Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Chutznik/Questions for the candidate

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

Arbitrators' skills
(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. (UltraExactZZ)
 * A: Clear and honest communication. I admire the clarity of Newyorkbrad's writing style.  Some of the Latin legalese leads me toward the law section of the encyclopedia looking for definitions, but largely I find his explanations very clear and reasonable.  He takes time to analyze significant details and propose possible outcomes.  His flexible approach, trying to find areas of common ground that disputants can agree upon, is helpful.  Responsiveness is also important: people want to feel that their concerns are being processed and not ignored.  No individual arbitrator can handle this need, but as a team they must, and generally they succeed.

(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: My article work shows my ability to write in clear, concise English. Much of my article work involves translation, which may read clumsy and choppy at times, but when I write freely I can communicate effectively. Regarding your concern about inaccurate wording in ArbCom findings of fact or principles, I can point to several examples, such as Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings where it says "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."  It seems to me that broadly speaking, such usage is actually permitted, but the arbitrators were trying to say sockpuppets should not be used to disrupt policy debates.

(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: Yes to A, B, C, D, F; but probably not the others.

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: Absolutely err on the side of confidentiality. There is no reason to deny information gratuitously, but if the committee or an individual member judges that it should not disclose embarrassing or private information to the community, that judgment must be respected.  The worst consequence of all the off-wiki work, really, is that the community fails to appreciate how hard the committee members must work "behind the scenes."  I cannot imagine a situation that might exist in the real world where a person trusted with confidential information must reveal it, let's say, to save someone's life.  Wikipedia does not create such high-level dilemmas.

(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: Maybe. I do believe most committee members can and do think for themselves. It is good to see, quite frequently, one or two members dissenting from a majority opinion on the case pages, and thinking for themselves.  I rarely agree with the dissenters, but so be it - the point is that free discussion occurs optimally.  Some committee decisions have been based on dubious findings of fact; so the best way to prevent that is for each voting member to take upon himself or herself to review the diffs associated with the facts under review.

(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? (Juliancolton)
 * A: Yes. During the four years, on and off, that I have edited Wikipedia, I have always balanced my article work with my maintenance project-side work. Historically about half of my edits have been to mainspace and the other half to all other namespaces combined.  I expect to retain that ratio should I be elected.  Other arbitrators, notably FloNight, have earned DYKs while serving on ArbCom.  This speaks well for them.

(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? (Tznkai)
 * A: I don't know.

(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: This is a difficult question. I really cannot think of a way to avoid an Arbitrator reading material on the mailing list where that Arbitrator is also party to a case. The best we can expect is for that Arbitrator not to leak the information to people outside the email list, and to keep all of his or her discussion of the case on-wiki if at all possible.  I can't categorically state what the response to violations of these guidelines should be.

ArbCom and admins
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? (LessHeard vanU)
 * A: I think both the community and the ArbCom should retain power to remove administrator rights. In some cases, such as evidence of sockpuppeting connected to the user's real-life identity, the ArbCom absolutely must remove the administrator to protect the community, while disclosing as much as ethically practical, without the need for a community vote.  However, in cases of long-term poor performance or disruption, where Arbcom may be asked to sort through block logs and decide whether the behavior is egregious enough to warrant removal, it is not necessary to task a committee for this purpose.  The community appoints administrators, so logically the community should retain the right to vote "no confidence" and remove those administrators.  The lack of such a community process (noted at WP:RFDA and WP:PEREN) has long frustrated a significant minority of the community who can legitimately say, "If only we could put the matter to a vote, we could desysop an offending administrator without having to bother with reams of red tape."  (Requests for comment/Archtransit provides an instructive lesson in why a community desysop process would have saved a lot of aggravation.)  I have not thought in detail about all the ramifications of community desysop proposals.  User:TenOfAllTrades discussed the issues in an excellent essay, De-adminship proposal checklist.

(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: I think ArbCom got every desysopping case in 2009 correct. Let me list them here:


 * Ryulong - yes
 * Aitias - yes
 * Geogre - yes
 * William M. Conolley - yes
 * Pastor Theo - yes
 * Law - yes
 * Hemanshu - yes
 * Sade - yes
 * Nichalp - yes
 * A Man in Black - yes
 * Piotrus - Manning has informed me that he was desysopped temporarily while the case is in progress, so this does not count.
 * GlassCobra - yes
 * Jennavecia resigned while the committee was considering to desysop her. I believe her actions warranted a desysop as with GlassCobra.  I agree with Carcharoth's and Bainer's distinction between her and GlassCobra's aiding and abetting a banned user's RFA, versus the more mild support by Jayron32 who was merely admonished.  I would have voted with the majority. (See )


 * The committee also removed User:Jayjg's checkuser and oversight access in the "West Bank - Judea and Samaria" case for "behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust."  I believe that such behavior should be inconsistent with holding adminship also.  I would not have voted on the case because I would recuse on all Israel/Palestine issues.


