Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Jehochman/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: Independent thinking. With its private mailing list there is an ever present danger that ArbCom can turn into an echo chamber that fails to adequately represent community interests. Jehochman Talk 20:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I am well-known for having a terse, pithy writing style. Nevertheless, we have arbitrators such as User:Newyorkbrad and User:Carcharoth who tend to be prolix, and they still do quite well.  As for evidence, I have written two featured articles and three additional good articles.  I am not Wikipedia's greatest writer, but I have at least some ability to write clearly and concisely.  Having spent considerable time at WP:AE, I've seen numerous instances of wikilawyering over what arbitration decisions mean.  It would be my goal to avoid trouble by making sure that the decisions are clear and unambiguous.  There is a trade off between conciseness and unambiguousness.  This is why I think clarity is a requirement, but conciseness is optional.  Your question seems to assume that both are necessary.  Jehochman Talk 15:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, (mailing lists give me hives, "no" to that), J, K=improving internal data systems so that various project management tasks are less overwhelming. Jehochman Talk 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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: Clear communication. As a public relations professional, I have one simple strategy: the truth is always a good enough answer to any question. "I am sorry, we cannot share that information for the following reason" is an acceptable answer if community members demand to know that which cannot be disclosed. Jehochman Talk 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: We should appoint some arbitrators who are not lawyers. We should avoid making ACE into a popularity contest.  Secret ballots is a step in the right direction. Jehochman Talk 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I try to work on one article at a time intensively. At the moment I am trying to decide between Sushi and Moose.  It would be my plan to continue that pattern.  Others should be free to do what they think is right for themselves. Jehochman Talk 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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 expect to receive 100 emails per day.  That would be a relatively modest increase to my volume of email, and would be easily handled by the email tools I am using. Jehochman Talk 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I have complained vociferously about this problem during two prior cases involving me and an arbitrator who was a disputant. Recusal means not using ArbCom access or tools.  The list mechanics were fixed, I am told, so that particular arbitrators can be excluded from particular cases.  If that hasn't been done yet, it needs to be done.  If a correspondence came to me improperly, I would not read it.  Somebody emailed me the email archive from the WP:EEML case.  I never looked at it.  Jehochman Talk 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you bring up WP:EEML in your answer. In the proposed decision there are motion covering the reading and using of the mailing list -- Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision for example. Given your answer above, where would you stand on the above motions that are currently under consideration at EEML? Would you be for or against their being used as evidence? And if for, would you read the emails if you were on Arbcom? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 07:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See my answer below at . Jehochman Talk 21:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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 these situations could be the subject of an admin conduct RFC, and if there were a consensus to desysop, then ArbCom could make a motion and order the desysop. I think that would be the best incremental change from our current situation. Jehochman Talk 04:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: One arbitrator told me, "we are desysopping everybody". I think the balance is correct.  Being a sysop is a privilege that requires a high standard of professionalism.  We should actively weed out those who do not meet the standards.

(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? (Finn Casey)
 * A: I think that bypassing the community should only occur if there is confidential evidence that cannot be shared. In that exception, the circumstances should be notes so that people can understand who ArbCom takes the action. Jehochman Talk 04:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: An RFC can occur under the formal RFC process, or there could be an RFC-like discussion on some other page. If the community has gotten together and made their wishes clear, then ArbCom should act. Jehochman Talk 04:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: There's a policy page explaining circumstances, and I think it is just about right. See Arbitration_Committee/Procedures. Additionally, if there appears to be a community consensus to remove access, and the administrator has had ample opportunity to explain their view, I would entertain a motion to remove access. Jehochman Talk 04:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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 am on the record in the particular case you are thinking about.  Users are not required to tattle-tale on their friends, but they should not actively further policy violations through their RFA votes.  In particular, administrators bear greater responsibility due to the trust placed in them.  Measures taken against voters would depend on what they did and said, and how they responded when questioned about the incident. Jehochman Talk 04:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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 would want to try it on for a while before suggesting any changes. From outside it is fun to entertain ideas for reform, but as a practical matter it is better to try it first hand before suggesting modifications. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: ArbCom is there to settle intractible disputes. They should not write policy, but their decisions (if wise) may create an expectation that future issues would be decided the same way.  Try though we may to avoid writing policy, ArbCom decisions reflect community standards, and may be cited later as part of our traditions. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: ArbCom sometimes issues borken decisions. The remedy is to be more careful, wiser, more sensitive, and to elect better arbitrators, and for community members to add more signal and less noise to arbitration cases. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? (Camaron/Majorly)
 * A: I think that we are large enough to frequently benefit from ArbCom's dispute resolution powers.  Smaller projects might not have enough need to keep a standing, professional arbitration committee going.  Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: Yes, I'd like to avoid creating formal committees.  Instead, we should create open WikiProjects that anybody can join.  WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, where I used to be active, seems to have been somewhat successful. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: ArbCom can sanction behavioral problems.  Seriously or repeatedly failing to adhere to Wikipedia content policies is a behavioral problem that can be sanctions.  I have no doubt that ArbCom should avoid dictating the content of articles, but that does not mean they should ignore editors who are ruining articles through violation of no original research, verifiability, biography of living persons, notability or other content policies. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: One strategy is to pick out the worst offenders on each side of the dispute and sanction them, and warn the rest to stop behaving badly.  Rinse and repeat until the situation improves.  Another strategy would be to implement a WikiProject such as WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation. We must be careful not to let disputants game the system to get adversaries blocked.  I am very hesitant to perform enforcement requests that stem from persistent disputants or single purpose accounts. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I believe in civil actions, and plain talk.  We generally should not sanction people for cursing or impolite words.  On the contrary, polite form can often mask vicious or cynical actions.  I am more concerned about so-called "polite POV pushing", gaming the rules, and baiting.  When there is baiting, the incivil party should be told to stop, and then we turn attention to the baiting party.  If the baiting is corrected, the incivility will disappear as well.  In that case it is better to treat the root cause.  Just at don't overlook legal threats is wise advice, we should say "don't overlook incivility."  If an editor is all worked up, maybe there is a good reason.  That needs to be checked.  Often, by showing concern we can get a user to stop violating decorum. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: I would encourage the clerks to be more aggressive about removing frivolous posts, tangents, and excessively long screeds. Clerks could also spend more time counseling disputants to help them make their points concisely and cut down the evidence to the essentials.  We need more signal and less noise.  To accomplish this, we may need more clerks. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: The community should attempt, multiple times, to resolve most disputes.  However, some situations may be so severe, or may involve too many parties to be handled efficiently by the community.  For instance, if there are four disputants with three of them refusing mediation, and four WP:ANI threads fail to resolve the matter, that might be a case to go straight to arbitration.  WP:RFC/U is only workable for a single editor, not a group.  Likewise, serious admin misconduct, such as wheel warring, or matters involving confidential evidence need to go right to ArbCom.

