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

Questions from Lar
I will answer these as I get to them. harej  02:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * The addition of this opt-in factor is interesting. I have always thought of opt-out as a way of acquiescing to the interest of subjects to withdraw from Wikipedia when their being there is just not worth the stress it causes them. Wikipedia shouldn't be directly responsible for imparting stress on the subjects of their articles, after all. While I tend to be more inclusive of articles (if there are reliable sources and it's not completely absurd, why not?), I do not consider it to be an appropriate role of Wikipedia to allow vanity biographies. Opt-out is an idea I am more comfortable with for those who are only marginally notable. As for the point where we will reject a request to opt out, I think it needs to be defined with some degree of rigidity, lest the process be entirely capricious and subject to what we feel like doing at the moment. What that point is, I don't know. Less notable than Bush, obviously.
 * 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.
 * If the default is deletion, then BLPs would, rather than go through articles for deletion, go through articles for approval. You may say I am just arguing semantics here, but there is a difference. If you frame the debate in terms of "should we keep this?" as opposed to "should we delete this?", this changes how the article is approached and debated. It changes how you think about the article. I think if we are going to implement a default-to-delete regime we should change the parameters of the debate in this way.
 * 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 occurrence and 1 year for repeats)
 * I would be more inclined to support this were it not for flagged revisions, which I think is a far better approach to this.
 * 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?
 * Pending changes, i.e., the recent trial scenario we had for BLPs, appears to have been a mixed bag. On the one hand, it helped increase contributions from those who would not be able to edit under semi-protection, but on the other hand, it did not encourage people to become longtime editors. As far as this particular trial goes, I do not know how to feel.
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
 * As I stated above, this is a better approach for a number of reasons. I think the issue with BLP is not just that vandalism on there is much worse than vandalism on other articles, but that BLPs also attract a lot of good-faith contributions that we have to reject because they are not in line with our rules. Now, I think the heightened regulation of BLPs is a good thing, but at the same time, it can discourage contribution. Applying semi-protection &mdash; originally intended to be applied only on the kinds of articles that attract large degrees of your run-of-the-mill childish vandalism, rather than entire categories of articles &mdash; can only do more to discourage people from becoming editors. Thus if we are going to decrease the extent to which Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia you can edit," we should at least do it in a way that helps take the edge off. Flagged revisions I feel is a better thing to apply liberally than semi-protection.
 * 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?
 * Question 1 is at that juncture between content and policy. Basically, it is a question of policy that directly affects content, as opposed to policies which are more removed from content, such as policies that affect how editors interact or what I'm allowed to have in my user space.
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * I am particularly reminded of WP:BLPBAN, which in my mind channeled Malcolm X a little. I don't feel it mandated policy so much as it established a priority for enforcement; namely, that we need to enforce BLP by any means necessary. I am concerned about the ArbCom being alarmist with regard to the BLP issue, but would not go as far as to denounce it.
 * 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.
 * My answers in question 1 should reflect my opinions on BLP best practices. I do not know what else I would add to that.
 * 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.
 * There is still a place for consensus-based decision making on Wikipedia. It's not on the gigantic discussion pages, and it's not going to be how we elect our next arbitrators, but on the talk pages of editors that attract a dedicated base of editors. Sometimes they work together and achieve something beautiful, sometimes they fight and end up at ArbCom. I agree that where it is still feasible, we should be sticking to the consensus model. On a larger scale of discussion, "consensus" has become this amorphous concept which means "what the (perceived) majority want," with the majority being so difficult to perceive that we have to codify it through a vote or something similar. This honestly doesn't bother me. Despite the popular rhetoric, voting isn't evil. It's blind, partisan voting without discussing the merits of a position that's evil. While holding a group discussion is obviously preferable, at some point having a bunch of unregulated shouting in a room is going to lead to a breakdown in discourse. The "voting" keeps order so that we can still hold the discussion, but it is arranged in formal subdivisions to impose a structure and keep order. ArbCom elections being private ballot seems reasonable, since, rather than being a debate over how an article should read or something like that, it is literally an election, and the benefits of secret ballot in elections are well known. As long as we have a healthy debate on the merits of each candidate.
