Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Georgewilliamherbert/Questions

Questions from Sven Manguard
I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard  Talk
 * 1) What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
 * A. I think we're past any seriously immediate threats. The community turning on itself and becoming hostile could become a worse problem, and we may not have enough "new blood" coming on board (and may not be structurally welcoming enough to newcomers).  I don't know that either of those is proven to be a serious threat; they're things I pay attention to.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
 * A. Breadth of participation and opinion in the community is the greatest strength. Greatest weakness is the same thing.  Processes related to routine vandalism we have down pat; processes related to complex real-world disputes we do terribly at right now.  Content is ... hard to generalize.  Islands of superior content are all over.  Generalized background needs a lot of work and time across the board.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
 * A. A lot of content work I'd like to see done isn't getting done, so "not enough" or badly focused. Not too many.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
 * A. I think we do a mediocre job; Some of this is the usual 18-month Internet hobby cycle which researchers have long observed. Some is the project changing in ways not all people agree with.  Some is interpersonal communications styles and issues with electronic vs vocal or in person interaction.  Burnout is a real problem. I have (repeatedly) brought up on AN and wikien-l incidents where someone burned out and flamed out, burning bridges with the project and leaving very upset.  The problem concerns me.  I don't have any good answers, other than that harrassment and abusive situations which weren't handled well play a factor in some, but not an overwhelming majority of the cases.  In the others it seems to be a general fed-up-ed-ness that builds to a breaking point before anyone noticed and intervened to talk to someone and try and relieve stress.  I encourage people to pay attention to each other, care, encourage (and take) breaks and walk away from situations which are particularly bothering you to see if others can handle it ok.  I encourage people to actually talk to each other, not just on article topics or admin stuff, but personally, both on-wiki and email.  I think that all will help.  I don't think we're doing well enough, and I don't know that I'm personally doing as much as I would like (I look back after incidents and wonder what could have been done differently leading up to it, usually with regret).  The specifics here aren't necessarily an Arbcom issue, though they may play into some cases.  Generally, it is a community leadership issue, and I hope to keep encouraging many different leaders in the community to take it more seriously over time.
 * 1) Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
 * A. Both. We have huge tracts of content issues that are well developed now (thank you to all the active editors and Wikiprojects who are driving towards functional completeness in your areas!) and huge tracts that are very poorly covered (a lot of engineering and science disciplines, construction, technology, etc).  Materials science and engineering materials is one area I know needs work and I keep trying to putter away at.  Even with a huge remaining demand for currently nonexistent articles, it's important to encourage people to keep developing existing articles.  We're a work in progress, and always will be.
 * I'd almost like to see a taxonomy related project to try and map out all the things we should have articles on, but that would be a small part of the totality of editing and contributions.
 * Important note on volunteer projects: Things get done on volunteer projects because they're interesting to one of the volunteers. If someone wants to go create new materials articles, go for it.  If you want to rewrite awkward syntax in byzantine politics articles, go for it.  We need all types.
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A. Yes, this has been a core value for the encyclopedia. We make exceptions, where articles are particularly sensitive and targeted by anonymous abuse, but we need to have a good reason why in those cases.  Flagged revisions are controversial as they somewhat infringe that open anonymous contribution; I think the community can find the right balancing point there.  I value anonymous editor contributions, though there's a lot of random vandalism there's also a lot of very good encyclopedia content that comes in that way.  Some articles I created and some I work on a lot have benefited significantly from anons, and I hope that continues.
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A. More consistent praise throughout the community for people being nice to each other, responsible, and constructive. Positive feedback never hurts.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

 * Note to readers:
 * This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.


 * Notes 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.
 * It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
 * For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
 * Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.