(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:  I dislike creating power structures, and was not invited to join.  I am glad that proposal failed. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: Arbitrators should be encouraged to take occasional breaks to delve into content.   Shorter terms may help, as would some of the measures I outlined above (specifically, more active clerking) that could reduce workload. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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 was involved in that matter.  My opinions are on the record.  I'd rather not comment on specific editors at this page.  It is not fair to talk about editors in a forum where they cannot reply. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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'd rather not comment on specific editors at this page. It is not fair to talk about editors in a forum where they cannot reply. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't feel as if you have to censor yourself on my part. I and others can always participate in lengthy discussion on talk pages if necessary. Lara  22:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(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'd rather not comment on specific editors at this page. It is not fair to talk about editors in a forum where they cannot reply. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). (Camaron)
 * A: I'm not sure. We have to see how the matters play out.  You cannot judge a case two months after it closes.  The results might be evident a year or two from now.  Did the disputes flare up again, or were they really resolved?  Jehochman Talk 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007
 * A: Support, narrowly, because such correspondence is not compatible with our copyright status, and more broadly, we should respect the privacy of email.  It is the civil thing to do.  Jehochman Talk 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * A: Support because we are an open community.  If an action rests on confidential information, it needs to be handled by ArbCom, WP:OTRS, Checkuser, Oversight, or some other competent authority. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * A: Support because we should avoid chilling effects.  Editors may leave if they feel a risk of legal action. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * A: Support. Mediation doesn't work if statements within mediation can be cited later. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: Oppose, if a user identifies another user with the intention of creating a chilling effect or driving them off, that is outing, even if the identified user previously leaked some information. The context and nature of the purported outing statement needs to be looked at carefully.  This principal could be repaired by rewriting.  See 20.1. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I think it was a bad public relations move to act contrary to expectations.  Do what you say you are going to do, or else people will get upset.  Had this possibility been noted in advance, it would be a non-issue.  Jehochman Talk 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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: Cases between users should be named for the nature of the dispute or the topic area. Cases that turn into issues about one or a few users should be named for the user(s).  Names of extraneous parties should be removed for the sake of accurate labeling. Jehochman Talk 04:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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 would personally, as an editor, favor an approach to delete BLP articles when there is no consensus to keep.  At the moment we seem to default to keep when there is no consensus.  We should be more conservative about BLP articles than other article types. Jehochman Talk 04:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A: See my user page. I occasionally, very rarely, sneak around as User:Jehochman2, but it doesn't seem to fool people.  I've had a few logged out edits, as we all do, but have "claimed them" whenever I noticed. Jehochman Talk 04:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(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 go both ways on the strict-lenient spectrum.  If a user appears to sincerely understand the nature of their behavioral issue and appears likely to improve, I tend to be lenient.  On the other hand, if the user is combative, defiant or likely to engage in repeated offenses, I would be strict.  People who observe my administration are occasionally confounded by how I tend to go one way or the other.  It really depends on my reading of the user and how they react.  Jehochman Talk 04:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

=Individual questions=
 * Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here.
 * Please leave space for inline answers. Thank you.