 * 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?
 * My focus on Wikipedia for the past couple of years has been fairly narrow, and somehow, I have not had a lot of experience with the pending changes trial. From what I've observed, however, it has had mixed results, and indeed, there is no consensus to continue it. I believe what has caused a lot of conflict in deciding how to implement it, if at all, is that for one, it would be a major change in how Wikipedia functions. As of now, for the most part, you can edit whatever page you want and it works immediately. That's the reason why I and many others fell in love with editing Wikipedia. Secondly, there is the question of minute detail. Even if a majority agree that some sort of buffer is a good idea, what level of buffer do we need? How much of the encyclopedia will still be openly editable? Will autoconfirmed people be able to edit articles whose revisions will be patrolled, or will it be a different kind of access level? Will BLPs automatically be protected or only certain high-profile ones? What about non-BLPs? As long as all of these things have to be decided upon it will be extraordinarily difficult for Wikipedia to decide how to go forward, though I think, especially with the latest trial, that we have made some progress. As for ArbCom's role, I'm just not seeing a role. ArbCom's role, after all, is to solve disputes between editors, not to decide article editing policy or which extensions get turned on. Deciding the fate of flagged revisions or whatever you want to call it is simply not in ArbCom's remit.
 * 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?
 * Absolutely I endorse it. I started editing Wikipedia when I was 12 years old and not fond whatsoever about disclosing my identity. If you had told me that right at first hitting the edit button I had to be upfront with who I was, I would not have signed up. Not a chance. Just imagine all the other people who would have said "no" along with me, and how many would say "no" to this day. I think if a person demonstrates an interest in helping out Wikipedia, we should let them, whoever they may be. We should judge people by their actions, encourage and reward good actions, and discourage and punish bad actions.
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * I do support anonymous and pseudonymous editing, and changing the rules at this point in the game would be an extraordinarily bad idea. "Bad" to the extent that those who edited Wikipedia on an occasional basis &mdash; by far, most of our editing base &mdash; would all stop editing, and Wikipedia would probably never recover even if it did restore anonymous editing. I don't mean to sound alarmist, but very few websites thrive on the Internet where you're required to have your personal identity out in the open.
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * I referred to this idea in another question. Because of the eternal memory of the Internet, once something is put out there, it cannot be withdrawn. Still, one of Wikipedia's big "rules" is don't be a dick, and it's simply respectful not to discuss people's identities if they do not want you to. Does this mean that, because an editor wants to become anonymous again, we should oversight several hundred edits as was done at one point? This would be a tough call and it would depend on just how urgent the need was.
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * I would argue not, since it was their conscious decision to post, on the Internet, their Wikipedia identity in conjunction with their real-life identity. Having others draw the connection, though, would be outing. Anything short of the username and the personal information together on the same, publicly-accessible, Googleable web page would be outing.
 * 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)
 * Just look at my user page, or even my candidacy statement. You can't use my identity as leverage because it's already out in the open. Now, if an arbitrator chooses not to acknowledge publicly his or her identity, I would be fine with that. Being a person with a first and last name does not make someone a good arbitrator, while a person can be of sound judgment whether he or she disclosed his or her identity or not. In fact, it would probably help to be pseudonymous, given the kinds of enemies arbitrators make.
 * 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?
 * Wikipedia says that if you use your real name, you open yourself up to risks. This is both on the registration form and Username policy. It does not really specify further, for instance, that pseudonyms are not automatically safe, either, if people can find a way to make the connections that have regrettably been made. I notice you refer specifically to the WMF, and I do not notice anything in the Foundation privacy policy that states that they can do anything about outside forces affecting the privacy of the contributors. Thus both Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation in a way disclaim liability, but don't go as far as to explicitly declare "even if you're using a pseudonym there's a chance your pseudonymity can be compromised." This has been the regrettable reality. While I think it would be nothing short of awesome if the Foundation could use its legal muscle to work with ArbCom and bring those who extort Wikipedians with their identity to justice, this is probably not going to happen. However, I am thinking that in the event that ArbCom has received substantial evidence of an identity being used to blackmail an editor, that it would be within the ArbCom's remit to forward such evidence onto law enforcement. The Foundation could also provide IP addresses of attempted blackmailers where applicable and permitted by law and the privacy policy. It's a modest solution, but given the circumstances, it may be the most workable.