 * The Committee declined to desysop SemBubenny but admonished him. I think a desysop would have been justified.
 * MZMcBride resigned his adminship while his arbitration case was being reviewed. He has since regained adminship via RFA.  Although some of the alleged offenses were trivial in my opinion (secret pages - who cares?) I would say, as an arbitrator he should be desysopped for some ill-conceived administrator actions, even though as a community member I might support his next RFA.  I see no contradiction between the positions.  If there is evidence of dubious administrator conduct, the committee should act to protect the community and the product, but the community can decide to reinstate the access immediately or after some time has passed.  Although such restoration rarely occures, it might help if we accept the approach that adminship should be easier to obtain and easier for others to remove.

(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? (Finn Casey)
 * A: I support it. The committee members have shown an instinctive reluctance to bypass the community RFA process in most cases, for example with Betacommand just prior to his most recent RFA.  The committee has held in reserve the right to resysop admins at any time, but it rarely exercises that right.  The two cases this year, User:Coffee and User:Mitchazenia, did both contain personal issues where the Committee could reasonably assess those issues privately.  I feel confident that those two individuals justifiably received theirs tools back and have done nothing wrong since then, but I also see the other side of the argument, viz. that the community should retain control over who gets resysopped.  (Even the practice of bureaucrats automatically resysopping on routine requests has come under scrutiny.)  If I were on the committee, I would probably dispense with the rule that a desysopped person could regain the tools "by appeal to the committee."  I would also probably not accept an appeal from someone who has been desysopped.  However, as I said, the decisions the committee made this year were justified.

(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: Probably not. I hesitate to say "never", but under the current system where no proper community desysop mechanism exists, the RFC process is an important safety valve to see if a broad spectrum of editors sees a significant problem with an individual's behavior. The delay of a user conduct RFC until after the case had already opened was one of several process failures in the infamous Matthew Hoffman case.

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Obviously, blatant security breaches require no formal process. The night User:Robdurbar went on a rampage, deleting the main page and blocking a dozen admins before a steward stopped him, Newyorkbrad (not yet an arbitrator) filed a request for the Arbitration Committee to confirm the desysopping, which they did.  Since then, precedent has established that such formalities are not necessary.  There are other cases where the evidence of sockpuppet abuse is so compelling that a case becomes a waste of time, with the result decided already: if Requests for arbitration/Henrygb would occur today, it would be a motion posted on the Noticeboard, not a full case.  Other cases of sockpuppeting admins, notably the allegation against User:JoshuaZ, involved private information which could be compromised in a public case (or by the evil Wikileaker, which is how I found out...).  There are some historical cases, such as Jimbo's ad hoc desysops of Yanksox, Zscout370, and Bedford, where I think the matter should have gone to the committee; but Jimbo seems less inclined to take such unilateral action today.  Also, if the initial review process provides sufficient information, I would pass a motion instead of taking a full case.

(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: I addressed this already. Voting itself is not sufficient, in my opinion, to warrant any response.  Strong support or nomination, however, should result in desysopping, as occurred in the recent case.

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)
 * A: I cannot think of any changes in the Committee's day-to-day operations. The changes made this year helped organize the committee's operations and communication with the community.

(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 disagree. There is a delicate balance between Arbcom enforcing arbitrary rules by fiat upon an unwilling community, versus hancuffing its ability to function normally because it can't change the rules.  Sometimes a situation arises which nobody has considered.  Let's take the incident already discusses, where GlassCobra and Jennavecia were desysopped primarily for promoting the RFA of a banned user.  They could (and did) object that there is no Wikipedia policy to prohibit this type of dishonest behavior.  My answer is, maybe there was no policy, but there should be such a rule, and it falls within the general expectation for honesty and integrity.  For another example, the Arbitration Committee enacted a rule that an editor under ArbCom restriction who returns and edits under a new account and violates that restriction may be banned from the project.  (I cannot find the link.)  Perhaps there was no such rule, but after the Dajudem/Tundrabuggy incident it became obvious that such a rule is consistent with the spirit of the sockpuppet policy.
 * Some of the bolder attempts by ArbCom to make policy have met with resistance. In particular I think the infamous "BLP special enforcement" provision, while well-intentioned, wasted a huge amount of community time and accomplished almost nothing to resolve the BLP problem.

