Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Shell Kinney/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: Sense - the ability to be perceptive, reasonable and and even practical. We ask a lot of arbitrators and give little in return; arbiters who have been successful have been able to make sense of difficult issues despite the heavy workload and distractions.

(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: This is something I actually get complimented on from time to time.,  A lot of work during mediation involves finding ways to help parties understand each other and determine common goals upon which to build a solution.  I understand the unique challenges posed by communicating without the benefit of tone and body language; I often try to imagine how my words will be perceived, and when misunderstandings occur, work to understand the perspective of others.

(3) Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
 * (A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * (B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
 * (C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Banned User Subcommittee or considering the subcommittee's recommendations;
 * (E) Overseeing the granting and use of Checkuser and Oversight permissions, including vetting candidates for these privileges and supervising elections for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
 * (F) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (G) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (H) Carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators generally are given oversight privileges also);
 * (I) Internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming Arbcom-l mailing list traffic, reminding colleagues of internal deadlines, and the like;
 * (J) Assisting with policy- and procedure-related discussions, such as working to finalize the long-pending revision of the Arbitration Policy;
 * (K) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain). (Newyorkbrad)
 * A: I would be happy and able to assist in any area; F and I are likely to be best suited to my talents, which come from years of managing projects on and off line.

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: It's a difficult line to walk; I don't think we'll ever find a solution that will make everyone happy all of the time.  In the last year, more things have been made open through reports and updates.  I think that trend should continue wherever possible; I'd especially like to see more interaction during cases and possibly some form of update system that would keep participants and the community abreast of the case status.  I'd like to see fewer times when cases' talk pages end up with sections titled "When will this be over?" or "Is anything going on here?".  Status updates, even if just to acknowledge that the current stage is progressing, might help alleviate some of those concerns.

(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of 'groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: I think with ArbCom there are some mitigating factors. The community selects the participants which alleviates some of the natural tendency to surround ourselves with like minds.  I also believe that most editors volunteering for the committee have demonstrated the ability to handle decisions that cause differing or even hostile responses (i.e. editors rarely appreciate being blocked or sanctioned).  To limit the impact of groupthink, I think it's important that everyone on the committee encourage and appreciate criticism, whether it's from within the group or the community at large.  It's also important to let differing views impact the process and reconsider decisions if doubts are expressed.  The recent splitting of duties where members rotate through subcommittees should also help to keep things fresh and more open.

(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 like to think I'll continue to have time for my gnoming, but I'd be foolish if I didn't acknowledge that volunteering for the committee is likely to take up most of my time for Wikipedia and likely require me to give up time on other hobbies for a bit. I will make the effort to continue working in other areas on Wikipedia not only to hold on to my sanity, but to help keep in touch with what's going on in the community.

(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic do you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? (Tznkai)
 * A: I anticipate the daily traffic could be in the hundreds depending on the current situation; I can hope for a bit more manageable number, but I'm realistic enough to bet it's even worse than I imagine. I can't guarantee I'll read every email the same day and I'm sure I'll need to prioritize my time, but I will give my best effort to review everything that comes through, even if it doesn't require a response.

(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 believe reading the material is acceptable and commenting may be appropriate in certain circumstances. For instance, if a recused party is familiar with back story, it may help contextualize current issues. I trust arbiters can look at those comments with a critical eye, just as they do when reviewing comments of parties with an interest in a case. It is possible that a recused party might need to offer evidence which should be done through regular channels unless privacy is a concern.  I don't believe that someone who's recused should be emailing parties to the case privately and certainly not in any official capacity.  Inappropriate usage such as sharing confidential information or using confidential knowledge to influence a case is a serious breach of the trust placed by the community and should be grounds for removal from the committee.

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: Just as the community was able to develop a process for editor bans and sanctions, the community is capable of developing a working method of admin review and desysopping that doesn't require arbitration. It's likely that there is a role for the committee in reviewing these decisions, similar to current ban reviews.

(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? (Davewild)
 * A: I think it came out just about right. At the very least with the two banned editors and five found to be abusing sockpuppets, I can't imagine making a different call.

(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 can understand the committee choosing to avoiding drama or re-open old disputes but I think the community needs the opportunity to comment when administrator privileges were lost "under a cloud".

(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: Not all cases require prior dispute resolution; if other methods are unlikely to resolve the problem, there's no use in standing on ceremony.

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Only in severe cases. For example, banned users who've gained administrator accounts or administrators who abuse sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia or harass other editors would warrant desysopping without a full case.

(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? (Od Mishehu)
 * A: Unless the community indicates otherwise, these editors should give up any positions of trust. Breaking faith with the community on such a clear issue is incompatible with working as an admin, checkuser or using other elevated privileges.  Other sanctions could be handled by the community based on the circumstances (i.e. putting less trust in their opinions or ignoring their future RfA comments or nominations).