 * 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.
 * In my eyes, outing an editor shows bad faith, absolutely. You cannot mean well if you disclose people's identities when they don't want you to, and the impact it has on the editing environment is unwarranted and unnecessary. I would have no compunction about banning an editor who clearly outed another editor. This extends to off-wiki outings, if such outings have a demonstrated effect on-wiki. I would also oversight the instances where such outings took place.
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * I notice nowadays that when you create an account, there is a caution notice that reads "Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; editors who use their real names have sometimes been subjected to harassment. Also consider carefully whether to put personal information about yourself on Wikipedia (especially information that may enable someone to identify you)." This should probably be amended to read "the Wikimedia Foundation is not responsible should someone take an unhealthy amount of interest in you," which is the sad truth. Alas, if we highlight every possible thing that could go wrong, we would probably never get any new editors. This would especially be a problem, since I imagine most editors never have to deal with some of the real-world consequences that some editors unfortunately have. The Foundation should thus advise to be prudent &mdash; recognize that Wikipedia is observed by millions upon millions of eyeballs, and if your real name is out there, it may be viewed by millions of millions of eyeballs.
 * 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.
 * The WMF could discourage the voluntary release of personal information, which it already does. It can carry out oversights where necessary, and it can release IP data to the authorities where applicable. Other than that, the Foundation can't really do anything about stalkers. I hate saying this, but I do not believe the Foundation can defend users like they were Foundation employees, as that would run afoul of the Foundation's status as a service provider.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * If an editor has reason to believe that the release of certain information, such as a past account where the editor disclosed his or her real-life identity, would be of unwanted interest to a stalker, the editor should be able to privately disclose that information to the Arbitration Committee. This is a reasonable compromise between full disclosure and full anonymity.
 * 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.
 * I take it by "real life person" you mean someone who is not an editor on Wikipedia, given that you contrast it with "an editor here." In a situation where a person's Wikipedia article is the target of some unsavory character's actions, we have a number of tools at our disposal, including prolonged article protection, blocking IP addresses used by the stalker and reporting them to the authorities, and adding entries to the edit filter where appropriate. Since it is a sensitive matter, and we would presumably know what to expect, we would be looking out for these articles more than we look out for other ones. In situations where the stalkee is a Wikipedia editor, presumably without an article, the same kinds of measure can be taken, but with, for instance, the user and talk pages of the editor.
 * 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?
 * The distinction lies in the conduct of the investigator. If the investigator is civilly engaging with the subject and the community, and is interested in looking into questionable behavior for the sake of fairly enforcing Wikipedia policy, it is okay even if it could be perceived as annoying. It becomes harassment once the investigator is being uncivil, or if the investigator is being capricious in pursuing an editor's edits.
 * 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.
 * Never having been stalked to the extent that certain editors on this website have, I believe I lack the perspective to accuse others of overplaying the stalking card.
 * 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?
 * Reverting all the edits of an editor is something Wikipedia does with those who are not allowed to edit. As for those who still have editing privileges, the practice runs against two ideas: that you're allowed to edit Wikipedia unless you have some sanction against you, and that we deal with bothersome editors through the dispute resolution process. The whole point of dispute resolution is that we are civil people who, when confronted with conflict, can hold discussions about the matter and recruit outside help where necessary. No part of that suggests we can simply revert all the edits of some guy we don't like, since it bypasses all discussion and just says "I've decided that I don't want you here." If the editor is being a problem, we can engage them in the dispute resolution process, and if they are "remarkably unwelcome," then there should be enough support to block them. I would support blanket unreverting, since the reverting was done in bad faith, except where common sense dictates otherwise.