(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 agree wholeheartedly. The questioner refers implicitly to the infamous Date Delinking fiasco, in which he was one of many involved and very frustrated disputants.  ArbCom handled that case poorly in my opinion.  It might have been better for ArbCom simply to decline the case and say sorry, we can't deal with it, just keep edit warring until you're blue in the face but don't bother us with a classic WP:LAME argument about...I just can't stop saying this...date delinking, for cyring out loud!  Now the disputes about proper names for Judea and Samaria vs. West Bank, Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland, Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia, it's understandable that a lot of national pride rides on these decisions, and a lot of readers who never learn of arbitration will care deeply too.  But as annoying as arbitrary date links are - and yes, they are annoying and should be removed, and I have removed some myself by hand - it's just not worth one of the longest case pages in arbitration history, right up there with the infamous Mantanmoreland and C68-FM-SV cases of 2008.  I remember when I was trying to review the latest drama on the date delinking workshop page while it was ongoing, my computer crashed because the page was too long, more than half a megabyte - or should it be mebibyte?  I can anticipate Greg L giving yet another sermon about how one editor ruined the lingo for everyone for a matter of years by refusing to allow a commonsense change to standard usage.  So anyway, that provides the context to the question.
 * What should be done? Several of the users sanctioned in the Date Delinking case complained because either they played only a minor role in the dispute, or even a conciliatory role; or they construed the prohibition from all style guidelines as too broad (which ArbCom wisely corrected). Volumes of evidence were brought to try to establish relative degrees of responsibility, but at the end, I think ArbCom just punted and said, "Whatever, if you have been involved in the past, just stay away in the future."  I observe the the "West Bank" disputants met a similar fate.  One senior Wikipedian has phrased this indiscriminate approach as "a pox on all their houses."  This may not be the worst outcome, but I think that ArbCom, by trying to sort out blame and giving appearances that they will treat each individual user separately, may have tried to do too much and disappointed folks like Kotnitski who got caught as bycatch in the large fishing net of the Date Delinking monster.  Much time and aggravation could be saved if ArbCom could fast-forward through the workshop page development and just say "We're going to topic-ban virtually everyone, so let's move on."  There's a tension between deliberating for a long time to get it right versus indiscriminately sanctioning everyone, but in this case I think ArbCom chose the worst of both worlds.

(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? (Camaron/Majorly)
 * A:I accept the view that English Wikipedia benefits from an Arbitration Commmittee. (Sorry, Kurt.)  It serves two primary roles: (1) to resolve user conduct disputes and enact enforceable remedies; and (2) to manage checkuser, oversight, ban appeals and issues related to privacy and personal identity.  The second category of tasks accrued historically but was not part of ArbCom's original mandate.  Someone must command these tasks.  My feelings about it, somewhat akin to RFA, is that despite the imperfections and inefficiencies, these are essential functions and no credible alternative exists.  On Hebrew Wikipedia, the three or four bureaucrats retain control over community elections for checkuser and oversight, as best I can recall from looking at their system in 2008.  Here on English Wikipedia the bureaucrats have declined to accept that responsibility.  Since English Wikipedia dwarfs every other language version by half an order of magnitude, English Wikipedia may require some systems that other communities do not need.

(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? (Camaron)
 * A: I agree. I wrote  that ArbCom should deprecate BLPSE.  I was not active when ACPD hit the fan, and I have no strong opinion on the validity of its concept.  The primary failing in both cases was that ArbCom, by taking a bold step, cost the community tens of hours in wasted discussion and disruption.  I will not prevent the committee from accepting a new role if I think it should (since the committee's ambit has expanded over time anyway).  However, I will try to anticipate any situations where the likely short-term disruption will outweigh the long-term benefit.

(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can the committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? (Heimstern)
 * A: I have made a point in my candidate statement that ArbCom should create a mechanism for content rulings that will be binding for a long time (say, two years). Issues of broad significance, such as Ireland article names, can suffer a community vote.  More picayune issues, such as the Franco-Mongol alliance case, might need to have ArbCom certify the legitimacy of certain references.  Repeated violations of content policy, such as persistent insertion of invalid material or removal of properly referenced relevant material, do constitute behavioral violations; after all, why are we here if not to produce a reliable reference work?  I would like an support-oppose vote to become a serious option for long-term broad content disputes.  A case might come and the committee will say, "the question of _______ will be resolved by community vote" to be supervised by administrators outside Arbcom.

(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how? (Heimstern)
 * A: I have very little experience dealing with nationalist and ethnic edit wars. Often the problems persist even after an ArbCom case has resulted in topic bans, "one-revert" restrictions, and article probation, as the log of enforcement cases falls upon ordinary administrators.  I acknowledge the scope and significance of the problem, but I wonder about the limits of what ArbCom can do to help ease the difficulty of admins who work in enforcement of volatile topics.

(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? (Heimstern)
 * A: Civility is often modulated by context. I take a somewhat permissive approach: unless an insult is direct and obvious, I will let it pass.  (Lying about me, however, is a serious matter.)  The fact that every word we write is kept for eternity, whereas our speech dissipates into the air, causes people who write quickly under emotional stress to express regrettable words.  However, the kind of behavior we wish to prevent (and punish) is the "you piece of crap" variety, not "you can't write a coherent sentence" variety.

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: I'm only one person. If seventeen other people aren't moving a case forward, I might not act either.  Unlike candidates in previous years, I make no pretense about speeding up the committee's processes.  Also, see my response to Kotnitski.

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: It's important because ArbCom is perpetually overworked and should not be burdened with problems that can be resolved any other way; and ArbCom may take longer to resolve the problem than the parties desire.