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: From what I can see, the subcommittee seems to be working well; I'd like to find other ways to segregate and rotate duties - I think it would help avoid burnout and keep those areas running more smoothly. I'd also like to work with the clerks to come up with some guidelines for case management: a) There should be more management of case talk pages so that feuds aren't left to fester and grow. b) Figure out a system for updating cases on a schedule so that participants are kept informed; since a lot of the case review happens out-of-sight, regular notes should help reassure interested parties that the case is still moving forward. c) Brainstorm ways to keep the evidence more focused and avoid having the area used as a place to vent frustrations.

(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? (Davewild)
 * A: I agree. I don't believe ArbCom was ever meant to be a ruling council; the community already has working processes for creating, changing or abolishing policy as standard practice evolves.

(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? (Kotniski)
 * A: I think what you describe is the worst case scenario and hopefully not the standard for every case. However, I agree that cases often become arenas where participants tear at each other for the length of the case. One of the areas that seems to cause the most concern is the talk pages which often become battlegrounds for rehashing evidence or throwing accusations back and forth.  Recent cases, such as the EEML, have been more closely monitored by clerks so that problems are stopped as quickly as possible.  I'd also like to seem some limits on evidence both in regards to scope and content.  Cases shouldn't become a forum to dig up every last mistake an editor has ever made; editors should be encouraged to stick closely to the dispute at hand and only present older data that is closely relevant to the problem or helps establish a pattern.  Editorializing should be kept to a minimum; diffs and other factual evidence should speak for itself.

(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: Clearly there needs to be some method to resolve disputes when other community procedures fail. As the community continues to come up with new processes and new ideas for resolving difficult disputes and dealing with contentious areas, hopefully there will be less and less for ArbCom to do.  Its possible that one day, we'll outgrow the committee, but I don't think we're there yet.

(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? (Camaron)
 * A: In both cases, I'm sure the committee had the best intentions. The BLPSE was an attempt to give the community more teeth in enforcing BLPs, however, the community has always been clear that it would not support giving blanket powers to administrators to solve the problem.  Most people seem to agree that BLPs continue to be a problematic area, but the community has yet to agree on any additional methods of enforcing BLP standards.  As long as the community keeps dropping BLP in the committee's lap, its hard to fault them for trying to find something to solve the problem.
 * As for the Advisory Council, that seems like an attempt to solicit more community input gone bad. The community needs strong leaders and volunteers willing to push for a resolution to issues like BLP, but its unlikely that ArbCom can create that group.  The more we can work out as a community, the less we need to ask of ArbCom.

(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 only help with content disputes as far as editor conduct is an issue. Most content issues now have a noticeboard where volunteers will help resolve the concern.  In rare cases, ArbCom may need to step in when repeated content policy violations become a conduct problem.  For example, if an editor's violation of NPOV or COI or misuse of sources rises to the level of disruption, ArbCom may need to step in and find a way to limit or remove that disruption.  As for the last question, I think the committee has already done that successfully.  Setting up a forum where the community can resolve a content dispute is certainly preferable to asking ArbCom to rule on content itself.

(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how? (Heimstern)
 * A: I think that as a whole, the community and ArbCom should be more willing to remove editors from a topic area when their editing is clearly disruptive or part of an outside dispute. Especially in the case of national or ethnic disputes, editors who cannot maintain a level and objective viewpoint should be asked to move along.  I think we can all tell when an editor is pushing a particular viewpoint on Wikipedia; unfortunately, so long as that person isn't blatantly disruptive, its often difficult to gain consensus on any sanctions.  These types of editors are a tremendous drain both to other editors in the topic area and the general community who has to deal with repeated reports as the problem reoccurs.  Perhaps we need to be more proactive in soliciting true "outside input" in these sanction discussions both to avoid a skewed result and keep the discussion from becoming yet another forum to rehash the dispute.

(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 think our major difficulty in enforcing civility is the lack of a common definition. Every editor has a different tolerance for civility, sarcasm and even humor; what is patently offensive to one editor might be minor to another.  Some civility issues come down to a simple misunderstanding.  "I know it when I see it" just doesn't work in a large and diverse community.

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: Every year candidates promise to shorten the time it takes to resolve a case and every year, case lengths don't change all that much. That leads me to believe that we're never going to see a dramatic decrease in case time.  I'd like to work on streamlining the evidence page by limiting the scope of evidence offered and removing anything that is not pertinent.  I'd also like to work on ways to prevent the dispute from continuing via back and forth on Arb case pages.

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: Incredibly. ArbCom shouldn't be stepping in to solve things that the community can process.  In rare cases when an issue is particularly divisive, ArbCom can of course assist without requiring folks to stand on ceremony.

(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: A good idea gone wrong. Its fantastic that the committee wanted to reach out and get more community input; this particular implementation caused a lot of confusion and concerns that the Council had some kind of power or political capital not available to the rest of the community.

(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: I can only begin to imagine the amount of work required to keep up with everything asked of Arbiters. Inability to volunteer in other areas doesn't change the reasons that these people were initially elected.  Good common sense, the ability to handle complex problems and an understanding of the Wikipedia community aren't based on edit counts.