 * 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?
 * It is laughably foolish to think that one can prevent Wikipedia from being discussed off of Wikipedia. Think about it. If I were to talk about Wikipedia with my friends, or, heaven forbid, I send someone an email about it, what power would any administrator have to stop me? The Arbitration Committee does not have any hope to regulate off-wiki behavior, and I think off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia is something we can live with. It's the actions on Wikipedia that count, in any case.
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * I have a blog which I update sporadically. I have not written on anything related to Wikipedia in about two years. I started the blog because I felt like having a medium to express my thoughts and opinions. I like writing.
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * I remember when Wikipedia Review was this big taboo that was to be avoided at all costs, then more established editors (including arbitrators) set up accounts there. Since then, people have warmed up to the idea of posting on that website. I don't think it's the root of all evil, though I think the level of discourse could be a bit higher. If you or anyone has an account there, I won't hold it against you, and I advise others to do the same. In fact, I post there sometimes, though it's telling how inactive I am given that the forum software still calls me a "new user" even though my account there is three years old. My account there is "Messedrocker."
 * Ideally, a criticism website allows for frank discussion about Wikipedia, with the benefits that an external website carry. This would mean, yes, banned users would be allowed to take part in the conversation. (The idea is that the website is operated independently, and someone banned on Wikipedia would not automatically be banned on this criticism website.) However, they should operate in the open and discourage activities (and discussions of such activities) that would undermine the operation of Wikipedia. Civility would also be a must.
 * 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)?
 * I think it is appropriate for all editors to participate in outside criticism websites: arbitrator, administrator, or user without fancy buttons. First of all, nobody is married to Wikipedia; we are all free men and women and we can sign up for message boards if we want. Secondly, it benefits discourse when all viewpoints are discussed; if "pro-Wikipedia" people are chastised for participating on criticism websites, the "pro-Wikipedia" faction would not be able to respond to the arguments of the "anti-Wikipedia" faction, and surely that would be a disservice to the "pro-Wikipedia" people. Of course, it's not as simple as pro- and anti-Wikipedia. Someone who really likes Wikipedia may, however, have certain criticisms nonetheless, and that criticism website could serve as a useful catharsis. And I argue that arbitrators love Wikipedia if they are willing to do the job they do. (I will make a caveat for administrators and arbitrators, however. They are expected to represent the best of the community, so it is necessary to point out that when they participate at independent websites about Wikipedia, they represent Wikipedia whether they like it or not. Thus it is necessary for them to conduct themselves well on those websites, since their words may haunt them back at Wikipedia.)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * I am "Messedrocker" on Wikipedia Review. I think it's deceptive and irresponsible to participate on a Wikipedia criticism site while at the same time dissociating yourself from your Wikipedia identity, especially if you are in a position of authority on Wikipedia. However, if an arbitrator is in that situation, is it outing to publicly disclose the connection between the Wikipedia account and the criticism site account? Usually when I think of "outing" I think of disclosing personal information about someone. Names, addresses, phone numbers, those kinds of things. I don't think "the arbitrator's account on another website" is in that category.
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * I think we've embraced outside criticism as a reality now. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia Review is far less taboo than it used to be, and I think that's healthy. It is a waste of time to think we have a monopoly on the outside talk about Wikipedia. Now that Wikipedia is so popular, it is inevitable that people will say things we do not like about Wikipedia. This is not to justify some of the more irresponsible behavior of criticism sites, but that there is some good in criticism sites as well.
 * 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)?
 * I do not want to embarrass this particular user, but there was an administrator who was stripped of adminship as the result of an ArbCom decision. When said user was up for RFA again, the user was promoted back to adminship with a percentage much lower than what was the convention for users to become administrators. The rationale behind the promotion was that the user served the due amount of time and was experienced as an administrator. This I do not think was an acceptable decision on the part of the promoting bureaucrats, since someone who never served as administrator and never was involved in arbitration would not be afforded that amount of leeway.