(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up 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: Epic fail; see my previous answer on ACPD.

(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. 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: Good question. Most committee members wrote significant content along the way, otherwise the community would not elect them.  Any committee member who knows enough about a specific content area prior to taking a case to evaluate sources might need to recuse.  So the committee is tasked with judging cases about which the combatants know much more than the committee members know.  That's probably impossible to change or improve.

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making
(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: I probably would have handled the situation as the committee did. Unfortunately, Law/the undertow has unquestionably done more good than harm as an editor and administrator, and under current circumstances does not deserve to be banned.  Had his previous identity never come to light, he would likely be doing good things for Wikipedia, and we may well be worse without him.  Nonetheless, absent extraordinary reason to believe the original ban was unwarranted, the Arbitration Committee should not tolerate blatant disregard for its rulings.  The standard response to such cases has been to reinstate the ban for the duration of time that it would have gone initially: in this case, nine months minus time served before he created the Law account.  I do see the counterargument, but I believe it is better to sacrifice one editor's position, when that editor did violate policy, in order to uphold the rule of law (no pun intended).

(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: I discussed this above. I concur with Carcharoth's comment on the case page.  Jennavecia did more to help Law obtain adminship than Jayron32 did.

(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: I would recuse on any issues relating to Iridescent because I have interacted with her on several occasions. As Jehochman wrote on Casliber's resignation from ArbCom precipitated by Casliber's role in this affair, one is not required to disclose such information per se because on a volunteer project such as this one is not required to do any positive action.  However, one should not mislead others into acting without informing those others of material details they might not otherwise know.  To Iridescent and MZMcBride I would probably say, it's stupid to support a formerly banned user who has not come clean legitimately and restored his standing the way Rootology did, but if you want to make a stupid vote, it's a free world.  What Jennavecia and GlassCobra did, by encouraging others to support instead of quietly supporting, cannot be classed as having a right to vote stupidly, but is really acting dishonestly and misleading other people, so that's the distinction.
 * I just reviewed Requests for adminship/Law. Although Jennavecia's support is buried at number 43, it is a strong support, and - critically - should be considered in context of her well-known longstanding relationship with Law/"the undertow"/Chip.  In contrast, Iridescent pops in at number 57 with "FGJ" - I assume that means for great justice - so yes, that was a stupid vote...but to paraphrase my old chemistry teacher, there are no stupid votes, only stupid people. :)

(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: It's hard to choose a "most successful" case because most cases resolved uneventfully. I choose Requests for arbitration/Ryulong.  It took two months to resolve, and has seen two amendments since then.  It was a difficult, multidimensional case involving the sysop access of Ryulong and his content disputes with Mythdon (see "locus of dispute").  I have read most of the case page, and considered the post-case fallout, and I think the Committee and administrator corps handled a complex situation admirably.  I especially admire the innovative approach at the Workshop page to reduce unhelpful involvement by interlopers.
 * The "least successful" case is definitely Date Delinking. See my answer to Kotnitski.

(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) (Daniel)
 * (As a point of further clarification, it is entirely unnecessary to read the case these principles were originally decided in — the intent of these questions are to establish your opinion on the general principles that are linked to, while working under the assumption they are directly relevant to a case you are deciding.)

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007
 * A: Agree; no explanation is needed.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * A: Agree; I would say an individual need not take a difficult case directly to ArbCom but could try proposing it at a noticeboard instead, but that is a minor detail. The major point stands.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * A: Agree; I have alleged that another user "defamed" me some time ago, but I do understand that such language can provoke an overreaction. Editors should try to use milder language, as I should have done in that instance.

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * A: Agree; though to be honest I am not familiar with the mediation process.

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: Disagree; depending on the context, I believe outing may occur even the user has previously revealed his or her identity, provided that the recipient of the "outing" information did not know the identity and was not intending to find out. Even if a user has already revealed his or her identity, but has withdrawn the information from public view, spreading the information may be intended to harass and should be considered "outing."  I understand that some folks would consider this ridiculous, but I cannot think of a legitimate reason why someone should disseminate another editor's identity to a large audience, so if the intent might be nefarious it may be considered an act of harassment.

(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I think the Committee should have established that MBisanz would be given the rights if and only if a current member steps down. He has a community mandate as an individual, but the seats are currently filled, so he should not take a seat unless a seat actually becomes vacant.

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 ? (MBisanz)
 * A: I like the trend to generalize case names. I'm not sure if I could categorize when to change a case name mid-stream, but rarely it would be correct.  I think one of the Piotrus cases was renamed "Eastern Europe 2" because it dealt with many users, not just the one named.

(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I don't recall what came of the "no consensus default to delete" discussion, but I support that notion. Unfortunately, for BLPs that don't get deleted, absent Flagged Revisions there is no way to improve upon the current remedies of action at the BLP noticeboard or do-it-yourself corrections.  I do hope Flagged Revisions will be implemented on all BLPs (there was a major discussion earlier this year) but I'm not optimistic.