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: Nope. As I've mentioned in other questions, I don't believe filling out all the right forms in triplicate should be more important than getting things done.  This doesn't mean that all banned users should bypass un-ban requests or that every banned user will come back successfully, but if they do, I don't think it makes sense to re-ban them simply for the sake of procedure. I do agree with the removal of his administrator tools; this gives the community the ability to decide whether or not to pass a new RfA based on all the facts.

(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: The statements on the motion seem to indicate that the committee felt Jennavecia didn't understand why her decision was inappropriate. While lack of remorse or understanding can certainly be a mitigating factor when deciding on restrictions, these desysops would have been better left to the community.  Unfortunately the community doesn't really have a good process for reviewing admins yet either, so I'm not sure where that would have left us.

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

(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 personally liked Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, but that was a unique solution that I got to help out with, so I'm probably biased. I do think its a good example of finding a structure that allows the community to resolve content decisions.  As for the least successful, I'd have a difficult time deciding between Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley.  The former was well handled during the case, but I believe the mentorship should have been more structured for it to be most successful.  The latter was a very painful case rife with personal attacks and constant battling during the case, not to mention reams and reams of discussion that distracted from resolving any issues; guidelines for evidence, better pruning and talk page enforcement would have been helpful during the case.

(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: I would support this, mostly out of common sense and respect for others. The copyright concerns are also relevant.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * A: I would support this; communication and discussion are important to dealing with issues successfully. Editor's actions, in whatever capacity, should always be open to criticism.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * A: I would support this; using legal terminology, however correct, can easily lead to misunderstanding. There are alternative ways to make the same point.

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * A: I agree; mediation is unlikely to work in an environment where participants can later be sanctioned for their part in the discussion. A mediator is not going to allow personal attacks or other poor behavior during a mediation; evidence of behavioral problems, if they exist, should be in better evidence outside of a mediation.

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: I support this, but probably would have tried re-wording that last bit. "If a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected." isn't terribly clear; its quite possible that editors might not realize another has removed identifying information. Perhaps "If a user has redacted that information and requests that another editor cease referring to said information, their wishes should be respected."

(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: It wasn't a bad idea and I believe the community has trust in MBisanz, but it was inappropriate to implement the decision after the election and without any discussion with the community. Had the issue and reasons been put to the community for comment, the outcome might have been much different.

Other issues
(33) Originally RfARs were named in the style of "Party X v. Party Y", in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? Under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in ? (MBisanz)
 * A: I'd think we should avoid the "versus" system at all costs; arbitration should be less about pitting editors against each other and more about resolving the issues. If one editor's conduct is being reviewed, its appropriate to title the case after that user.  If there are multiple parties involved that need to be reviewed, a name like "Highways 2" that indicates the dispute's locus is best.

(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: Not in all aspects. The policy is well written but not well enforced; the community hasn't been able to agree to methods of protecting these articles or handling editors who become problematic on BLPs.  I'm not sure what the best answer is, but the community needs to work on picking something and giving it a try.

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A: My account was originally named Jareth. It was renamed on June 2, 2006.

(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 would favor less severe sanctions in cases where the behavioral problems weren't a long term pattern, the editor indicated that the understood the concerns or the editor indicates that they plan to take steps to resolve the issues. I would be likely to favor more severe sanctions in cases where the problems are a long term pattern, the problems have been to arbitration before or the editor indicates that they do not understand the problem nor do they plan to change their behavior.