 * Wikipedia's problem with vested contributors is that by virtue of having been on the website for a long time, and having done great work, they can get away with far more than those who do not have such a recognized name behind their actions. Being someone who believes in fairness, I do not like this. Though the problem is honestly not that bad, if so many people who are stripped of their adminship fail to get it back from RFA. Heck, even the fact that very long-term contributors such as Ed Poor can go from bureaucrat to a sanctioned editor is a promising sign of meritocracy on Wikipedia. It could be far worse.
 * 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)?
 * Society as a whole has a "problem" with factionalism, it always has had that problem, and it always will. Thus it's logical to assume that Wikipedia editors will from time to time align themselves into factions. From what I have seen, people who usually group together do so out of a well intended common interest in a subject, and not because they are trying to game the system. That's simply the nature of a collaborative encyclopedia such as ours. Though unfortunately, it sometimes breaks down into an "us vs. them" mentality, and sometimes, this is where arbitration gets involved. (Doubly so where the "us vs. them" mentality is rooted in a real-world history of conflict.) Now generally, I do not have a problem with people grouping together. That is what WikiProjects are all about. But the Arbitration Committee should use its power to make sure that these groups do not operate in such a way that they seek to marginalize contributors, to shut them out. This power should especially be exercised when the community fails to do so itself, especially when reasonable contributors are driven out by a hostile editing environment. A collegial editing environment comes out of the Arbitration Committee checking the power of factions that operate in bad faith and counter to the encyclopedia's purposes.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * If my signature does not give it away, my favorite color is purple. It is calm, but at the same time, distinguished, particularly since it does not enjoy the kind of usage that its cousins red and blue do. I treasure its uniqueness.
 * 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)?
 * I think it is appropriate for all editors to participate in outside criticism websites: arbitrator, administrator, or user without fancy buttons. First of all, nobody is married to Wikipedia; we are all free men and women and we can sign up for message boards if we want. Secondly, it benefits discourse when all viewpoints are discussed; if "pro-Wikipedia" people are chastised for participating on criticism websites, the "pro-Wikipedia" faction would not be able to respond to the arguments of the "anti-Wikipedia" faction, and surely that would be a disservice to the "pro-Wikipedia" people. Of course, it's not as simple as pro- and anti-Wikipedia. Someone who really likes Wikipedia may, however, have certain criticisms nonetheless, and that criticism website could serve as a useful catharsis. And I argue that arbitrators love Wikipedia if they are willing to do the job they do. (I will make a caveat for administrators and arbitrators, however. They are expected to represent the best of the community, so it is necessary to point out that when they participate at independent websites about Wikipedia, they represent Wikipedia whether they like it or not. Thus it is necessary for them to conduct themselves well on those websites, since their words may haunt them back at Wikipedia.)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * I am "Messedrocker" on Wikipedia Review. I think it's deceptive and irresponsible to participate on a Wikipedia criticism site while at the same time dissociating yourself from your Wikipedia identity, especially if you are in a position of authority on Wikipedia. However, if an arbitrator is in that situation, is it outing to publicly disclose the connection between the Wikipedia account and the criticism site account? Usually when I think of "outing" I think of disclosing personal information about someone. Names, addresses, phone numbers, those kinds of things. I don't think "the arbitrator's account on another website" is in that category.
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * I think we've embraced outside criticism as a reality now. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia Review is far less taboo than it used to be, and I think that's healthy. It is a waste of time to think we have a monopoly on the outside talk about Wikipedia. Now that Wikipedia is so popular, it is inevitable that people will say things we do not like about Wikipedia. This is not to justify some of the more irresponsible behavior of criticism sites, but that there is some good in criticism sites as well.
 * 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)?
 * I do not want to embarrass this particular user, but there was an administrator who was stripped of adminship as the result of an ArbCom decision. When said user was up for RFA again, the user was promoted back to adminship with a percentage much lower than what was the convention for users to become administrators. The rationale behind the promotion was that the user served the due amount of time and was experienced as an administrator. This I do not think was an acceptable decision on the part of the promoting bureaucrats, since someone who never served as administrator and never was involved in arbitration would not be afforded that amount of leeway.