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A: I'll deal with this in the individual questions section, if I ever get there.

(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: I tend toward a more lenient approach. Per my candidate statement, I prefer when in doubt to desysop but not to ban.  I do believe warnings and admonishments can produce a positive response, but I would need to see evidence that the user whose conduct is under review understands the seriousness of his actions and will not repeat them; or perhaps that the case involves an event so unusual that it almost certainly will not occur again, making it a question of the user's general judgment.  I spent much of my middle years on Wikipedia trying to earn myself a "second chance," so I believe strongly that it is possible, even if I failed in my personal quest.

=Individual questions=
 * Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here.

<!--

Question from Ultraexactzz
Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) 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.
 * Clear and honest communication. I admire the clarity of Newyorkbrad's writing style.  Some of the Latin legalese leads me toward the law section of the encyclopedia looking for definitions, but largely I find his explanations very clear and reasonable.  He takes time to analyze significant details and propose possible outcomes.  His flexible approach, trying to find areas of common ground that disputants can agree upon, is helpful.  Responsiveness is also important: people want to feel that their concerns are being processed and not ignored.  No individual arbitrator can handle this need, but as a team they must, and generally they succeed.

Question from LessHeard vanU
What were you thinking? Oh, well, I hope this doesn't come back to bite you... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) As an arbitrator, do you think that the process of desysopping of administrators should remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo) or would you prefer that a community based process is also put in place? 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?
 * I think both the community and the ArbCom should retain power to remove administrator rights. In some cases, such as evidence of sockpuppeting connected to the user's real-life identity, the ArbCom absolutely must remove the administrator to protect the community, while disclosing as much as ethically practical, without the need for a community vote.  However, in cases of long-term poor performance or disruption, where Arbcom may be asked to sort through block logs and decide whether the behavior is egregious enough to warrant removal, it is not necessary to task a committee for this purpose.  The community appoints administrators, so logically the community should retain the right to vote "no confidence" and remove those administrators.  The lack of such a community process (noted at WP:RFDA and WP:PEREN) has long frustrated a significant minority of the community who can legitimately say, "If only we could put the matter to a vote, we could desysop an offending administrator without having to bother with reams of red tape."  (Requests for comment/Archtransit provides an instructive lesson in why a community desysop process would have saved a lot of aggravation.)  I have not thought in detail about all the ramifications of community desysop proposals.  User:TenOfAllTrades discussed the issues in an excellent essay, De-adminship proposal checklist.

Questions from Tony1
Is it appropriate for ArbCom to set up a subcommittee to deal with allegations by users that administrative actions have breached policy? Tony  (talk)  15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [Conflated with LHvU's above, with his agreement.]  Tony   (talk)  14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * A:My article work shows my ability to write in clear, concise English. Much of my article work involves translation, which may read clumsy and choppy at times, but when I write freely I can communicate effectively. Regarding your concern about inaccurate wording in ArbCom findings of fact or principles, I can point to several examples, such as Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings where it says "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."  It seems to me that broadly speaking, such usage is actually permitted, but the arbitrators were trying to say sockpuppets should not be used to disrupt policy debates.

Questions from Davewild

 * 1) Over the last year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom have (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why?
 * I think ArbCom got every desysopping case in 2009 correct. Let me list them here:
 * Ryulong - yes
 * Aitias - yes
 * Geogre - yes
 * William M. Conolley - yes
 * Pastor Theo - yes
 * Law - yes
 * Hemanshu - yes
 * Sade - yes
 * Nichalp - yes
 * A Man in Black - yes
 * Piotrus - I don't know. The committee has not disclosed the reason for the removal of his access.
 * GlassCobra - yes
 * Jennavecia resigned while the committee was considering to desysop her. I believe her actions warranted a desysop as with GlassCobra.  I agree with Carcharoth's and Bainer's distinction between her and GlassCobra's aiding and abetting a banned user's RFA, versus the more mild support by Jayron32 who was merely admonished.  I would have voted with the majority. (See )


 * The committee also removed User:Jayjg's checkuser and oversight access in the "West Bank - Judea and Samaria" case for "behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust."  I believe that such behavior should be inconsistent with holding adminship also.  I would not have voted on the case because I would recuse on all Israel/Palestine issues.


 * The Committee declined to desysop SemBubenny but admonished him. I think a desysop would have been justified.
 * MZMcBride resigned his adminship while his arbitration case was being reviewed. He has since regained adminship via RFA.  Although some of the alleged offenses were trivial in my opinion (secret pages - who cares?) I would say, as an arbitrator he should be desysopped for some ill-conceived administrator actions, even though as a community member I might support his next RFA.  I see no contradiction between the positions.  If there is evidence of dubious administrator conduct, the committee should act to protect the community and the product, but the community can decide to reinstate the access immediately or after some time has passed.  Although such restoration rarely occures, it might help if we accept the approach that adminship should be easier to obtain and easier for others to remove.