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?
 * I did not follow that case. It appears to have taken a bit longer than three months to resolve. That's longer than I'd like, but faster than some other cases I've seen.  My personal habit is to dispose of pending matters promptly.  If I were involved in managing or evaluating arbitration cases, I would aim to resolve them more expediently than what has been the norm.  You'll notice that I've been answering my questions on this page very promptly. Jehochman Talk 20:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * WikiProjects cannot set site standards. WikiProject members, like any other editor, are welcome to draft and propose policies.  Policies should represent the views of all editors, not just members of WikiProjects. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Editing to engage in conflict without any sort of productive contribution is classic disruptive editing, and it is a violation. WP:CONSENSUS is policy.  If somebody repeatedly frustrates consensus by editing tendentiously, soapboxing, or posting long screeds to talk pages that is not acceptable. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Tendentiously opposing administrators ("Fight the power!") is a low signal to noise ratio activity. Shunning might help the situation, or else apply this behavioral guideline. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * I have confronted the situation of somebody with low English skills editing Wikipedia. The proper approach is to explain matters to them with maximum kindness.  With enough patience it is possible to get through to almost anybody.  Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * A community ban is not justified nless the problem is egregious, or the editor repeatedly fails to take advice from others. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * 3RR is like an electric fence to stop edit warring. Four reverts (excepting obvious anti-vandalism, BLP enforcement, copyvio, or illegal content) in 24 hours is the point at which a block should be applied (unless the complaint is stale, or if the editor immediately promises to desist).  Three reverts is not an entitlement.  If an editor is edit warring, they may be blocked at any number of reverts. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * If a username is going to damage Wikipedia by making it hard for people to work together, it should be changed. For instance, User:RightWingersSuck would be a bad username because it is just going to hurt feelings and lead to disputes.  User:LoadedDiaper, while unappealing, would be acceptable.  User:Nipples would be acceptable; User:ShowMeYourNipples would not be. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * If a banned editor does something useful, we might look the other way. In fact, if a banned editor starts a new account and does not go back to doing that which lead to the ban, it is our tradition to ignore them. If a banned editor is making apparently good edits, but doing so to annoy and harass users, they should be reverted.  For instance, editor User:HarryHarrassment is banned for harassing User:StonyAlabama, and then they go make lots of "good" edits to articles Stony also edits, using a sock account. Those edits could be reverted to discourage Harry from continuing the pattern of harassment. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * It would be presumptuous for me to say why somebody else resigned, and I think we should let arbitrators, administrators and functionaries who resign depart with their dignity. This is not a suitable topic for discussion in this forum.Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The second half of the question is no longer being scored. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * I have no idea who they are, and I'd rather not discuss specific editors here. You should invite that editor to comment anywhere you mention them, and if they are banned, you ought not provoke them.  Banned editors should also be allowed to leave with their dignity. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * WP:ANI is a gallery of problems with the Wikipedia Community, as is WP:AE. If pressed, I'd say the single worst problem is our inability to show disruptive editors, such as nationalistic edit warriors, to the door when they have overstayed their welcome.  Jehochman Talk 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the interesting questions. Jehochman Talk 03:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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?
 * The purpose of arbitration is to both resolve disputes and uphold community expectations and a sense of fairness. Written policy does not matter very much.  If an exception needs to be made to effectively resolve a dispute, then it needs to be explained clearly to avoid the appearance of favoritism or capriciousness.  We cannot look only at the dispute in hand; the big picture of "what does this decision do to our community" must also be weighed. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How should the desire to be fair to every individual involved in arbitration be balanced with the need to expediently resolve disputes?
 * Fairness to me means giving the individuals a chance to state their cases, and the opportunity to back down from any improper positions they have taken. It is important not to corner or pressure people in such a way that they cannot change for the better. I very much like User:Newyorkbrad's approach to not comment on acceptance of cases until the parties have had a chance to comment first. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * ArbCom should do what is best for the encyclopedia without regard for what disputants want. Fairness is created by correct process, not by compromising our principles. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Should every infraction discovered in the course of an arbitration proceeding be sanctioned?  Why or why not?
 * Sanctions should be applied when they are needed to prevent recurrences of problems. If a user sincerely recognizes faults and takes corrective action, then no sanction is needed. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * ArbCom seems to have shifted from resolving specific problems to resolving problem patterns. In theory this should lead to efficiency, but in practice it creates new problems, such as selective enforcement.  I dislike discretionary sanctions because they can be viewed as an abdication of responsibility.  Matters come to arbitration because the community could not sort them out.  I expect ArbCom to separate the naughty from the nice, make a list, check it twice, and post a decision on time. Editing restrictions was your idea, and I helped compile the initial contents of the page.  Editing restrictions are often a good approach.  I dislike blocking editors for  until I have completely given up hope for an editor becoming a productive member of the community.  If an editor has behaved badly, I think we should craft a remedy to help them avoid further trouble, or better yet, convince them to change their style voluntarily so that no remedy is needed. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Are admonishments, reminders, and warnings effective as arbitration remedies?  Why or why not?
 * Admonishments, reminders and warnings are very substantial because they can be used to justify sanctions should there be any recurrences. I believe that findings of fact are also especially important in this regard. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * As the committee size has increased, and as the complexity of our disputes rises, formal procedures are a good way to maintain order, efficiency and to set expectations. When the community and disputants know what to expect, and then the expected happens, there is satisfaction and a sense of fairness. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Arbitrators should not undermine decisions they dislike, nor should administrators or editors. However, each editor should be encouraged to speak their conscience.  Public disagreement is not undermining.  Undoing an arbitration enforcement action without proper discussion would be an example of undermining.  An arbitrator bears responsibility for their statements, votes, or silence on any matter.  However, we should not hold arbitrators to an impossible standard. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * I am more in favor of an inquisitorial system. Whenever arbitrators have been hostile towards disputants, it seems to created extra work and worse results for all concerned.  Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman is an example of that dynamic.  We govern by consensus.   Adversarial proceedings are disliked by the community, drawing complaints of wikilawyering.  Such a style of dispute resolution often fails to achieve consensus. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Lengthy cases, and I've been involved in several, seem to arise when there is a large volume of evidence and the arbitrators do not have time to peruse all of it. Encouraging better use of dispute resolution, notably WP:RFC, could help streamline cases, as could removing irrelevant parties or breaking cases with a large number of parties into smaller, more manageable pieces.  In general, a strategy to nip disputes in the bud would be helpful.  The deeper a feud becomes, the harder it is to resolve. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Are the main systemic problems with arbitration a result of the Committee's failings, or consequences of the environment in which the Committee functions?
 * Systematic problems with arbitration should not be blamed on anybody. It would be more productive to identify what is wrong and to go about fixing it. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the insightful questions, Kirill. Jehochman Talk 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Juliancolton
I know you had some significant events in real life recently, so will you be able to devote sufficient time to ArbCom work? Good luck and regards, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I am online all day long.  The nature of my work is that I have spare cycles during the day and evening in between appointments, while downloading or uploading files to the servers, while waiting for kids at their music lessons, or while waiting for the phone to ring. (Business tip: leave unscheduled time every day when people can approach you with questions.) This pattern is unlikely to change.  Our fourth child is doing well and his three older siblings help with his care.  The fourth is definitely easier than the first. Jehochman Talk 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Vodello
You withdrew from last year's Arbitration Committee elections after 68 supports and 106 opposes amidst claims of repeated drama mongering, stirring up fires rather than calming things down, and displaying very poor judgment.

Drama mongering almost completely imploded the Arbitration Committee last year. Given your track record and your numerous instances where you seemingly prolonged drama, is there any reason for Wikipedia editors to believe that you will be an objective arbitrator that will not do much more harm than good to this committee and the project as a whole?


 * A:


 * Hopefully I will do better this year! As a long time Red Sox fan, I am well-prepared for the possibility of defeat.


 * Drama is caused by the disruptive editors, not by the administrator who tries to stop them from damaging the project. Are we to ignore editors who are damaging our articles?  East European Mailing List has been a huge source of drama.  Notice that I have largely stayed out of it, though my name pops up in a few key places in the evidence.  Should Wikipedia editors have let that mailing list carry on it's merry business, or should we have stopped them?  I think we have an obligation to stop behavior that damages articles and scares off good contributors. The reason I am qualified is that I will stand up to disruptive editors or wayward administrators and tell them "No, you may not continue to behave that way."