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

Question from Wehwalt
I note that you are an OTRS volunteer. Twice during the past year, according to news reports, Wikipedia has been requested to keep out information in reporters' article showing that they were held in Iraq or Afghanistan, and certain admins went to considerable lengths to keep out such information. What is your view on these goings-on? If you feel that because of OTRS confidentiality the events in question have not been sufficiently established, then by all means please treat the matter as hypothetical. Either way, can you also identify the Wikipedia, Foundation, and real life policy issues at play here, and how you justify your answer with them?
 * Being an OTRS volunteer doesn't necessarily mean that I have access to all of the information in these cases (nor could I divulge it), so my answer will be limited. Deciding what information is acceptable for a BLP is something the community struggles with on a regular basis; add confidential information sent to the Foundation into the mix and you've got a sticky situation indeed.  As much as it goes against the community's love of openness, sometimes we need to trust the people we've put trust in; at the very least, we should be able to trust that "do no harm" is at the top of their list when dealing with confidential information on living people.  When in doubt, its possible, with the Foundation or OTRS, to ask for other individuals to review these kinds of decisions for a sanity check. Shell   babelfish 02:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The 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?
 * Confusing. Its as if the entire month of February disappeared there somehow.
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * Suggest, discuss, help build consensus on - yes. Enforce - no.
 * 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?
 * That sounds like a pretty standard case of disruptive editing. I'd suggest starting with an RfC.
 * 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?
 * Its a rather silly pastime, but it takes all types. Sometimes you just have to learn to ignore people.
 * 1) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they do not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * Unfortunately unless someone is willing to work as a mentor and the editor is able to improve in that situation, its likely that they'll end up being asked to leave the project.
 * 1) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * 3 - possibly if all other options have been exhausted and the disruption continues; 4 - assuming they're productive otherwise, no; 5 - again, if other options don't help resolve the issue, banning may be the only option
 * 1) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * Edit warring is the repeated reversion of another's edits; 3RR is the line the community has drawn to say "At this point, you are definitely edit warring". Edit warring should be discouraged in any case; once someone reaches that line or is obviously disruptive then warning, blocking or article protection become appropriate.
 * 1) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * Personally, if an username is borderline, I solicit other opinions. If its something that many people could find offensive, I suggest to the editor that they have the username changed.
 * 1) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * When they are being disruptive, pointy or causing harm to the encyclopedia. We shouldn't necessarily revert the occasional spelling change or attempts to be productive; it might be appropriate in those cases to assist the editor in understanding how to appeal the ban.
 * 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) Question removed
 * I don't feel comfortable with what you asked, but I'll try to answer what I think is the point behind the question. I don't have any crazy bits hiding in a closet nor do I intend to run rogue if I am elected.  Like any other area of Wikipedia I volunteer in, if the community doesn't think I'm handling things well, I'm happy to stop and move on to somewhere I can help.
 * 1) Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
 * 2) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * I'd say the largest problem right now is a lack of focus. On one hand, this means that many tasks all over the 'pedia get done but on the other, it means that we often don't stick out a problem when the solution is difficult.  We've let things like workable admin review/recall and BLP enforcement limp along with no real solution.  Thankfully we get re-interested every so often and someone comes up with another plan - hopefully we'll eventually find one that we can all agree on.

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 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 will always make myself available to answer questions or explain my decisions; I will try to get to them as quickly as possible. I will listen to criticism and feedback and may sometimes change my mind in response.  I will try to make time for Wikipedia every day keeping up with both email and on-wiki activities.
 * 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.
 * In any case where I have prior interaction with an editor involved or feel I have preconceptions of an editor involved, I'm going to rescuse. Its not that I don't think I can put aside my own ideas, but I will try my best to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.  In other cases, I think my track record on Wikipedia speaks for itself; I can look at things fairly, am open to finding unique solutions, and can change my mind when new information becomes available. Shell   babelfish 20:53, 23 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?
 * Very. I try to keep a note on my page updated so that folks will know if there's a reason I won't be available or will take longer to respond. I try to leave notes to indicate that I'm at least looking into things even if I don't have the answer right away.
 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * Monitoring, if you're referring to keeping order, is something better left to the clerks. If you mean keeping abreast of discussions, then yes, talk page discussion is an important part of that case - context, analysis of evidence or even just keeping an eye on what the community thinks about the situation is important.  Participation though would likely be limited to questions directed at the arbiters as opposed to engaging in any kind of discussion or argumentation of the case.
 * 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?
 * This is something that has come up frequently both in discussion of ArbCom and during this election. Its pretty clear that the community is concerned about the level of drama and ill-will being generated at some cases.  As I've said in answer to other questions, I believe that tighter handling of cases including limits on evidence and monitoring talk page discussions could help alleviate some of the stress that goes with a case.
 * 1) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * I can agree with that for the most part. If other sanctions will stop the disruption or help normalize the editor in question, I prefer to give those a try first.  Unfortunately there are some intractable cases where an editor is unable or unwilling to acknowledge concerns about their behavior and how it impacts the encyclopedia.  If we're not able to find a way to get them moving in the right direction or despite our attempts they continue to cause harm, banning is our last available option. I'm of the opinion that banning as punishment for poor behavior is unlikely to be productive. Shell   babelfish 21:32, 23 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?
 * Sometimes, yes. When an action is out of character or one-off as opposed to a pattern, its certainly due some context in a finding.  Also, I think as a community, we need to stop using ArbCom sanctions as a scarlet letter - I've seen editors try to use sanctions or findings against another to win content disputes or simply try to make a complaint look worse - unless its an AE report (or some other behavioral discussion in an appropriate place), those kinds of comments are unnecessary. Shell   babelfish 20:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Sandstein
Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in a 2008 motion. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention, as suggested by the 2008 motion, 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 (e.g. by reblocking or by sanctioning the unblocker) for 15 days until the case became moot because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks,  Sandstein   20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear that you've chosen to step back from AE; your work there was always fair and full of clue. I am certain you will be missed.  As to your question, since I'm not privy to what may have been going on in the background, I can only suggest what I think may have happened.  Its quite possible that bringing the clarification was the catalyst that led to the administrator's desysop.  If that is the case, the inappropriate unblock may have been put on the back burner in favor of investigating more serious claims against the administrator.  Personally I would have suggested that your sanction be reinstated while the investigation was conducted.  AE is a difficult and time consuming area; I believe that ArbCom needs to offer more and faster support to administrators doing this thankless work. Shell   babelfish 21:40, 23 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.
 * Rarely. I occasionally pop in the OTRS channel or the MedCom channel and have checked out the admin and en-wikipedia channel.  I think at one time I also tried out the vandalism channel but decided I liked other tools better.  I would have no concerns over posting logs of any conversations I have had on IRC, but I would require that you also receive permission from anyone else included in the conversation or only post my comments. Shell   babelfish 21:43, 23 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? 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)


