need to be aware they need to move firmly to the positive side or step outside, so that the project can continue to grow. I feel as though there are and should be alternatives to this rather black-and-white solution, but the community so far has been unwilling to seek them out, and I myself am currently at a loss as to what those alternatives may be, although I will do what I can to find some.

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

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

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

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

   This has always seemed problematic to me because of the severe difficulties in confirming identity through the internet, and that such deletions are not based on community input (aside from "is this marginally notable") nor any editorial guideline. This also doesn't take into account the state of the article - it could be entirely neutral, and at no risk of attack, but still be deleted at the subject's request. I see this as excessive and contrary to Wikipedia's goals. I feel as though this should be discarded in favor of deletion through community consensus based on editorial policies (as before), or one of the alternatives below.

   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.

   There's problems with this too, particularly because it again seems to be contrary to our goals (the spread of information). I feel this should be the main alternative to the "Opt Out" policy, but amended so that it only applies to marginally notable individuals. If a BLP is at AfD or DRV, we should have either just finished or recently held, respectively, a discussion on the merits of the article, including the subject's notability. If that notability was called into reasonable question and there was no consensus, then delete it. If concerns were primarily not about notability or other concerns, and the problems with the article are not so severe as to cause "real-life" problems for the subject, then I feel it should be kept. In this way, we still keep to the "do no harm" mantra as much as possible, but continue to honor our own goals and polices regarding content.

   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)

   This seems entirely reasonable to me, and within the scope of the protection policy. The Arbitration Committee has recently held that extended semi-protection in certain cases is within policy (their ruling specifically applied to Obama-related articles, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to extend it to all BLPs, particularly those consistently under attack). Semi protection allows people to continue to edit the article with an account in good standing, while severely limiting the ability of vandals who mean no good toward the project or the subject.

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

   As I said up at general question 34, I think this is the ideal way to proceed with BLP's to protect our goals and processes, and the interests of the subjects of our articles.

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

   I think that applying this to the entire project (as I understand, the "real deal" would be applied to all pages within defined namespaces) would be excessive and create unnecessary backlogs of revisions that would need sighting. This wouldn't help BLP's, only put us in a different boat set on the same course.

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

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

   It's policy. Biographies of living people, on the surface, aren't different from other articles in that they are still subject to the same editorial guidelines and policies. The BLP policy simply adds another layer on top of that, that simply states we need to take particular care with those articles in terms of verification, and outlines what additional ways that can be enforced (outlined in question 1).

   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?

   I touched on this in general question 19 - BLPSE is a prime example of how they've created policy in this regard. In that particular instance, I think it was appropriate, although certainly controversial. This is mainly because BLPSE is generally used, and I believe intended, for only exceptional cases that fall only a little short of emergencies. Going any further than that, that is to create a policy to be applied in general (non-exceptional) circumstances, I believe would be too far.

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

   (I'm assuming that this is "if elected, how would you...") I'd work with the Committee to set up a series of community discussions about those aspects of the BLP approach I feel need to be changed (that is, Opt Out and Default to Delete) to gather their input, and to present some proposals about how I/we feel the approaches should be altered. Nothing would actually be enacted without an interest from the community, and if the community completely rejects the proposed changes, then that's that. In the latter case, we either return to the drawing board and make changes based on their input or drop the issue and move on. In the event the community does seem amenable, we work on putting those measures into place, not by an announcement "On behalf of the Arbitration Committee", but as individual, interested editors.

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

   I think it can scale this big, but it's something we continually have to work at for it to keep working. For collaborative editing such as is our project's main goal, I think it works fine, provided you have some way to weed out those people who are hindering more than helping (in our case, that's community sanctions and on the extreme end the ArbCom). The problem with explicit voting mechanisms is that they rarely leave open the opportunity for compromise choices, and additionally limit discussion somewhat. There are some cases where explicit voting, as through SecurePoll, really is best, such as these elections - discussion in a situation like this is best done beforehand so people can make sure they're fully informed, but when the time comes to actually vote, someone may be more willing to give their honest opinion on a matter when they can be assured they won't be hounded for their vote (cf the oppose section on any RFA). In these cases, there isn't a compromise ground, you can't elect two people to one seat. Bottom line is, I disagree, it'll work so long as the community wants it to work.