 * I have heard the advice from last year's election and done my best to mitigate drama in matters where I am involved. Of course, you don't see or hear about the cases that I handle without any fuss.  The nature of some administrative work I do, disruptive editing complaints, arbitration cases and arbitration enforcement, regrettably tend to generate drama. The accusations of "very poor judgement" and other aspersions are unproven.  I've never been sanctioned at arbitration, nor been the subject of any RFC. Given the number of arbitration cases I've been involved in, the only way I've lasted this long is by being careful and exercising good judgement most of the time.  Of course, I should always strive to do better.  Arbitrators occasionally draw intense criticism.  At least you can see how I handle myself under such conditions, and vote your conscience.


 * Thank you for the tough question. Jehochman Talk 07:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from AniMate
Perhaps I am mistaken, but you have been involved in a number of arbitration cases in the past.
 * 1) How many arbitration cases, rejected and accepted, have you been involved with? Could you perhaps explain what role you played in the cases?
 * A: I don't have a number on rejected cases. The majority of my requests have been accepted.  See User:Jehochman/Arbitration for a list of cases where I have been a party.  I've also commented as an uninvolved party on numerous other cases. Jehochman Talk 06:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you see your role as a potential arbiter different from the role you have played previously in cases?
 * A: Instead of being a party making the arguments and presenting the evidence, I would be the arbitrator listening to the arguments and checking the evidence. This would not be a difficult transition. Seeing the job done up close is good preparation for doing the job. Jehochman Talk 06:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How much experience do you have in other steps in our dispute resolution process (i.e. RfC, mediation)?
 * A: I specialize in disruptive editing and sock puppetry cases. These are not the type of issues that go to mediation.  I have participated in a number of RFCs and certified one.  My content editing has been mainly cooperative.  Nobody has ever requested mediation with me over content issues. Jehochman Talk 06:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. AniMate  05:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Martintg
In regard to Vodello's question about your propensity to create drama, do you feel Flonight was justified in rebuking you for inflaming the matter after you protested the ArbCom's rejection of a case you initiated after dramatically re-opening another admin's closure of an WP:AE report?

Further to Vodello's question about your display of poor judgement, do you still regard a block that was applied after an editor's one single edit to remove a BLP violation from the article Michael Wines as a good block even though it was found the blocking admin made an honest mistake after a review on ANI?

Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Marting, I wanted the Eastern European matters to be looked closely. It turns out I was on to something, which has now been exposed by the East Europen Mailing List case.


 * Further reading for editors who may not be familiar with Marting's history:
 * Marting (talk · contribs) has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics. (20090404-0554)(20090615-0607)(20090818-0353)
 * Martintg (talk · contribs) is banned for three months.
 * Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.


 * As for Michael Wines, Digwuren has been tag team edit warring for quite a long time (see WP:DIGWUREN and WP:EEML for evidence). He organized a mailing list to coordinate tag team edit warring.  When we see Digwuren pop up in the midst of an EE edit war and make a revert, it is not unreasonable to suspect that he's doing more of the same, even if a final review of the matter concludes that the revert was proper.  No editor or administrator is perfect.  If you have to go back almost a year to find a mistake by somebody, you are stretching. Jehochman Talk 04:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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?
 * A. Yes. I spend about as much time on Wikipedia as a typical arbitrator.  I'd reallocate my time accordingly. Jehochman Talk 03:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * A. Regrettably I spend much too much time in project space, but I still manage to generate some quality content. That would continue because I'd switch project space work to arbitration work. Jehochman Talk 03:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, do you anticipate that your exposure to the seamier side of wikipedia might make you less interested in continuing as a content contributor on the conclusion of your ArbCom term?
 * A. I have already been exposed to the seamy side. This isn't the place to mention names or specific incidents, but I've seen the full range of bad things that happen on Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 03:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Tony1
In your response to GQ2 above, you said you "disagree with the assumptions" in the question. Can you clarify what the assumptions are and why you disagree with them? Do you believe the ability to write "concise, clear English" is not important for an arb? Do NYB's two GQs (Nos. 3 and 36) exemplify his "prolix" style, as you describe it? Tony  (talk)  13:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for seeking clarification. Some arbitrators are wordy, yet clear. They still do a good job.  My opinion is that clarity is extremely important, but terseness is optional because there is a trade off between clarity and brevity.  To remove ambiguity and avoid unintended consequences, you often have to use more words. Your question assumes both clarity and conciseness are requirements and then requests evidence. It would be better to remove the assumption by asking the candidates how important it is to write concisely and clearly and whether they can. Newyorkbrad often makes fun of his lengthy posts on the arbitration pages.  Of course he also knows how to write briefly, as exemplified by the two questions you pointed out.  I think he switches modes depending on requirements.  In decisions he is prone to writing at greater length because that's what works best.  Jehochman Talk 14:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Triplestop
Nationalism driven areas are one of the most heated and nasty areas of Wikipedia. There is well documented evidence of users who edit these subjects turning Wikipedia into a battlefield, not only through egregious POV warring and abusing Wikipedia's policies to get what they want, but also by attacking their "enemies", and spreading these Wikipolitics to every corner of Wikipedia. What are your views on this? As an arbitrator, what would you do about this? (Note that I am not addressing any particular example) Triplestop  x3  17:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment that nationalistic battles have been imported into Wikipedia, and that this causes great harm. My approach has been, and will continue to be as follows:


 * Administrators must be careful not to be manipulated by involved parties. There has been intense gaming of the rules and baiting in attempts to get content opponents blocked.  Administrators who just look at the superficial situation (this one reverted the most, that one made an incivil remark) can make a problem worse.  It is necessary to dig deeply to see who has been engaging in provocations.
 * Complaints made by editors with diverse interests, those who are not pushing one side or the other, those who are not single purpose accounts, and those who have a history of contributing high quality content should be taken very seriously and followed up with decisive action.
 * If a melee develops, it is often best to single out the editors with the worst behavior and sanction them first. Sometimes a precedent will encourage the others to be more cautious.  It can be complex to sanction half a dozen editors.  It is relatively easier to single out the most disruptive editor and place a sanction upon them.  Rinse and repeat until the problem resolves.