 * 1) Over the last year Arbcom has made a few changes 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?
 * I cannot think of any changes in the Committee's day-to-day operations. The changes made this year helped organize the committee's operations and communication with the community.
 * 1) In last years 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 generall be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree, or disagree, and why? Davewild (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a delicate balance between Arbcom enforcing arbitrary rules by fiat upon an unwilling community, versus hancuffing its ability to function normally because it can't change the rules. Sometimes a situation arises which nobody has considered. Let's take the incident already discusses, where GlassCobra and Jennavecia were desysopped primarily for promoting the RFA of a banned user. They could (and did) object that there is no Wikipedia policy to prohibit this type of dishonest behavior. My answer is, maybe there was no policy, but there should be such a rule, and it falls within the general expectation for honesty and integrity. For another example, the Arbitration Committee enacted a rule that an editor under ArbCom restriction who returns and edits under a new account and violates that restriction may be banned from the project. (I cannot find the link.) Perhaps there was no such rule, but after the Dajudem/Tundrabuggy incident it became obvious that such a rule is consistent with the spirit of the sockpuppet policy.

Some of the bolder attempts by ArbCom to make policy have met with resistance. In particular I think the infamous "BLP special enforcement" provision, while well-intentioned, wasted a huge amount of community time and accomplished almost nothing to resolve the BLP problem.

Questions from Sam Blacketer
I probably err on the side of saying more. I am happy with my current writing style.
 * 1) 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?
 * Absolutely err on the side of confidentiality. There is no reason to deny information gratuitously, but if the committee or an individual member judges that it should not disclose embarrassing or private information to the community, that judgment must be respected.  The worst consequence of all the off-wiki work, really, is that the community fails to appreciate how hard the committee members must work "behind the scenes."  I cannot imagine a situation that might exist in the real world where a person trusted with confidential information must reveal it, let's say, to save someone's life.  Wikipedia does not create such high-level dilemmas.
 * 1) Do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid 'groupthink' among committee members, and if so, what steps would you take?
 * Maybe. I do believe most committee members can and do think for themselves. It is good to see, quite frequently, one or two members dissenting from a majority opinion on the case pages, and thinking for themselves.  I rarely agree with the dissenters, but so be it - the point is that free discussion occurs optimally.  Some committee decisions have been based on dubious findings of fact; so the best way to prevent that is for each voting member to take upon himself or herself to review the diffs associated with the facts under review.
 * 1) In writing arbitration opinions, where do you stand on the spectrum between pithiness and verbosity? Where would you prefer to stand? Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Jake Wartenberg

 * 1) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently?
 * I probably would have handled the situation as the committee did. Unfortunately, Law/the undertow has unquestionably done more good than harm as an editor and administrator, and under current circumstances does not deserve to be banned.  Had his previous identity never come to light, he would likely be doing good things for Wikipedia, and we may well be worse without him.  Nonetheless, absent extraordinary reason to believe the original ban was unwarranted, the Arbitration Committee should not tolerate blatant disregard for its rulings.  The standard response to such cases has been to reinstate the ban for the duration of time that it would have gone initially: in this case, nine months minus time served before he created the Law account.  I do see the counterargument, but I believe it is better to sacrifice one editor's position, when that editor did violate policy, in order to uphold the rule of law (no pun intended).
 * 1) 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?
 * I discussed this above. I concur with Carcharoth's comment on the case page.  Jennavecia did more to help Law obtain adminship than Jayron32 did.
 * 1) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publcally 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?
 * I would recuse on any issues relating to Iridescent because I have interacted with her on several occasions. As Jehochman wrote on Casliber's resignation from ArbCom precipitated by Casliber's role in this affair, one is not required to disclose such information per se because on a volunteer project such as this one is not required to do any positive action.  However, one should not mislead others into acting without informing those others of material details they might not otherwise know.  To Iridescent and MZMcBride I would probably say, it's stupid to support a formerly banned user who has not come clean legitimately and restored his standing the way Rootology did, but if you want to make a stupid vote, it's a free world.  What Jennavecia and GlassCobra did, by encouraging others to support instead of quietly supporting, cannot be classed as having a right to vote stupidly, but is really acting dishonestly and misleading other people, so that's the distinction.
 * I just reviewed Requests for adminship/Law. Although Jennavecia's support is buried at number 43, it is a strong support, and - critically - should be considered in context of her well-known longstanding relationship with Law/"the undertow"/Chip.  In contrast, Iridescent pops in at number 57 with "FGJ" - I assume that means for great justice - so yes, that was a stupid vote...but to paraphrase my old chemistry teacher, there are no stupid votes, only stupid people. :)

Questions from Juliancolton

 * 1) 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  &#124; Talk 02:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. During the four years, on and off, that I have edited Wikipedia, I have always balanced my article work with my maintenance project-side work. Historically about half of my edits have been to mainspace and the other half to all other namespaces combined.  I expect to retain that ratio should I be elected.  Other arbitrators, notably FloNight, have earned DYKs while serving on ArbCom.  This speaks well for them.