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

   Flagged Revisions across the entire project is, I believe, excessive. I think the best option here would be to use Flagged Protection, where this feature can be applied where it is necessary, but other areas can be left as they are. This way the backlog of revisions to be reviewed won't get out of control, but the tool is still usable. Has the community failed to come to a decision about this? I believe so. There's still a lot of debate about this (obviously, else you wouldn't be asking). Irretrievably? No. Once we finally get the trial, and people on both sides of the fence are able to properly see how this works, we'll be able to figure out if this is something we want or not. Once we're better informed, the decision shouldn't be too hard. ArbCom should have an extremely limited role in this if any at all; maybe starting the final poll, maybe serving as the ones to judge if a consensus has formed on the matter when it comes time to close (to avoid one admin closing it and all the drama associated with that), but really no more than that, and ideally none at all. It shouldn't be their decision nor should they, as the Committee, attempt to influence the decision one way or another. As for the delay in implementing, my understanding is that our community has asked for an implementation so radically different from previous uses that we need to make sure it actually works before we try to put it on trial here. The test site has been up since August but only has 285 registered users, including 105 admins, 43 "editors", and 2 "reviewers", so from that I assume the test is going very slowly.

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

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

   Yes. Knowing who someone is is not relevant to the work we do here. Contributions are expected to be neutral and backed up by reliable third-party sources; that's really about it. If you do this, and remain civil toward others, then frankly you could be evil incarnate and I wouldn't care, because my only experience of you would be your positive contributions here.

   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)?

   I do, so this is moot.

   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?

   I have disclosed my real name and since removed it from the site. I did this removal through deleting most of my userpage; as it was within my userspace, this was allowed under CSD U1. I did not request oversight, for several reasons: 1) it was far too much to ask an oversighter to delete or suppress those revisions, 2) I'd put it out there myself in the first place, and while it remained "personal information", it seemed a stretch to consider it "non-public", and 3) I don't believe that this particular bit of information is so critical that deletion itself would be insufficient. I'd expect this to be standard for most cases. For disclosure outside of (their own) userspace that a user wanted rescinded, then oversight (or RevDelete) might could be used for that particular case, but if it extends to more than a few revisions, then they may need to be content with simply editing it away and allowing it to be buried within the page history. If someone releases their identity on this site, especially knowing how it operates, then they need to expect that they may not be able to fully undo that should they change their mind due simply to practical considerations. It's unreasonable to ask an oversighter to remove dozens of revisions, or risk locking up the servers trying to selectively delete some revisions on a heavily used talk page, on the request of a single editor.

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

   I mentioned this in Avraham's question 3. At best, it's in very poor taste and could be considered harassment depending on the context in which the revelation was made, however it the correlation is as clear as you imply, then it's probably not outing, and the targeted user should, quite frankly, expect the link to be made and brought up eventually.

   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)

   As mentioned above, I did have my real name out but have since removed it; I do have other personal details still present on my userpage. I don't believe Arbitrators should be held to a different standard in this regard; they should be free to make the choice as they wish. Their position leaves them much more open to the public and press than other users (for example, Stephen Colbert mentioned several Arbs by username on The Colbert Report following the Scientology case), and the nature of their decisions can easily make them targets of disgruntled users or groups for off-wiki harassment.

   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?

   Most of what I've heard regarding this has come from other, more experienced, users, and not from the WMF or their representatives. The Privacy Policy makes little mention of actually personal information, focusing mainly on technical private information, and in fact seems to deliberately skate around the issue of pseudonymity. I'm not as familiar with any other resolutions the Foundation may have made in this regard. As a result, it's ArbCom's role to do what they can to encourage the community to keep their information safe (private), and to be aware of the risks if they do choose to disclose it. They also are responsible for seeing that users who do inappropriately disclose others' information are appropriately sanctioned.

   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)

   Most likely, a very harsh sanction such as a long-term or indefinite ban. It may vary depending on the individual circumstances, but I think it's safe to say that would be an average. Outing can have impacts beyond the range of Wikipedia, and so any sanction needs to reflect that seriousness. As for on-wiki vs. off-wiki, I see little difference; if the situation has spilled over onto Wikipedia, then more than likely the outing was intended to affect some discussion here.

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

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

   On one hand, it'd be rather foolish for the WMF to warn against contributing to their own site, although it should be mentioned somewhere, ideally by them out of responsibility, or failing that by members of the community (maybe a counterpoint to Wikipedia:Why create an account?; I thought there was one, but I can't seem to find it now).

   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.

   Since we're all volunteers, the WMF really doesn't have any legal responsibility to do anything in this regard, however they should take steps to prevent stalkers from using Wikipedia (and other WMF sites) for the purposes of harassment, including filing complaints with ISPs about misuse of this nature (release of data as necessary is allowed by the privacy policy for this reason).