 * Thank you for the very important question. I will probably expand my answer after I've had more time to think about it. Jehochman Talk 18:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Sandstein
Hi, I have two questions related to AE: Thanks,  Sandstein   23:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In your statement you write: "My recent project-space contributions include reforming the process at arbitration enforcement, which has lead to an increase in administrator participation and better handling of requests." I am particularly interested in this statement because I was until recently active at AE and do not immediately recall any recent reform, except for the introduction of the request template Arbitration enforcement request, which I drafted. Could you please elaborate on your statement and tell us what specific reform(s) you implemented and how you determine that they have had the impact you describe?
 * 2) 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?


 * On March 1, I made this comment. At the time there was no standard for AE report formatting. And then the user and I had a discussion about proper formatting of reports. I also became active in supressing abusive threads on WP:AE. I commented on the need to prevent block lobbying by disputants.  I also criticized the committee for passing decisions that made a mess of WP:AE. Next I complained that users need to provide basic information when filing a report, and warned against drama mongering at WP:AE.  A few days later I again spelled out proper format for a report. Later in March I continued harping on the point that reports needed to concisely provide the basic info because AE is short staffed. I also commented on the need for more uninvolved participation and giving notice to parties. On March 23 Lessheard vanU joined the crew at AE, and I thanked him because we needed more uninvolved participation. On March 28 you created Template:Arbitration enforcement request which emboddied what I had been requesting and agitating for all month.  Thank you so much for doing that! Jehochman Talk 01:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have backed you up. I dislike when blocks are overturned improperly.  It has been my contention for a long time that ArbCom needs to do more to support admins who undertake hard jobs, such as arbitration enforcement.  One way ArbCom can help is to ask the clerks to help out where needed.  Arbitrators themselves generally should avoid direct intervention because that might preclude them from being able to judge a resulting case or appeal later on. Here's an interesting diff that illustrates the problem.Jehochman Talk 23:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from FT2
Please comment on the following questions and concerns, which would reflect on any users' suitability for this role.

1. In 2008 you stated to me via personal chat that your attempts to use processes Recall/RFAR to get Elonka desysopped were a "political game" (your own words). You also admitted to occasional serious poor self-control (a "hot temper") (your words). During the 2008 ArbCom elections you were asked about such issues directly (political games), and responded "Claims of me being political are rumors started by those who like to play politics.".


 * A 1: I have addressed the underlying concerns here to the relevant party.  By political, I meant motivated by personal pique.  I'll do my best to avoid reigniting that dispute by refraining from further comment on this matter.  Sometimes it is best to just walk away. In general I am not political, but yes, I am human, and do suffer occasional weaknesses or failures. Jehochman Talk 13:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

2. In August 2008 you responded at RFC/Bishonen #3 with the assertion: "There has been no good faith attempt to resolve this dispute. RFC is not to be used for personal feuds...". (Later amended, but that was prompted by a request for discussion; it was  not  your own impulse to rethink your contribution).

Issues raised:


 * Abuse of RFAR and other DR processes, which you yourself described as "political games" to get someone desysopped.
 * On-wiki denial vs. private admission of "political games".
 * On-wiki defense that such views were mere bad faith and rumor-mongering, vs. private admission.
 * Responding to a high profile RFC on serious concerns with assumptions, and making pronouncements where (unknown to others but privately admitted) you didn't actually read any evidence or diffs.
 * Knowingly misleading statements at high level dispute resolution ("no good-faith attempt to resolve" was misleading; you knew that a significant number of administrators had tried discussion at the preceding talk page )
 * Stating privately that you knew the RFC was not due to grudges held and the case "may be 100% correct", but publicly that the RFC was based simply upon grudge and feud.
 * Far from being "bad faith" the move to request wider community review was actually your own advice.

Administrators (and moreso Arbitrators) have a high expectation due to their role and trust. You "game" processes for retaliation, make authoritative statements on dispute resolution despite not reading any evidence, or acknowledged privately to be completely unfounded, and you say one thing in private while saying very different things on-wiki. Should the community really trust you to arbitrate any wiki matter?