Questions from Kotniski

 * 1) ArbCom cases sometimes become huge, divisive messes, diverting vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into pointless arguments, oppressing and even driving away constructive editors who get caught up in them (the description 'Kafka-esque' seems to arise quite a lot), and leading to nothing except "remedies" that are really just retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. How far do you agree with this, and what would you do about it?
 * I agree wholeheartedly. The questioner refers implicitly to the infamous Date Delinking fiasco, in which he was one of many involved and very frustrated disputants.  ArbCom handled that case poorly in my opinion.  It might have been better for ArbCom simply to decline the case and say sorry, we can't deal with it, just keep edit warring until you're blue in the face but don't bother us with a classic WP:LAME argument about...I just can't stop saying this...date delinking, for cyring out loud!  Now the disputes about proper names for Judea and Samaria vs. West Bank, Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland, Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia, it's understandable that a lot of national pride rides on these decisions, and a lot of readers who never learn of arbitration will care deeply too.  But as annoying as arbitrary date links are - and yes, they are annoying and should be removed, and I have removed some myself by hand - it's just not worth one of the longest case pages in arbitration history, right up there with the infamous Mantanmoreland and C68-FM-SV cases of 2008.  I remember when I was trying to review the latest drama on the date delinking workshop page while it was ongoing, my computer crashed because the page was too long, more than half a megabyte - or should it be mebibyte?  I can anticipate Greg L giving yet another sermon about how one editor ruined the lingo for everyone for a matter of years by refusing to allow a commonsense change to standard usage.  So anyway, that provides the context to the question.
 * What should be done? Several of the users sanctioned in the Date Delinking case complained because either they played only a minor role in the dispute, or even a conciliatory role; or they construed the prohibition from all style guidelines as too broad (which ArbCom wisely corrected). Volumes of evidence were brought to try to establish relative degrees of responsibility, but at the end, I think ArbCom just punted and said, "Whatever, if you have been involved in the past, just stay away in the future."  I observe the the "West Bank" disputants met a similar fate.  One senior Wikipedian has phrased this indiscriminate approach as "a pox on all their houses."  This may not be the worst outcome, but I think that ArbCom, by trying to sort out blame and giving appearances that they will treat each individual user separately, may have tried to do too much and disappointed folks like Kotnitski who got caught as bycatch in the large fishing net of the Date Delinking monster.  Much time and aggravation could be saved if ArbCom could fast-forward through the workshop page development and just say "We're going to topic-ban virtually everyone, so let's move on."  There's a tension between deliberating for a long time to get it right versus indiscriminately sanctioning everyone, but in this case I think ArbCom chose the worst of both worlds.

Questions from Tznkai
The Arbitration Committee has changed significantly in scope and size since its initial creation. Which of these additional duties do you embrace? Which would you discard, and how?
 * 1) How do you deal with the tensions between privacy and transparency?
 * Err on the side of privacy. I know this is an unpopular answer, but people trust the ArbCom with private information.  The "Wikileaker" episode has already eroded much of that trust.  Let's not have any more similar incidents.  I would not leak confidential information.
 * How would you prioritize the following issues within arbitration matters: Privacy of living persons, privacy of editors, administrator conduct, CU conduct, OS conduct, content disputes, conflict of interest editing, conduct on noticeboards boards, conduct on RfA, conduct on XfD, conduct in editing, conduct on policy pages, arbitrator conduct, tracking complaint?. Feel free to add issues and answer however makes sense to you
 * What is one relatively minor reform you would like to make to the Arbitration Committee's workings?
 * What about a major one?
 * 1) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you read? How much of that traffic will you actually read?
 * I don't know.

Questions from Camaron

 * 1) 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?
 * 2) 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).
 * 3) 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?

Questions from Daniel
For the purpose of these 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.)


 * 1) "Private correspondence", July 2007
 * 2) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * 3) "Bad Blood", February 2008
 * 4) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * 5) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * 6) "System administrators", June 2009
 * 7) "Outing", June 2009

Question from MBisanz

 * Q. 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.

Question from Finn Casey
Thank you in advance for your candidacy and for your thoughtful answers.


 * Previous questions deal with the removal of administrator privileges. However, on a slightly different topic, do you believe that the rights of the community are best upheld by ensuring that the community-directed RfA structure is the only forum for acquiring or reacquiring administrator privileges?  That is: 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?

Question from Heimstern
Keeping some of last year's questions and adding new ones. NB: I will be basing my vote on your initial answer.


 * 1) 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?
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) 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?

Question from Offliner

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

Questions from Majorly

 * 1) a) In your opinion, how important is the dispute resolution process?
 * b) Do you feel that it is important the community tries to resolve issues before arbcom step in?
 * c) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear, for example, that an admin has lost community trust, but has had no RfC, attempts at resolving the issue etc?
 * 1) Would you say that arbcom are/should be too tough/too soft on editors who frequently flout community norms?-->

Questions from Kirill Lokshin

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

Good luck! Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from AuburnPilot
While it is certainly possible that I am misunderstanding the situation, it seems you freely admit to the fact that you have used multiple accounts abusively, including one account that has been blocked for harassment (User:Kivel). With such a history, why should the community support you as a member of ArbCom? Why should the community trust your judgment?