 * This seems to be one of the most often asked questions this year; obviously there has been a lot of concern and confusion within the community over civility, civility restrictions and enforcement. As I've said above, in a diverse international project like this, there's no simple answer to what is or is not civil.  People from different backgrounds, upbringings and other traditions are going to have very different ideas of acceptable language.  Couple this with the ease of misunderstanding written text and enforcing "civility" becomes nigh impossible.  In short, I don't think we should be in the business of enforcing "civility", at least certainly not the way we have been. If someone's behavior rises to the level that the community feels they are being disruptive or hurting the ability to write the encyclopedia, then we need to work to find a solution.  Short of actual disruption though, I'm a strong believer in telling folks to go have a cup of tea (or beverage of your choice).  I think we can all try harder to tolerate our differences and learn to walk away from discussions or situations that we find bothering our civility radar. Shell   babelfish 22:38, 23 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 the subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
 * 2) Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
 * 3) Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
 * 4) How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?
 * 5) What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?
 * Right now ArbCom sanction is pretty much the only way admins have the bit removed and I don't believe that's enough. The community hasn't come up with a method of reviewing administrator status yet, but we need one we can all agree on.  If the community doesn't trust an editor to use the tools any longer, it needs to be "no big deal" to take the tools back.  Emergency desysops should be kept as simple as possible, probably with evidence presented to a crat who can decide if the situation and evidence merit a quick removal of the tools.  As for voluntary relinquishment, I'd assume that if tools are given up as a security measure during a long absence, they'll be returned without fanfare.  Relinquishment over community concern is different and should require reconfirmation of trust.
 * 1) What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
 * 2) What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
 * 3) Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
 * 4) Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 5) Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 6) Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
 * 7) 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?
 * Civility in the context of Wikipedia is the ability to calmly discuss ideas and content with other editors even when you disagree. I don't believe there's any more or less civility in general but since the community has dealt with some difficult issues this year in regards to civility probations and editors disrupting discussions with apparently hostile comments, its certainly on everyone's minds more than ever before.  I don't believe that anyone should be "exempt" from following any community norms - we should all take responsibility for our style of communication and be willing to listen to feedback.  I think any enforcement should be limited to addressing disruption rather than attempting to define and regulate "civility".
 * 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?
 * On one side, expecting privacy on Wikipedia is reasonable. Editors should not fear that others on the site will try to stalk them around the web, expose information they don't feel comfortable giving or bother them in real life.  On the other side, its important for editors to understand that there's only so much privacy on the internet.  The community has a larger role in handling these situations than ArbCom since violations of privacy or "outing" is likely to need more immediate relief than ArbCom is able to give.
 * 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.
 * Better monitoring and enforcement on BLPs. I will continue to assist with OTRS tickets and give whatever ideas I can to help find a method of monitoring these articles that would work for everyone.  From the standpoint of ArbCom though, there's not really anything to be done in an official capacity; this is something the community needs to work out (i.e. flagged revisions or other monitoring ideas).
 * Untangling and resolving the root causes of the more intractable disputes on Wikipedia (i.e. nationalist/ethnic or fringe science areas). Many of these areas have been festering for years with no real resolution.  I will try to find creative solutions, such as the one from Macedonia 2, and be liberal about removing editors from a topic area when they're a net negative. Shell   babelfish 03:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Igny
Hi Shell, 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?
 * The heart of any case at arbitration should be how the issue effects the encyclopedia. If ArbCom had decided to omit the mailing list from evidence, and even if it didn't, there should be corresponding on-wiki evidence available for review. Shell   babelfish 21:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied
 * Not yet, but we're getting there. We've got the policy down and a lot more of the community is sensitive to these issues (as compared to last year) but we have yet to agree on the best ways to handle the issues that occur.  We need to continue to educate about the issue and keeping testing some of these suggested ideas until we find the right balance between openness and responsibility.
 * a) I think we're already practicing this to some degree; AfDs sometimes reference a subjects request to have an article removed and editors seem to be considering that as a factor. I think its an excellent trend; as you said, clearly we aren't going to let obviously notable people demand article removal and thus hurt the encyclopedia while at the same time, recognizing that we do affect the real world and need to take that responsibility seriously.
 * b) I like this idea as well, but I'm not sure the community is sold on the idea yet. Its a considerable change in the way deletions are handled so there's understandable concern about whether this will harm our ability to cover encyclopedic content in the long run. I think the community is doing a good job of working their way through this slowly and finding the right balance, but I think it would be appropriate to ramp this up while making sure to keep an eye out to ensure that legitimate articles aren't being deleted this way simply from a lack of participation.