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

   They should be allowed to "start over" with a new account entirely unrelated to any previous accounts they may have held. Aside from that, I'm afraid there's not much more that can be done; too many special allowances may counteract the effort of avoiding the stalker.

   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.

   In the former case, protection of the article would not be unreasonable, as it would be preventing disruption (a less-than-obvious sort, but still disruption). In either case, blocks and rangeblocks can be applied as a temporary measure to stop them - rangeblocks more liberally applied than usual, ideally, IPBE's make this possible - and efforts made to prepare an abuse complaint to ISPs and/or law enforcement through WP:LTA. Users using Wikipedia solely for the purpose of stalking should be treated as banned users, with all edits removed regardless of merit, particularly since while an edit may be constructive it was done with malicious intent.

   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?

   I don't think this line is one that can be terribly well defined, especially since activities that under other circumstances may be considered harassment could be found to be entirely justified if a serious concern was unearthed. It's a case by case thing. Users shouldn't be assuming bad faith about others, or appointing themselves as the community whistleblower, but on the other hand if a user has been problematic then they should expect a certain amount of suspicion.

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

   Yes, there are; it seems every few weeks there's a post on ANI to the effect of "Admin X is stalking me" when really Admin X is simply trying to let the poster know that "hey, what you're doing is inappropriate and you should stop." It happens in other situations as well, of course. As for what to do about it, any accusations of stalking should be looked at with an open eye by several different users to see if they have any merit; if it does, the accused should be sanctioned in some way, and if it doesn't, the accuser should be spoken to about their accusation, and sanctions may be applied if the accusation was particularly egregious or the concerns of the accused had merit.

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

   I've somewhat addressed this in my response to Rschen's question 9, although this question seems to go into more detail. By "remarkably unwelcome", I'm getting the impression that this is something a bit more than simply site-banned; a banned user's edits should be removed unless they do appear to be constructive, unless the user's history implies the edit was made with malicious intent regardless (see the stalker questions above). In the case of run-of-the-mill problem editors, severely disruptive edits can be removed as needed, but there's no need to revert everything or even all the problematic edits. Your next case would fall within "gaming the system" which is disruptive in itself - a constructive edit made with obvious malicious intent is still disruptive. Reverting the reversion of edits under any of these situations should be done with an explanation of why the reversion was undone (in support of the edit's merits), particularly in cases where the reversion was in response to a ban violation.

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

   Just as no user should be above criticism, neither should any website. It's essential that some occur off site.

   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?

   No, I do not. I have neither the time for nor interest in maintaining such a site; if I have a concern about Wikipedia, I know what venues to go to here to have my concerns heard.

   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)?

   Wikipedia Review serves a good purpose, in that it serves as a check for the Wikipedia Community in general. Unfortunately, I feel as though certain users are abusing that purpose to advance their own agendas or continue grudge campaigns or vendettas. The majority of users aren't doing so, though, and I've no general opinion on participation. In all honesty, I'd never heard of Wikback before now, so I'm not able to respond to that part of the question. I'm really not sure what an ideal site would be, as attempts to limit the vendetta crowd risks collateral damage against those who aren't there for that reason, and that rather defeats the purpose of a criticism site.

   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?

   It's fine, they just need to understand that such sites aren't a forum for them to engage in behavior that isn't permissible here, and also that people will associate their actions and opinions there with their account here.

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

   I don't, nor do I plan to have one. I don't see much point in remaining anonymous on such a site unless you were there for inappropriate purposes and thus trying to hide something. Connecting a WR account to a WP account isn't outing, and that's not something to be sanctioned on Wikipedia so long as no personally identifying information is revealed.

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

   Not sure it has much; if anything, it's changed for the better, as I think people have realized that the problems people associate with such sites are really limited to the vendetta users I've referred to throughout this question and not so much the site in general. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

   Please see my response to Avraham's last question above.

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

    Blue. It's very calming and comes in a very nice range of shades. :-)

These are not easy questions. I hope you will choose to answer them, as your thoughtful answers will be appreciated, by more folk than just myself. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply

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

   An Arbitrator should be open to communication as much as possible; I'm assuming here that such messages are appropriate, in which case the arbitrator should make an effort to reply as quickly as possible. If the message isn't appropriate for that arbitrator to answer or otherwise handle on their own, then it's still important that the arbitrator refer the user to the appropriate venue as soon as they can. In the event the message is simply inappropriate, then of course it's no different from an inappropriate message received by any other user, and should be ignored or removed as desired.