FT2 (Talk 00:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A2: After much discussion, I have addressed your concerns here. Yes, the community should trust me because I do my best to be honest, and when I make a mistake I endeavor to post a clear, unequivocal correction. I've handled a large number of difficult situations at Wikipedia. No editor, administrator, or arbitrator is required to be perfect. Jehochman Talk 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Further discussion on this exchange is on on the talkpage. Skomorokh, barbarian  20:58, 16 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.
 * I think we should consider the subject's view and give it strong weight, but maybe not go so far as to make it determinative. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Yes, this is sensible. This is the biggest change I'd favor. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it shuld 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)
 * Yes, this is common sense. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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
 * I do not have an opinion about flagged protection or revisions. Let's test and see if they help. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Policy. How do we handle BLPs?  That's a policy question.
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * I think ArbCom reacted to real problems that the community failed to solve. They may have gone too far into the realm of legislating policy. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * ArbCom should leave matters where they are for the moment. Let the community establish policy, and if there is any problem with existing ArbCom measures, somebody can lodge an appeal, and that can be handled in the normal course. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I think consensus works fine if we are more proactive about sorting comments between the involved and uninvolved. We also need to be ever vigilant against mailing lists or other means of subverting consensus, and we need to ban editors who abuse talk pages in ways that disrupt the formation of consensus. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * I have no opinion. I am willing to let a test run and see how it works.  This is not an ArbCom matter at all.  I don't know why there is a delay because I do not care very much about the issue.
 * 1) 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?
 * Pseudonymity is OK. People may want to edit subjects that could be embarrassing to them if revealed to peers or family. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)?
 * Let it be. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * We should be considerate of editor wishes with regard to privacy, but we should be conservative about sanctioning people if they fail to recognize that an editor has changed their mind about self-identifying. Jehochman Talk 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * It depends on how much digging is required to put the information together. If it's as simple as Googling the username and the second result is a profile with full disclosure of the identity, that's probably not outing, especially if the link on wiki is made for the purpose of dealing with conflict of interest problems.  On the other hand, if somebody digs very deeply to find obscure public information and uses that to chill or intimidate an editor who has been behaving properly, that would be outing. Jehochman Talk 12:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes I do. And yes they should. This would avoid a lot of problems. Jehochman Talk 12:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I believe that pseudonymity is an illusion. If somebody edits enough, a determined observer may be able to figure out their identity. WMF should make this clearer, and should do more to protect editors who feel threatened.  Ideally editors should be protected to the point that they would feel comfortable editing under their real life identity, even if they choose not to. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Outing results in an immediate, indefinite block. This remains in place until the violator credibly agrees not to do any further outing.  I don't think we can police off-wiki behavior.  However, such off-wiki behavior can be considered as evidence of bad faith and may color our response to on-wiki activities. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I'd like to see WMF participate in an effort for governments to improve their laws against stalking. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * If there is stalking of a Wikipedia editor, the Foundation should cooperate fully with local law enforcement. There is no expectation of privacy if somebody uses a Wikipedia account to break the law applicable to the jurisdiction that governs Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * None. All editors are protected equally.  We do not not verify editor identity. We do not have the competency to determine whether a claim of past real life stalking is accurate or not. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Illegal use of Wikipedia should be confronted with strict, decisive enforcement. That is not a proper use of a Wikipedia account, and all measures available should be used to stop it. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * I think common sense can be applied to tell the difference. If the one complaining of harassment has generally maintained a good signal-noise ratio with quality contributions, the accused harasser better have a strong justification for what they are doing.  If the complainant has actually been editing disruptively, well, their complaint won't be taken very seriously. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * Yes. I think an user conduct RfC would be a good way to get feedback and deter further cries of wolf (my essay). Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Yes, sometimes it is necessary to fully deter any sort of participation. For run of the mill problem editors, I favor the no-harm-no-foul principle.  If they are trying to get attention by making good edits to test their ban, we can best discourage them by ignoring their activity as long as it remains harmless. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Discussion of article content and project organization should remain on wiki, except when there is a good reason to keep discussions private. For instance, if there is a serious BLP problem, or a need for Oversight, that may require us to suppress information, it may make sense to keep the discussions private. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I write for Search Engine Land and Internet Evolution and also publish some articles on my own website. I am a semi-notable Internet marketing and security writer. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * Wikipedia Review is an interesting source of intelligence, but it's not terribly engaging. I've posted there approximately a dozen times.  Wikback seems not to have gained traction due to insufficient marketing. The ideal outside criticism site is one that has professional editorial staff to check facts and remove slander. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * It is appropriate for people to do whatever is kind, ethical, and honest. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * I am Jehochman at Wikipedia Review. Harassment, whatever creative form it may take is sanctionable.  Whistleblowing is not.  Whether an action is one or the other turns on the particular fact pattern. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * I am not sure whether it has changed or not, and am not terrible concerned either way. Responsible criticism is a good thing. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)?
 * No. We have many other problems that occasionally manifest most severely when vested contributors are involved.  For instance, we do not yet agree on what the civility policy means. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Blue, no yel...[yells as he is thrown off the wiki] Jehochman Talk 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am Jehochman at Wikipedia Review. Harassment, whatever creative form it may take is sanctionable.  Whistleblowing is not.  Whether an action is one or the other turns on the particular fact pattern. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * I am not sure whether it has changed or not, and am not terrible concerned either way. Responsible criticism is a good thing. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)?
 * No. We have many other problems that occasionally manifest most severely when vested contributors are involved.  For instance, we do not yet agree on what the civility policy means. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Blue, no yel...[yells as he is thrown off the wiki] Jehochman Talk 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blue, no yel...[yells as he is thrown off the wiki] Jehochman Talk 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the multitude of multipart questions! Jehochman Talk 14:41, 16 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) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well stated! Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
 * We seem to be doing a good job weeding out bad admins. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
 * Current controls seems to be effective. We recently strengthened the RFC/U process by posting links at the top of the administrator noticeboards.  This seems to increase visibility and participation.  A bad administrator can be called to account by the community.  If there is evidence of wrongdoing, ArbCom can make a motion to desysop. That seems like the right process to follow. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
 * The community should have a voice, and ArbCom should read the consensus. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Separate procedures have been established. These are well thought out and documented.  I support that approach. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?
 * If the relinquishment is made freely, not under threat of having them taken away, then they should be returned freely. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
 * We place too much emphasis on formal civility, and not enough emphasis of civil actions. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
 * It means treating other editors thoughtfully and kindly. It does not mean using polite words while stabbing somebody in the back or abusing them with frivolous process meant to induce stress.  We should all try to help each other do well, not trip each other up. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
 * I think civility is a perpetual issue. It is something we must work on now and forever. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * No. I do believe that we need to look at the ratio of quality contributions to noise/disruption/incivility from each editor.  Those who make great contributions are worth more "costs" than those who make virtually no useful contributions. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * No.
 * 1) Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
 * I think there should be more sophisticated enforcement. Simpleminded enforcement often makes the matter worse.  If somebody is pitching a fit, it is best to ask them why they are upset and to listen, not to block them.  If they have a legitimate concern, it can be very effective to say, "you must be civil, and then I will give your concerns serious consideration," and then follow up by investigating the concerns. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?
 * I would encourage administrators to look to the heart of civility problems, rather than hitting the block button the first time an editor curses. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Please see my answers in Lar's questions above. Pseudonymity is an illusion.  Any editor should assume that they could be outed.  We cannot guarantee privacy, though we try hard to do so. All ArbCom can do is speak the truth about this issue. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * I am concerned that disruptive editors are given too much opportunity to frustrate the work of quality contributors. ArbCom needs to decide cases that come in, not kick the can down the road so that disputes can fester interminably. My second concern is that administrators should enforce civility properly.  Finally, I'd like to see reform of our noticeboards.  We need to avoid ochlocracy.  When there is a discussion of an editor's future, it should proceed in a venue such as WP:RFC/U, rather than a six hour pile on of votes for banning. Jehochman Talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Novickas