 * The questions


 * 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" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
 * I think these generally are community policy, not arbcom issues. However, with that said;
 * Correct in all respects? Clearly not.  We have problems left and right, on all fronts.  I think it's a decent attempt at balanced, but I am under no impression that the balance is optimal.  What needs changing?  I am and remain open to community discussions and consensus; not sure, myself.
 * Regarding the specific suggestions;
 * "Opt out" - I've seen that used as a factor in deletion requests; as a tiebreaker it seems credible. I'd like to see a wider community consensus on that, it was controversial (whitewashing claims, etc).
 * "Default to delete" - Too easy to whitewash things that way, I am afraid.
 * "Liberal semi protection" - I don't know that I'm that liberal by default, but protecting a BLP article is clearly good grounds for semiprotection, as long as is required for adequate protection.
 * "Flagged protection / revisions" - Seemed like a good idea, seems like a good idea, not everyone agrees, and I'd like to see all the serious concerns addressed and discussed before the situation changes again.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2010 (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?
 * 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.
 * Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * I think there's a grey area in which individual article content and policy overlap significantly; we've established policy that the community must protect BLP subjects in certain ways. Ideally the two could be clearer, but I think we've established by default that enforcing the policy requires some degree of judgement into content issues here.
 * Regarding Arbcom mandating policy; I think we have the same problem as in say the US Government, where executive orders and judicial decision precedents to some degree "make law" that one might imagine Congress should be the sole proper source of. It's not right or wrong; real world situations and theoretical arbitrary divisions aren't entirely compatible.  I believe that the community should have some ability to challenge, review, and potentially overturn Arbcom policy-like pronouncements.  I think the community has and has had such ability; nobody has used it so far, so this is a somewhat speculative assertion.
 * Regarding the "was it right or not" - Nothing done about BLPs so far is obviously wrong. It all should be subject to ongoing review.  If we determine that some of it wasn't working, had perverse outcomes, was a mistake, can be done better, it should be changed.
 * Regarding section c, I have no agenda regarding BLP handling. I have some concerns that we're not quite right, but no strong opinions on directions to push, solutions, etc.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2010 (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? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * Asking insiders whether it works seems somewhat short-sighted. A subset of Wikipedia's community and contributors work.  Many subsets, certainly; there are plenty of individuals, teams of people, projects and so forth out doing great work.  There are also problems of integration and scale evident.
 * I've seen larger communities; Usenet had far more active contributors for a long time, for example. I am not sure how analagous the situations are, though.
 * I don't see any clear signs of serious breakdown requiring revolutionary or fundamental change in how it's governed. I don't believe that an agenda to drive such changes is warranted, but remain open to constructive criticism and feedback.
 * I think Arbcom as an organization would at best be a place to raise a red flag on areas we find that structurally don't work; the community would need to drive structural change if that's required. Arbcom members as active contributors might have a role, but it shouldn't be the outcome of an arbcom case.
 * Could we move to a different model? If we have a good reason to, and goals that are articulated that a new model matched better, sure.  I don't see a good reason now.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately 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?
 * 2) 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 2008 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 2008)
 * Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * A:
 * Regarding a), I have a differing personal opinion and a working consensus opinion. I use my real name and always have, and I feel that Wikipedia would be better off and more credible if more people did.  However, I understand that the community here values privacy and has a community core value allowing pseudonymity and privacy about personal information etc.  Those values are very important to most participants, and I support enforcing them and protecting people from outing.  Their expectations of privacy working here are important to them, it's part of our social construct.
 * Regarding b), I don't support changing it in policy. I believe it's become a core community value and assumption in how the site works.
 * Regarding c), we seem to have a precedent that we'll delete / oversight / revdel stuff that people decide to retract if they self-identified and change their minds later (or, particularly, accidents). Given internet archiving and Google I don't know how effective that practically is, and in the back of my mind is a worry that us deleting stuff is giving people false hope that it actually vanished.  With that said, I currently act in support of the precedent and will continue to do so.
 * Regarding d), I think that as a rule such links to identifying information elsewhere tend to be publicly posted here as part of an effort to discourage the identified person from posting or contributing. We don't control what's on the rest of the internet, but we can control harassing or abusive behavior on-wiki.
 * In fair disclosure, last year I did something along these lines to Jayen466, not intending to discourage his editing but I think having some of that effect, and he complained about that. I don't think that was my finest moment, though I was acting in good faith.  I think we cleared the air and I recall apologizing, and he's been an increasingly active and constructive admin page participant since then.  The incident made me more aware of the tarball aspect of this issue overall.  Not a particularly deep insight, but lesson learned to tread more carefully.
 * 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?
 * Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * Re a) - I don't know if the Foundation necessarily should; I think that it might make sense that as a project we do so.
 * Re b) - We want to discourage it, for two reasons. Structurally, real life harrassment is a way to use external pressure to affect the content here and affect the community membership, to great negative effect.  Individually, it can be devastating to victims.  What can we do?  It's a hard question - the problem is In Real Life, and the community, Arbcom, and even to some degree WMF are online constructs.  The WMF is "real life" but somewhat restricted by its privacy rules and legal role; it can be supportive; I'm not sure how much more active a role it could take on.
 * Re c) and d) - This is a case where pseudonymity makes sense, and an awareness of the previous issues. Shutting down online activity related to stalking is entirely appropriate.  Beyond that, this is a ridiculously complex problem and generalizations are really hard.
 * Re e) - Responsible people - admins and editors and arbcom alike - can review contributions and express concern without personalizing the issue in a way that actually harasses someone across the line into stalking. As long as the review and responses are content based and not personal everyone should be in good shape.  There are border cases, where a reviewee feels harassed by review behavior that wasn't across the line, but they're legitimately feeling abused, or when someone who previously was in a personal conflict with another editor starts doing ongoing reviews that by themselves aren't personalized but within the historical context are seen that way.  Have to look at the totality of the situation.  In some cases, asking a reviewer to stop and have someone else review is necessary.  In some cases, if the reviewee can't handle a properly conducted review, they may not be suitable for ongoing participation in Wikipedia.
 * Re f) - I've seen it claimed to try and get away from reviews which from an uninvolved rational viewpoint were necessary. In some cases it was prior personal conflict, in some cases it was someone uncomfortable with the idea of being reviewed, in some cases it was cold calculating tactic used to try and deflect an investigation.  The first two are easy to deal with; the latter case are some of the serious long term abuse issues that we handle in a structurally bad way now, without easy or obvious solution.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterized 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?
 * Even someone who is a particularly bad abuser can do good work at times. The problem is - can we tolerate having them and the totality of their behavior around for longer times.
 * Rehabilitation works and has happened with a number of long term trouble editors, including some long banned ones.
 * With that said, "merely to test this principle" and "rehabilitated" are two very different things. An editor who openly engages in a rehabilitation attempt, including admission of prior misbehavior, contributing positively at other wikis, discussing their behavior constructively on their talk page on-wiki, disclosing an interest in returning to Arbcom / senior editors or admins / etc, is easy to see and allow some slack.  There are a number of editors who have asserted that they should be allowed back with socks or IP edits without a conscious rehabilitation, on the grounds that they're not abusing at the moment.  They have not accepted responsibility for their prior problems, are not working under an identified rehabilitation program, etc.