 * c) Given the tools available, this was an excellent solution to one of the persistent problems with have with BLPs. We've become complacent by expecting contributors to spot and rollback vandalism; this simply isn't realistic for low trafficked biographies.
 * d) I like this option as an improvement to standard semi-protection. This avoids completely dis-allowing anonymous editing while still limiting the ability to damage BLPs.  Still, this might create a new kind of back-log for higher traffic articles.
 * e) This is still my favorite solution. Editing continues unhampered, the public version is easy to update (without needing to review multiple revisions) and folks out to damage a BLP don't get instant gratification.
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * a) BLP and solutions for related problems are going to be things the community decides. When we have community norms on the issues, ArbCom can help if there are conduct issues related to violating those norms.
 * b) Its been hit and miss. The Sarah Palin case was appropriate - it encouraged and suggested without prescribing policy.  The Footnoted quotes case may have gone too far - their heart was in the right place, but I think the community has been clear before that it doesn't support giving blanket powers to administrators in this manner; its not surprising that the log there is practically empty.
 * c) Any approach I would take towards making changes to the way biographies are handled would be through community channels as an editor and unrelated to the Committee. Some things I might do would be making arguments in deletion discussions where appropriate (this does not include closing deletion debates for novel reasons not supported by community consensus), educating editors about problematic biographical content in non-biography articles and helping to police them or discussing possible solutions with other editors.
 * 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 disagree. In general the community finds ways to work together and generally self corrects over time if something does go off the rails. Clearly there are going to be times where the community can't come to a decision immediately; some times the solutions happen through evolving practice rather than centralized discussion or "voting". In my personal experiences, web-based communities that use straight voting tend to be subject to gaming and cliques on a larger scale than is seen here; at the very least, in most places on Wikipedia, editors need to make a reasoned argument instead of just tossing a yes or no on to a pile. I don't think there would be much to gain in moving to a different system. Personally I'm not terribly impressed with the use of Secure Poll.  As a solution for detecting duplicate participants, its a great tool, however, we automatically lose the discussion and debate that I believe assists in finding compromise and evaluating viewpoints we may not have considered on our own.
 * 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?
 * In theory, its a good idea especially the proposals that have suggested showing flagged revisions for visitors while still showing changes immediately to logged in editors. The caching system already does something like this, but unfortunately since no one is controlling which revisions get cached, sometimes visitors end up seeing vandalism that's already been reverted.  There seems to be difficulty in general when trying to implement large changes like this via community discussion - I'm not sure if this is a failure of the system or if its just that no one has hit on the right proposal yet. I still think this can be solved through regular community processes; perhaps someone will stumble upon an even better way to handle this problem.  In the meantime I don't think that ArbCom has any role in this process, other than acting as standard community members in this discussion.
 * 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?
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from last year in that it's more extensive)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from last year)
 * a) Absolutely. One of the beauties of this project is the ability for anyone to make a contribution.  Forcing people to disclose their identity just to edit is a can of worms we should never consider opening.
 * b) n/a
 * c) Traditionally, the community has respected the right to vanish only in cases where an editor was leaving the community. Even in those cases, its a bit difficult to put the rabbit back in the hat.  However, it makes sense that if a contributor experiences problems that make them rethink their decision to release their personal information, we should take reasonable measures to assist them.  This would include renaming an account, facilitating an editor who wishes to abandon an account and start again on another, deleting edits that revealed personal information (not including edits that simply had a signature that was a real name) and oversighting edits that revealed identifying information such as location or employer.  In regards to outing, if another editor were to mention an old account name that was also a real name, it should be met with a polite request not to do it again.  If an editor continues after receiving such a request then I would support blocking.
 * d) Yes. It think we have to consider the outcome here - regardless of whether or not you post a person's name or simply a link to their name, you are taking away someone's ability to edit with a pseudonym.
 * e) Yes, I do, but I don't think there's any reason it should be a requirement. The Committee exists to work out problems that the community has given up on; nothing in that mandate would require someone to give up their psuedonymity if they don't want to.  I'm personally open about who I am and short of giving my address on wiki, I'll probably answer any question asked of me.  However, since stalking and frankly, blackmail are problems that Committee members may have to deal with, I would never begrudge them an extra layer of security.
 * f)I think they do. Yes, we see a lot of newer users with unrealistic expectations but we see an equal number of new users who use personally identifying information as their user names or on their user pages. Whether or not a new editor realizes the Foundation's goal and the impact of the username and information they release has a lot to do with how much time they take to look around before creating an account (and general internet savvy of course).  I think its responsibility of the Community to ensure pseudonymity, not the Foundation (privacy is not the same thing as pseudonymity) or ArbCom.