Question from Brandon
Would you care to comment on the contributions of User:Shalom wants his junk deleted and User:24.186.165.121? Both claim to be you and are/were blocked for disruption. Brandon (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754
Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.

The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The next question determines your ability to go through evidence. The last question is a bit open-ended.


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case 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 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) When the story was made public, do you believe that the editor you chose handled this situation properly in stepping down? Were they forthcoming enough with information?
 * 11) Tell me as much as you can about User:OrangeCounty39. You may refer to any page on the Internet except for other ArbCom candidates' replies to this question.
 * 12) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

Question from Coren

 * 1) You state in your statement that ArbCom should step in to help solve protracted content disputes, yet the Committee in the past has done so gingerly and usually met no small amount of community resistance in doing so (mostly due to concerns of this being an expansion of its powers).  How do you plan on meeting those concerns?
 * A.

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

Additional question from Majorly
I'll be bluntly honest Shalom. I looked at your statement and, without knowing who you were, I would have surely supported without hesitation. It's kind of sad really, that you took your RfA result so badly. I know exactly how it feels to have, what I believe to be, insulting and false allegations thrown in your face during a stressful period. I've been through 3 RFBs and have failed 2 RFAs. Each one, while included truthful and helpful criticism, was basically an opportunity for bullies to come out of their holes and smear their angry and bitter remarks about me, based not on the fact of whether or not I'd make a good admin, but about their own personal problems.

The difference here is, you were unable to handle it, and to this day, you still are unable to resist mentioning the fact you failed an RfA and you think it unfair. There are a lot of nasty people out there, and they are unable to resist the opportunity to kick somebody when they are at a low point. If you were an arbitrator, I'm certain you'd do an admirable job, certainly better than the current lot, but the fact is, you basically turned into a troll after that RfA. You couldn't handle it, and I have a feeling you won't be able to handle arbcom. So, to my question. Why should I vote for someone who I know is a good editor deep down, but really couldn't handle something that someone fails on a near-daily basis? As I say, it's sad because you could have been a good admin by now, had it not been your poor reaction to that RfA.  Majorly  talk  23:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Hipocrite
You missed some alternate accounts. Could you provide an accounting of all of your alternate accounts, including onees that you usd only to troll, the ones that engaged in BLP vandalism and the ones you used to engage in puerile vandalism? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from User:Finn Casey

 * 1) You indicate in your statement that you wish to curb oustide input.  However, would this not tend to make the Committee decisions unacceptably insular?  That is, is it really beneficial to move away from constructive assistance from uninvolved parties with fresh viewpoints?
 * A.

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

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


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

Question from LessHeard vanU

 * In respect to that part of your statement where you say, "When in doubt, desysop an administrator", how do you propose to determine that you are not being presented with a tainted argument or set of diffs designed to remove an admin for spurious reasons? Do you feel that ArbCom or the community should be permitted to investigate claims of admin abuse prior to a Request being made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A;

Question from Sandstein
Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention at. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it until the case became moot days later because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks,  Sandstein   23:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * 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.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * 1) 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?
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from last year in that it's more extensive)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from last year)
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * 2) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * 2) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Manning Bartlett
Your current account was created in April of this year and does not have the required 1000 edits to qualify for candidacy. Could you provide links to all of your previous user pages so that we can tally your contrib record? Manning (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This has since been discussed and apparently resolved here.--chaser (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Avraham
Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
 * 2) Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
 * 3) Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
 * 4) 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?
 * 5) What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?
 * 6) What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
 * 7) What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
 * 8) Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
 * 9) Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 10) Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 11) Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
 * 12) 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?
 * 13) 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?
 * 14) 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.

Questions from Piotrus

 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?
 * 2) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * 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?
 * 4) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?

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

Question from NE2
Have you read War and Peace?

Question from Chaser
You say: "Stick to the facts. I will not vote for any principle or finding of fact that I don't understand and agree with." What do you mean by that? Are you referring to some specific situation where an Arb did not understand something or traded votes or something? Can you elaborate here a bit?--chaser (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Smallbones
Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Vecrumba

 * 1) What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?
 * 2) How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.

Questions from Sarah777
1. A major concern of mine is the use/abuse of WP:CIVIL to silence editors by Admins who are often less than objective or neutral. Have you any concerns about the enforcement of WP:CIVIL?

2. Related to the above; I believe that there is cultural difference in the acceptability of robust and frank language between America and Europe. An illustration of this is the censorship of "bad language" on US television, words which would pass unnoticed on TV in the UK or Ireland for example. How do you react to the charge that US standards of "civility" are being imposed on Wikipedians from places that happily embrace forms of expression that some Americans seem to find "uncivil"? Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)