 * An unrehabilitated banned user should not be editing. Even if an individual edit or series of edits is good by itself.  The totality of their contribution will in all likelyhood go bad again soon, if not cut off.  If they were able and willing to truly rehabilitate and not abuse again in the future they could do so in an open rehabilitation attempt.
 * There may be a corner case here where someone isn't willing to undertake a real rehabilitation, but does in fact come back and edit in a limited constructive fashion without real rehabilitation. I don't see that very often.  We may just not be noticing them, though.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (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?
 * 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. 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 (in each case)?
 * 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?
 * Re a) - Some occurs off Wikipedia and always has; email lists, IRC, the various critic sites, blogs, etc. I agree with the opinion that administrative decisions should be discussed, made, and announced on-wiki, regardless of off-wiki discussion.
 * Re b) - No blog or outside site at this time. I do contribute to several foundation and project email lists, the archives of which are all public (wikien-l, foundation-l, etc).
 * Re c) - Wikipedia Review fails my test of an ideal constructive criticism site, and I don't chose to participate there personally. There's not a lot of self-discipline associated with the site.  In my opinion the most valuable critics are those who are constructively engaged; WR seems to often trend to both the destructive and disengaged.  That said, it's there, and people use it, and I go read it when incidents pop up that seem to warrant it.  I wouldn't want it pulled off the net.  I wish there were a better more constructive centralized engaged constructive critics site.
 * Re c) and d) - I think it's appropriate in all cases, if the site is not grossly destructive or abusive and the individual's participation shows good character and judgement. I had concerns about WR in early days but don't anymore.
 * Re e) - I have no such accounts. We have policies about outing, but outside sites are beyond our control.  If someone wants to post that my IP addresses sometimes go to read WR that's ok by me, personally, though I hope they don't do that for others who want to remain pseudonymous.
 * I think it's responsible behavior not to actively participate in such discussions under a false name or identity. I don't want to set en.wp policy to assert or enforce that, though.
 * Re f) - I don't see any significant changes in the last year in my opinions or the underlying factual situation. This is not an area I focus a lot of attention on, though.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: We certainly have the appearance of a problem. Many, in fact, including old crusty admins who think they know better.  (looking in mirror) In cases where someone still actively listens to and cares about community inputs, having strong opinions or doing things that end up criticized is ok.  Where the community is factonalized and part supports the behavior and part doesn't, there's no easy answer.  I have my own biases in many of these cases, but there's a difference between a personal belief and Arbcom's job.  In cases where someone's walked outside any substantiative community support, and keeps going, we've seen increasing willingness of the community and Arbcom to act to minimize ongoing disruption. I think that the middle category is a wider problem than Arbcom, and not amenable to solution by fiat (or case precedent) in many cases.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: We have factionalism, both in content / article space and in administrative space. We have problems in both areas.  Factionalism is part of the problem in both areas, but not the only one. I think that people linking up and lining up to support each other is part of any social construct.  When the goals of the group are constructive that's not a bad thing.  When the group focuses on a destructive or exclusionary aspect that can be a bad thing.  We get both organized and disorganized collective destructive behavior - As someone who helped promote the solidification of community ban and edit restriction process a lot over the last year, keeping an eye out for destructive behavior and trying to head it off if it happens is an active concern of mine.  We don't see many things that turn into active hatefest / lynch mob incidents, but we do have piling on events.  Balancing community input and action with avoiding overreaction is a tough line. In general, I think that awareness of factionalism is the best we can hope for, and discussion about it when negative things happen because of it.  I don't know that structural or policy solutions are appropriate.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * A: Red! No, Blue!  No, Plaid! I'm so confused. (actual answer: green; just because, since I was a kid, probably related to hanging out in the woods for fun but I haven't really psychoanalyzed the origin of the preference.)
 * Re a) - Some occurs off Wikipedia and always has; email lists, IRC, the various critic sites, blogs, etc. I agree with the opinion that administrative decisions should be discussed, made, and announced on-wiki, regardless of off-wiki discussion.
 * Re b) - No blog or outside site at this time. I do contribute to several foundation and project email lists, the archives of which are all public (wikien-l, foundation-l, etc).
 * Re c) - Wikipedia Review fails my test of an ideal constructive criticism site, and I don't chose to participate there personally. There's not a lot of self-discipline associated with the site.  In my opinion the most valuable critics are those who are constructively engaged; WR seems to often trend to both the destructive and disengaged.  That said, it's there, and people use it, and I go read it when incidents pop up that seem to warrant it.  I wouldn't want it pulled off the net.  I wish there were a better more constructive centralized engaged constructive critics site.
 * Re c) and d) - I think it's appropriate in all cases, if the site is not grossly destructive or abusive and the individual's participation shows good character and judgement. I had concerns about WR in early days but don't anymore.
 * Re e) - I have no such accounts. We have policies about outing, but outside sites are beyond our control.  If someone wants to post that my IP addresses sometimes go to read WR that's ok by me, personally, though I hope they don't do that for others who want to remain pseudonymous.
 * I think it's responsible behavior not to actively participate in such discussions under a false name or identity. I don't want to set en.wp policy to assert or enforce that, though.
 * Re f) - I don't see any significant changes in the last year in my opinions or the underlying factual situation. This is not an area I focus a lot of attention on, though.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: We certainly have the appearance of a problem. Many, in fact, including old crusty admins who think they know better.  (looking in mirror) In cases where someone still actively listens to and cares about community inputs, having strong opinions or doing things that end up criticized is ok.  Where the community is factonalized and part supports the behavior and part doesn't, there's no easy answer.  I have my own biases in many of these cases, but there's a difference between a personal belief and Arbcom's job.  In cases where someone's walked outside any substantiative community support, and keeps going, we've seen increasing willingness of the community and Arbcom to act to minimize ongoing disruption. I think that the middle category is a wider problem than Arbcom, and not amenable to solution by fiat (or case precedent) in many cases.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: We have factionalism, both in content / article space and in administrative space. We have problems in both areas.  Factionalism is part of the problem in both areas, but not the only one. I think that people linking up and lining up to support each other is part of any social construct.  When the goals of the group are constructive that's not a bad thing.  When the group focuses on a destructive or exclusionary aspect that can be a bad thing.  We get both organized and disorganized collective destructive behavior - As someone who helped promote the solidification of community ban and edit restriction process a lot over the last year, keeping an eye out for destructive behavior and trying to head it off if it happens is an active concern of mine.  We don't see many things that turn into active hatefest / lynch mob incidents, but we do have piling on events.  Balancing community input and action with avoiding overreaction is a tough line. In general, I think that awareness of factionalism is the best we can hope for, and discussion about it when negative things happen because of it.  I don't know that structural or policy solutions are appropriate.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * A: Red! No, Blue!  No, Plaid! I'm so confused. (actual answer: green; just because, since I was a kid, probably related to hanging out in the woods for fun but I haven't really psychoanalyzed the origin of the preference.)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * A: Red! No, Blue!  No, Plaid! I'm so confused. (actual answer: green; just because, since I was a kid, probably related to hanging out in the woods for fun but I haven't really psychoanalyzed the origin of the preference.)
 * A: Red! No, Blue!  No, Plaid! I'm so confused. (actual answer: green; just because, since I was a kid, probably related to hanging out in the woods for fun but I haven't really psychoanalyzed the origin of the preference.)