 * That's a really difficult question to answer. Clearly, outing someone who does not want to be outed is way over the line, similar to blatant personal attacks or other serious harassment.  But, no matter what we do, the cat's already out of the bag.  We should quickly delete/oversight the offending remarks and block the editor until they clearly agree they will not make any further reference at all to the incident or the real identity they were trying to expose.  Long term, we might even require that the blocked editor have no further contact with the editor they tried to out, even if that means giving up some of their favorite editing areas.  Outing off wiki however, has traditionally been outside of the purview of the Committee (and the Community for that matter).  Recently however, one editor did receive on-wiki sanctions for some rather callous and rude remarks made on another website perhaps indicating that the Community is starting to accept that someone's actions on another website that are intended to directly affect editors on wiki can still be stalking or outing.
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * a) Yes. I think most large social sites have tried to educate their users on internet safety; I think it would make sense for there to be some notes on privacy/pseudonymity displayed when an editor goes to sign up for an account, especially if we can then link those to longer essays that help explain why being careful is important.
 * b) The WMF already maintains a privacy policy for personally identifying information and has given editors the option of using a pseudonym. It should be clear (and I think it is) that oversight should be used any time personally identifying information is released on Wikipedia. However, just as starting a journal on MySpace that led to you being stalked wouldn't be the responsibility of MySpace, editing Wikipedia doesn't mean that Foundation is realistically going to be able to provide assistance should you get stalked.  This is absolutely not meant to minimize the traumatic impact of stalking or suggest that the fault lies with the victim, but unfortunately, I don't believe the Foundation (or any internet organization) is going to be in a position to help users of their service in that way.
 * c) If someone is concerned that a stalker may follow them to Wikipedia or may use information on Wikipedia to find them, a quiet word to ArbCom or a trusted Administrator can help with the former or in the latter case, oversight can assist.
 * d) In the case where a stalker is stalking a real life person whom we have an article on, the stalker should be shown the door and the article protected if necessary. The same should be done if the person being stalked is an editor.  As a community, we should have no tolerance for this sort of behavior.
 * e) If you're in a dispute with someone, that's not the right time to decide to go through their contributions and acerbate the problem - this has to be an actual dispute though i.e. acting as an uninvolved admin wouldn't count as a "dispute". If you stumble across a problem or see an issue at a noticeboard and check into it, you're clearly in the good.  If an editor complains about having their contributions looked through, it doesn't hurt to get a sanity check from other editors just to be sure.
 * f) Unfortunately yes. Handling it is going to depend on the root cause -  if its two or more editors who've been involved in an extended dispute, separating them might work best; if its an editor consistently "crying wolf" to gain the upper hand in content disputes, we may use mentorship or perhaps ask them not to edit the area causing them distress.
 * 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?
 * Reverting all edits by a banned user is something that should be decided on a case by case basis. For example, if the banned user is simply coming back to test and see if we will revert the edits, then it probably makes sense to simply revert everything rather than play a game. If the banned user is simply interested in contributing and not being disruptive, then its actually causing the project more disruption to track down the edits and revert them - in these cases we should encourage them to use the proper processes to have their editing privileges restored.
 * 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?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * a)Of course not. There's nothing preventing groups who don't edit Wikipedia from coming up with relevant proposals and criticisms.  There are exceptions; consensus building, content decisions and the like need to happen in situ.
 * b)I do have a blog (and communicate through other social media), however, it is not for commenting about Wikipedia. One post did mention Wikipedia as it relates to my primary business.  I don't have a vehicle to discuss Wikipedia because a) my life honestly has much more going on than Wikipedia and b) I've never been one to journal or have a diary - that kind of expression just isn't my thing.
 * c)I honestly don't follow any of those sites and tend to avoid the drama that surrounds their mention on Wikipedia. In a perfect world a criticism site would look critically at processes, procedures, happenings on wiki while maintaining some decorum in regards to the actual people involved.  However, this being the interwebs, I'm fairly certain that's unrealistic.
 * d) Why would participating be inappropriate? Clearly, if they're off bashing other editors or releasing confidential information, that would be inappropriate.
 * e) I think I signed up for Wikipedia Review ages ago under my old account name (Jareth). I don't remember why I did at the time and I don't believe I ever actually used it.  Anonymous accounts there are acceptable; using them to behave in ways that aren't appropriate isn't terribly ethical, especially for someone in a place of trust.  As for outing ArbCom, I would hope anyone volunteering for the committee is aware that they're likely to be targets for that sort of thing.  I'm not sure that discovering someone's username is what we usually call "outing"; its bad form and should be strongly discouraged if its happening here.
 * f) I don't recall seeing any major blowups about participation in outside criticism sites for the last while so perhaps the community is getting a little thicker skin.
 * 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)?
 * Yes. Editors with years of editing, many FAs, elevated tools or lots of wiki buddies sometimes get a bit silly and then there's the difference between the way we treat new contributors versus established editors.  The best thing we can do is continue to treat everyone as fairly as possible and remember we all started out sometime too.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Purple. I find it soothing and powerful.
 * d) In the case where a stalker is stalking a real life person whom we have an article on, the stalker should be shown the door and the article protected if necessary. The same should be done if the person being stalked is an editor.  As a community, we should have no tolerance for this sort of behavior.