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

   The Arbitrator should be aware of what's going on, so that conduct doesn't get out of control, and they're aware of any background information that comes up through the discussion that wasn't mentioned on an evidence page. However, they don't necessarily need to involve themselves in these discussions provided things are proceeding amicably and entirely between parties. If things begin to get out of hand or clearly misinformed in regards to something to do with the case, then the arbitrator should step in to control or clarify matters, if another arb or a clerk has not already done so.

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

   Make the cases take less time. I've addressed this some in my opening statement and goals, but that and keeping a closer eye on conduct during the case should help substantially. Much of the dissatisfaction, from what I've observed, comes along because the arbitration case simply became a stage from which to continue to the dispute outside of the article talk pages.

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

   It's basically another way of saying what I've said in several places above. Good contributions should be taken into account, but so should the bad - if the bad outweighs, or comes very close to outweighing, the good, something needs to be done.

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

   That would help considerably, I believe, particularly considering the last question. At the least, it shows that some consideration to the good contributions was made, and that the remedies are made with the intention of preventing the bad.

I'm interested that you chose to mention "Another one that I don't feel was handled successfully was Abd-William M. Connolley, which I was the clerk for". How do you feel that you handled your duties as a clerk in that case? William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I think I did as well as I could, considering the circumstances. As you well know, the atmosphere about that case was very heated. I was very busy at the time and unable to keep an entirely watchful eye on the case (to my regret), although I did seek out assistance from other clerks when I was entirely unavailable, and I also believe I was open to communication from parties and did as much as I could to speed the case along through my communication with the Arbitrators. That case wasn't a shining gem of clerk work, by far, but I think I did the best I could. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Officially, Jimbo is no different than any other user, and ArbCom doesn't deal with content disputes. Functionally, the only part of this statement that is true is "officially". Intellectually, how do you reconcile the existence of such fallacies on a project like this. and what do you see as their impact (positive or negative)? Hiberniantears ( talk) 05:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm going to have to differ with you slightly on both these points; Jimbo does have certain powers that other users don't: he can unilaterally ban people, according to policy; he can and has desysopped people unilaterally; and he appoints the members of the Arbitration Committee, and technically could appoint anyone he wants and to heck with the election results. All of these are official roles, at least one of which is written in policy. Pedantry aside for the moment, I do know what you mean by this; how Jimbo, simply because he's Jimbo, can't pick his nose without causing an uproar across the project. The reason for this is, as much as Jimbo really doesn't do anything on Wikipedia, he is still regarded as the leader of the project, a symbol of authority, even if he has great difficulty carrying out anything on his own. He's not unlike the English Queen in that respect; the head of state, but mostly ceremonially. However, when he does do something, it's seen as being done with that "regal" authority, and the community takes exception. Overall, though, I think this has had a good impact on the project. As problematic as the drama situations seem when Jimbo does do something, they serve as an opportunity for the community to reassert themselves as the ruling body here. Unless there's some OFFICE or other very serious reason for him doing something, I don't believe there's been a case where Jimbo has ignored the consensus of the community, nor do I expect there will be in the future.

As for the ArbCom case, ArbCom does put a very strong effort into making their rulings be based on conduct and not on content. While some principles may relate to editorial principles, findings of fact will relate almost exclusively to how a particular user has conducted themselves. However, of course, it's next to impossible to make binding rulings of the sort they do and not have an editorial impact, however minimal, particularly when a content dispute is at the heart of the matter. And a handful of rulings have had a direct impact on editorial concerns - the date delinking prohibition, for example. The reconciliation here is to ensure that ArbCom continues to make an effort to have a minimal editorial impact while still passing effective measures against problematic users. If a case seems to be entirely a content dispute with little to no previous attempts at resolving it, the case should be declined and referred elsewhere. This is, of course, current practice, although there are other methods that would take too long to outline here. This discrepancy does have a rather negative impact, as it basically makes the Arbitration Committee seem hypocritical, even though they really do their best not to be. Users lose faith in the Committee, particularly vocal users complain loudly, and tensions run high, to the point people will leave the project out of disgust or frustration.

I hope this answers your question; it's a bit of a difficult one and I'm not quite certain I hit the points you were looking for. If I didn't, please let me know. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 06:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the thoughtful response. You nailed it, and garnered my support. Good luck! Hiberniantears ( talk)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate: Hersfold Candidate statement ( create) Questions for the candidate ( create) Discuss this candidate ( create)