Submitted 01:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from Georgewilliamherbert
If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Q1. In your opinion, are unblocks more harmful than blocks? Why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators
 * This is a form of non-answer. Bear with me.
 * As it stands right now we have a problem with the definition of wheel-warring, where there is what's technically called a second-mover advantage: If editor E is blocked for some reason by admin A, then admin B can unblock without triggering the WP:WHEEL policy.  However, admin C can't re-block without triggering the Wheel-warring policy.
 * Community consensus is supposed to allow admins, after due reflection, to act again. However, in practice, we are all loathe to do so.
 * This is generic to any administrative action, not just blocks/unblocks, but there isn't much ongoing dispute activity over non-block related admin actions as a rule so it mostly factors into block discussions.
 * Where admins use due caution and respect, AGF about each other, discuss things with each other, and discuss things on noticeboards, there's no real issue either way. If those break down, second-mover advantage can be a real problem.
 * Taking the step back - and focusing on the specific question asked - Any block is presumably and by policy done because of some harm that is being done to the encyclopedia and/or community by the blocked user. That block in return then harms the community, by denying the community and encyclopedia the contributions of that user.  Determining if a block is necessary or appropriate, beneficial or harmful, and whether an unblock is appropriate, is a matter of reviewing the situation and balancing those factors.  Both a decision to block any experienced user, and a decision to unblock, should be done with due regard for deliberate process and discussion.  No one person's opinion on the benefits and losses associated with either position ultimately will triumph, if the actions are challenged.