 * a. Could you explain why you haven't responded to User:Russavia's question above?
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I did not see it. I've asked Russavia to move the question to a separate section for better visibility.  I will certainly answer it. Jehochman Talk 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b. I see a disconnect between a statement on your talk page, mentioning that one of your motivations for running was a wish to get feedback, and your statement at this page's talk to the effect that bringing up old issues is counterproductive. Could you resolve what I, at least, see as a contradiction? I appreciate that you don't want to talk about third parties behind their backs, but this could be addressed by posting notices at their talk pages. That would no doubt lengthen the threads; but since Arbcom is primarily about conduct disputes, it's important to see the community's evaluation of your history with these.
 * I volunteered to stand and will entertain any questions or criticisms of me. However, if somebody wants to come here and discuss behavior of a third party, I will decline.  Even if the third parties are notified, they did not volunteer to be subjected to scrutiny, and they should not become pawns in the election.  It would be better to ask theoretical questions rather than questions about particular editors.  For instance, Russavia's question about whether I'd read the email archive if I were on ArbCom is a good question. Jehochman Talk 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c. You have said that you sometimes pass over TLDR evidence presentations. Given that these editors may have made valuable contributions - and may have valid grievances but little experience in dispute resolution - do you not think they'd be better served by an arb's request to improve their presentation? Maybe accompanied by pings to, say, members of the mediation committee? ("editor x, your evidence is unclear, I've asked [these three members of the Medcab] to work with you on this.")
 * Yes! If the evidence is unclear or excessively long, I would ask an arbitration clerk to help the user prepare a better evidence presentation. This is one of the defined functions of the clerks.  I recently advised an editor who came to me for advice on evidence presentation to post a note at the clerks noticeboard to get help. Jehochman Talk 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d. What are your thoughts about the use of the term drama wrt to Wikipedia disputes? To me it seems a conveniently dismissive sound bite. Novickas (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's been used that way towards me a few times. If somebody is creating drama, often it's because they are upset.  The way to resolve that is to listen to their concerns and try to help. On the other hand, sometimes people who know better will skip over basic steps of dispute resolution, such as contacting the other user and attempting to talk with them.  Instead they go straight to WP:ANI and raise a fuss, and don't even bother to notify the other user.  Calling somebody a drama monger may itself be drama mongering.  It is usually better to provide a specific statement of what was done wrong, and better options to use next time. Jehochman Talk 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at this section.

Question by Russavia
Copied from above (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: I have complained vociferously about this problem during two prior cases involving me and an arbitrator who was a disputant. Recusal means not using ArbCom access or tools.  The list mechanics were fixed, I am told, so that particular arbitrators can be excluded from particular cases.  If that hasn't been done yet, it needs to be done.  If a correspondence came to me improperly, I would not read it.  Somebody emailed me the email archive from the WP:EEML case.  I never looked at it.  Jehochman Talk 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you bring up WP:EEML in your answer. In the proposed decision there are motion covering the reading and using of the mailing list -- Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision for example. Given your answer above, where would you stand on the above motions that are currently under consideration at EEML? Would you be for or against their being used as evidence? And if for, would you read the emails if you were on Arbcom? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 07:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally dislike violations of confidence. In my work I have access to many confidential records, and do not want people to ever get the idea that I'd rifle through their information without proper permission.  It was none of my business to read the email archive, so I didn't.  If appointed to ArbCom, I would fulfill my duties to review any proper evidence.  If the Committee decided that some emails were relevant and properly received, I would feel authorized to review them.  In the specific case of EEML, I am not privy to all the evidence, so I will not second guess them.  They appear to have made the right decision. In the future, if I felt the Committee were making a wrong decision, I might decide to recuse from a case to avoid having to do something I felt was ethically questionable. Jehochman Talk 21:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer J. Whilst I wasn't asking you to comment on EEML specifically, but was only using it as an example, your answer (i.e. recusal) is the answer I would have expected. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 14:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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?
 * All messages should be responded to as soon as possible. On my own talk page I once in a while miss a message if several are posted in rapid succession.  It may be useful for arbitrators to ask a friendly volunteer to monitor their talk page to make sure nothing falls through the cracks. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * I think the discussions need to be monitored by several arbitrators, and those who have something to add should comment. Once the case has been developed all the active arbitrators will have to read the evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages and their talk pages before voting. I have often monitored and commented on about half of the active arbitration cases.  To do so for all cases would not be an extreme increase.  By monitoring the development of cases it is then quicker to review them prior to voting. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * I've been in the ducking stool a few times myself. It is very uncomfortable and I have frequently prodded the committee to process cases faster for the benefit of reducing disputants' stress.  Jehochman Talk 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * I have made similar points in User:Jehochman/Content matters. When looking at a dispute, I often consider what articles are being damaged? or what articles aren't being written?  The project is here to write an encyclopedia, not to establish a model system of justice nor to provide equal access to all editors regardless of skill and attitude. If the participation of a user is a net negative, all consequences considered, they should be excluded. If a user causes some trouble, but they are a net positive, they should be assisted to reform. Jehochman Talk 04:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) ArbCom commonly criticizes editors, publishing findings about their failings and remedies to correct them. While nobody disputes this is needed, do you think ArbCom should also try to clarify whether noted failings are exceptional, and accompany critical findings with positive reinforcement, such as here?
 * Yes, I think the entire context of an editor's contributions needs to be weighed. When somebody has been very active, it is possible to go through the record and find a few faults.  If these are considered without recognizing all the good, that is the hasty generalization.  An example would be User X has done wrong here and here, therefore User X  should be sanctioned.  If X has only made a small number of edits, that might be a reasonable conclusion.  On the other hand, if User X has made tens of thousands of edits,  we expect a few of them to be erroneous.  Therefore, we cannot draw the conclusion that User X is bad based on a small number of faults. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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.