 * e) If you're in a dispute with someone, that's not the right time to decide to go through their contributions and acerbate the problem - this has to be an actual dispute though i.e. acting as an uninvolved admin wouldn't count as a "dispute". If you stumble across a problem or see an issue at a noticeboard and check into it, you're clearly in the good.  If an editor complains about having their contributions looked through, it doesn't hurt to get a sanity check from other editors just to be sure.
 * f) Unfortunately yes. Handling it is going to depend on the root cause -  if its two or more editors who've been involved in an extended dispute, separating them might work best; if its an editor consistently "crying wolf" to gain the upper hand in content disputes, we may use mentorship or perhaps ask them not to edit the area causing them distress.
 * 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?
 * Reverting all edits by a banned user is something that should be decided on a case by case basis. For example, if the banned user is simply coming back to test and see if we will revert the edits, then it probably makes sense to simply revert everything rather than play a game. If the banned user is simply interested in contributing and not being disruptive, then its actually causing the project more disruption to track down the edits and revert them - in these cases we should encourage them to use the proper processes to have their editing privileges restored.
 * 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?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * a)Of course not. There's nothing preventing groups who don't edit Wikipedia from coming up with relevant proposals and criticisms.  There are exceptions; consensus building, content decisions and the like need to happen in situ.
 * b)I do have a blog (and communicate through other social media), however, it is not for commenting about Wikipedia. One post did mention Wikipedia as it relates to my primary business.  I don't have a vehicle to discuss Wikipedia because a) my life honestly has much more going on than Wikipedia and b) I've never been one to journal or have a diary - that kind of expression just isn't my thing.
 * c)I honestly don't follow any of those sites and tend to avoid the drama that surrounds their mention on Wikipedia. In a perfect world a criticism site would look critically at processes, procedures, happenings on wiki while maintaining some decorum in regards to the actual people involved.  However, this being the interwebs, I'm fairly certain that's unrealistic.
 * d) Why would participating be inappropriate? Clearly, if they're off bashing other editors or releasing confidential information, that would be inappropriate.
 * e) I think I signed up for Wikipedia Review ages ago under my old account name (Jareth). I don't remember why I did at the time and I don't believe I ever actually used it.  Anonymous accounts there are acceptable; using them to behave in ways that aren't appropriate isn't terribly ethical, especially for someone in a place of trust.  As for outing ArbCom, I would hope anyone volunteering for the committee is aware that they're likely to be targets for that sort of thing.  I'm not sure that discovering someone's username is what we usually call "outing"; its bad form and should be strongly discouraged if its happening here.
 * f) I don't recall seeing any major blowups about participation in outside criticism sites for the last while so perhaps the community is getting a little thicker skin.
 * 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)?
 * Yes. Editors with years of editing, many FAs, elevated tools or lots of wiki buddies sometimes get a bit silly and then there's the difference between the way we treat new contributors versus established editors.  The best thing we can do is continue to treat everyone as fairly as possible and remember we all started out sometime too.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Purple. I find it soothing and powerful.
 * c)I honestly don't follow any of those sites and tend to avoid the drama that surrounds their mention on Wikipedia. In a perfect world a criticism site would look critically at processes, procedures, happenings on wiki while maintaining some decorum in regards to the actual people involved.  However, this being the interwebs, I'm fairly certain that's unrealistic.
 * d) Why would participating be inappropriate? Clearly, if they're off bashing other editors or releasing confidential information, that would be inappropriate.
 * e) I think I signed up for Wikipedia Review ages ago under my old account name (Jareth). I don't remember why I did at the time and I don't believe I ever actually used it.  Anonymous accounts there are acceptable; using them to behave in ways that aren't appropriate isn't terribly ethical, especially for someone in a place of trust.  As for outing ArbCom, I would hope anyone volunteering for the committee is aware that they're likely to be targets for that sort of thing.  I'm not sure that discovering someone's username is what we usually call "outing"; its bad form and should be strongly discouraged if its happening here.
 * f) I don't recall seeing any major blowups about participation in outside criticism sites for the last while so perhaps the community is getting a little thicker skin.
 * 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)?
 * Yes. Editors with years of editing, many FAs, elevated tools or lots of wiki buddies sometimes get a bit silly and then there's the difference between the way we treat new contributors versus established editors.  The best thing we can do is continue to treat everyone as fairly as possible and remember we all started out sometime too.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Purple. I find it soothing and powerful.
 * Yes. Editors with years of editing, many FAs, elevated tools or lots of wiki buddies sometimes get a bit silly and then there's the difference between the way we treat new contributors versus established editors.  The best thing we can do is continue to treat everyone as fairly as possible and remember we all started out sometime too.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Purple. I find it soothing and powerful.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Purple. I find it soothing and powerful.
 * Purple. I find it soothing and powerful.
 * Purple. I find it soothing and powerful.
 * Purple. I find it soothing and powerful.

These are not easy questions. I hope you will choose to answer them, as your thoughtful answers will be appreciated, by more folk than just myself. ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)