Q 2-3 relate to the following scenario: ''A request for arbitration is submitted concerning an administrator who: (1) is territorial over their admin actions - refusing to permit their peers to modify their actions in any way, (2) has a history of threatening their peers with arbitration requests, and (3) appears to generally view their role on the project as a combination of cop, prosecutor, and jury (in favour of convictions via blocks) rather than the actual role that many Wikipedians expect of admins. The admin in question spends a lot of time in AE, praising and defending AC, as well as statements that you have made as an arbitrator. This request is filed at a time where AC is still the only body capable of desysopping an admin. Assume that a request for comment on user conduct has resulted in mixed responses, but the admin in question has refused to heed any requests to change his approach.''

Q2. How would you deal with or respond to this situation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't specified what the particular cause of action was, what the admin did that was violating policy or abusing users. Generic behavior is hard to rule on specifically.
 * Generically, though, I certainly hope that admins listen to their peers and to editors, and any admin who fails to heed significant criticism in an Admin Conduct RFC is not behaving optimally. Admins have extra bits and the power to do things with them because they're enforcing community policy and protecting the encyclopedia.  They got the bits because they were trusted by the community.  Some of that enforcement is unpopular by its nature, but there's a clear difference between unpopular and abusive or defiant.  And once trusted by the community does not mean forever trusted by the community.
 * I would certainly hope that the community, admins, and arbcom members could talk someone out of that sort of corner without having to pull out an arbcom case and desysop someone. But desysopping happens.  Admins are human too.  Good admins sometimes make horrible mistakes, and admins can turn their back on the community.  Attempts to reason with people have failed miserably at times in the past.