 * I used to participate on the en-wiki-admins and en-wiki channels. I stopped some time ago because I felt that IRC was not an effective use of my time.  Whatever I've said on the public channels (including the admin channel) was meant for public consumption, so I don't mind if it gets shared.   In general, chats shouldn't be made public unless  permission is obtained from all the participants. Much of my participation was joking around, or general wasting of time.    Jehochman Talk 14:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from NE2
Have you read War and Peace?

Question from Mathsci
At the beginning of the recent ArbCom Abd&WMC case, you initially wrote a statement strongly supporting because of the impression he had made on you at a wiki meetup in New York; you also posted a question asking others giving statements in the request for the case to reveal their age. Abd was eventually banned from editing for three months and topic banned from all articles connected with cold fusion for one year after that. Abd has confirmed on wikipedia that he has set up a company to manufacture kits for ordinary folks to test cold fusion (more properly low energy nuclear reactions) in their own homes. During the subsequent ArbCom case, you gave no further evidence.
 * I invited Abd to an event that was not a New York meetup. We'd had some past conflict and I wanted to meet him in person and try to smooth things over. Jehochman Talk 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why did you think it appropriate to ask editors for their ages?
 * I was trying to demonstrate that people of different generations have different levels of experience with online communities and different expectations for how things your work. Can you show me any diffs that concern you?  If so, I will comment further.  It is my recollection that I volunteered my age, and that others may have volunteered theirs, but that nobody was pressured to answer.  The purpose was to encourage people to accept each others' different approaches to editing.  It was not my intention to put anybody on the spot, though I now recognize that may have been an unintended consequence, and I probably would not use that approach again. Jehochman Talk 22:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did your support for Abd not continue on the ArbCom pages during the case?
 * I do not remember. Perhaps other matters attracted my attention and I stopped following the case, or perhaps I had said all I needed to say. I was not a named party. Jehochman Talk 22:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did your views on Abd change during or after the case?
 * It's not appropriate for me to discuss my views of Abd on this page, so I won't say more. I am glad to talk about my actions and my personal views on articles or policies, but not my personal views of people. Jehochman Talk 20:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I may add to my answers later. Jehochman Talk 20:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these replies. Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 18 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) 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can do short. Jimbo's statement is just a savvy observation of what Wikipedia editors as a group believe.  Paid editing is generally opposed because what happens in practice is that paid editors make messes that volunteers have to clean up.  I think Jimbo is an editor, a well respected editor who may be able to convince others, but that he has no more power to create policy than you, I or some user who just registered yesterday.  Policy is created by consensus based on quality of reasoning, not authority of the editors.  Jehochman Talk 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from MoreThings
In a response to Kirill, above, you said: "Written policy does not matter very much".If codified policy does not matter very much to an Arbitrator, what does? If not written policy, what criteria will you use to guide you deliberations? MoreThings (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Our policy is not codified. We don't do what is written, we write what we do. The documentation may be inaccurate or incomplete.  It is more important to look at community expectations, what people think is right.  Often cases come to arbitration because written policy does not reflect community beliefs, or is silent on an important issue.  After the case the community may rewrite policy to document what was decided.


 * A good arbitrator is not a robot who reads policy and decides accordingly. It is necessary to go deeper into the issue.  Why does the policy exist?  How does the community feel about it?  What sort of solution is going to produce the best results for the encyclopedia, and how can a decision be rendered that is perceived as fair?  Jehochman Talk 14:00, 21 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?
 * I have two ideas off the top of my head: (1) I intend to work on wiki as much as possible. Time and again we have seen trouble when people take their correspondence to back channels. As of now, I have quit using IRC, and generally request that anything non-confidential be posted on wiki. (2) I think it is very important to listed to both sides (or more sides) of any story before passing judgment.  It is essential to ask questions and see how they are answered before making statements about who is right, and who is wrong.  Jehochman Talk 02:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.
 * For some time I have felt that editors on different sides of an issue should get together on a common goal. For instance, they could collaborate on a good article drive or featured article drive.  This would bring in independent reviewers who are strictly focusing on article quality.  I think this would help overcome nationalistic views. A quality article will represent all views fairly. Jehochman Talk 02:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that meetups are a good idea. I have participated in the Connecticut meetings, and enjoyed them.  Editors seeing each other face to face are more likely to assume good faith when collaborating. Jehochman Talk 02:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * These are deep questions. I'll need to think about them a bit. Jehochman Talk 02:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the most thoughtful response may be that more thought is required. :-) With respect to that, I posted a follow-up on these questions for another candidate based on their response here, it might clarify at least one of the challenges you would be facing. (Not having participated in one of these before, I'm not sure if proper procedure is to simply cross post here.)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 17:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to cross post follow up questions. That probably makes it easy for the reader to follow the questions and answers on one page. Jehochman Talk 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to cross post follow up questions. That probably makes it easy for the reader to follow the questions and answers on one page. Jehochman Talk 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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?


 * I don't think we need to assume bad motives of admins who want to enforce civility. My personal standard is not to block anybody for minor incivility.  In fact, I generally prefer not to block editors at all until their behavior is so bad that they need an indefinite block.  In my experience short blocks for incivility can cause dispute escalation and increasing amounts of disruption.  Jehochman Talk 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * Civility is about how people treat each other. It is possible to be kind while using foul language, or vice versa.  If civility were simply a matter of stamping out dirty words, we could program a bad words filter and be done with it. Actions are more important than words.  However, if somebody says that they dislike a certain kind of language, it would be a good idea for other editors to avoid needless offense by refraining from such language.  Wikipedia is a volunteer work environment where we should be considerate of one another to avoid disrupting the work.   We should also try to be tolerant of cultural differences. Jehochman Talk 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Igny
Hi Jehochman, I am asking the same question I asked Coren, because you seem to know what the EEML case is all about. Basically, I wonder about an alternative Universe where the private archive of the EEML was dismissed by the ArbCom as evidence due to privacy or other concerns. What the best course of action might be for the ArbCom in that Universe then?


 * Check the users' on-wiki behavior and make the tough decisions about who's been naughty and who's been nice. There is enough evidence out in the open to make that determination without resorting to reading other people's mail. Jehochman Talk 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)