Q3. {placeholder}

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754
Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!


 * 1) What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE  b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
 * 2) Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTTHERAPY -
 * I wish neither was necessary. I think they're applications of Clay Shirky's third principle from the "A group is its own worst enemy" essay ( http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html ).  I've been using the Internet for 23 years; I used BBSes before that.  I used Usenet for almost 20 years actively.  I know why we have them.  Clay articulated the rules that other groups had to find the hard way.
 * Regarding smaller groups imposing consensus - we have policies and guidelines, that have met wider standards. Smaller groups can set consensus in narrower scopes.  We have an occasional problem with a smaller group not going through policy / guideline approvals and trying to treat something like they did.
 * We have another problem, that the totality of policy activity on Wikipedia exceeds any reasonable human's ability to follow and comprehend.
 * Consensus evolves. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus evolves. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Malleus Fatuorum
Can you explain why it is that you so aggressively police wikipedia's civility policy, almost to the exclusion of all others? Do you see that as the most important of the five pillars? Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that I focus on civility to the exclusion of others; it's a very small part of the blocks I issue, warnings, discussions on talk pages overall. Counting the last admin actions in my log... 5 of the last 50.  Most of what I do is dealing with abusive sockpuppetry, long term abuse issue, or "simple vandalism".  Most of what I do on noticeboards is other topics as well, though I can't conveniently total that up.
 * I do agree that I take the policy seriously. I do that because I see incivility as a threat to the balance inherent in "an encyclopedia we all edit together".  The "together" part is important - not an absence of rude words, but a functional and cooperative environment that doesn't harass participants, drive them away from discussions, respects all their participation and values.
 * Do I have the right balancing point of all this? I don't know.  You (and many others) disagree with me on the balance point.  Staying aware of disagreement on the balance is important.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Gilisa
You are very active on the Israeli-Arab conflict venue as an admin. The Israeli Arab conflict was acknowledged publicly by Wikipedia's world management as one of their most problematic in terms of meeting Wikipedia standards (do I really need to provide source for that?). It's a venue where many editors edit out of storm of emotions, where there are endless and countless edit wars. I stopped editing in this venue, like many others because of that reason exactly-because of the feeling that there is no one to discuss with there. There was not even single day without one-two editors, many times more, being subject to a new AN/I or ArbCom. Only few administrators were involved there when I was editing there and you was one.

My question is how do you evaluate your activity as an admin on the Israeli-Arab venue, do you think you improved the situation there? If you do, please demonstrate how because I have my own worries about your future activity in this venue. --Gilisa (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that I'm "very active" in the topic area; it was one area I helped out with actively earlier in the year, but I don't edit in related content and it's been a very small part of my total administrator activity.
 * I don't know that I improved the situation. I believed I helped manage problems in it during the period of time I was actively responding.  The situation has been and may again be an active problem on Wikipedia, without easy solution.
 * I have mentioned this elsewhere, but to repeat myself, I believe that we need to keep independent and uninvolved editors, admins, and arbcom members independent and uninvolved. Few problems at this level are really "solved" - some are managed to be less active problems without severe ongoing conflict.  We need people willing to engage and help with the problems, but who will stay far enough away to be able to continue doing so fairly and without bias.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from Offliner
Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply.
 * I am American; I live in California, the San Francisco Bay Area to be more precise.
 * My impression of Arbcom has been that over the years it's had a roughly english-speaking-internet-active-user balanced participation set. It's mostly been American, but some English.  I don't know if we've had Australian or Canadian.  We have some names which appear to be of French origin but I don't know if that's historical, or French-born, or French-Canadian, or what.
 * FayssalF identifies himself as Moroccan origin, I know.
 * This hasn't been presented as much of an issue or problem in wider community discussions; it's something people are aware of. I know there are some potential gotchas out there but I'm not aware of issues that are active.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)