 * Wikipedia's problem with vested contributors is that by virtue of having been on the website for a long time, and having done great work, they can get away with far more than those who do not have such a recognized name behind their actions. Being someone who believes in fairness, I do not like this. Though the problem is honestly not that bad, if so many people who are stripped of their adminship fail to get it back from RFA. Heck, even the fact that very long-term contributors such as Ed Poor can go from bureaucrat to a sanctioned editor is a promising sign of meritocracy on Wikipedia. It could be far worse.
 * 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)?
 * Society as a whole has a "problem" with factionalism, it always has had that problem, and it always will. Thus it's logical to assume that Wikipedia editors will from time to time align themselves into factions. From what I have seen, people who usually group together do so out of a well intended common interest in a subject, and not because they are trying to game the system. That's simply the nature of a collaborative encyclopedia such as ours. Though unfortunately, it sometimes breaks down into an "us vs. them" mentality, and sometimes, this is where arbitration gets involved. (Doubly so where the "us vs. them" mentality is rooted in a real-world history of conflict.) Now generally, I do not have a problem with people grouping together. That is what WikiProjects are all about. But the Arbitration Committee should use its power to make sure that these groups do not operate in such a way that they seek to marginalize contributors, to shut them out. This power should especially be exercised when the community fails to do so itself, especially when reasonable contributors are driven out by a hostile editing environment. A collegial editing environment comes out of the Arbitration Committee checking the power of factions that operate in bad faith and counter to the encyclopedia's purposes.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * If my signature does not give it away, my favorite color is purple. It is calm, but at the same time, distinguished, particularly since it does not enjoy the kind of usage that its cousins red and blue do. I treasure its uniqueness.
 * 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)?
 * Society as a whole has a "problem" with factionalism, it always has had that problem, and it always will. Thus it's logical to assume that Wikipedia editors will from time to time align themselves into factions. From what I have seen, people who usually group together do so out of a well intended common interest in a subject, and not because they are trying to game the system. That's simply the nature of a collaborative encyclopedia such as ours. Though unfortunately, it sometimes breaks down into an "us vs. them" mentality, and sometimes, this is where arbitration gets involved. (Doubly so where the "us vs. them" mentality is rooted in a real-world history of conflict.) Now generally, I do not have a problem with people grouping together. That is what WikiProjects are all about. But the Arbitration Committee should use its power to make sure that these groups do not operate in such a way that they seek to marginalize contributors, to shut them out. This power should especially be exercised when the community fails to do so itself, especially when reasonable contributors are driven out by a hostile editing environment. A collegial editing environment comes out of the Arbitration Committee checking the power of factions that operate in bad faith and counter to the encyclopedia's purposes.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * If my signature does not give it away, my favorite color is purple. It is calm, but at the same time, distinguished, particularly since it does not enjoy the kind of usage that its cousins red and blue do. I treasure its uniqueness.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * If my signature does not give it away, my favorite color is purple. It is calm, but at the same time, distinguished, particularly since it does not enjoy the kind of usage that its cousins red and blue do. I treasure its uniqueness.

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from Harej
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) 13:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators
 * A: Stated so generally, naturally I am going to disagree. If an administrator realized that a block was in error, rescinding that block would be a good way to make up for the block, especially since blocks can cause feelings of resentment. At the same time, though, they can be necessary. An administrator jumping in and unblocking, without considering the intricate background of why the block was enacted to begin with, not only makes Wikipedia look administratively inconsistent, it also forgoes discussion in favor of reactionary decision making. Sadly, there is a lot of the latter. While blocks can be rash, reacting to a capricious block with a swift unblock is similarly capricious, which does nothing to help the situation. If an administrator feels a block is unwarranted, he or she should step back and bring it up with the blocking administrator. If they and the other all agree that it was unnecessary, or at least not to re-instate the block (conceding ground to the large majority of admins), then the un-block wouldn't be more harmful than the block.

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) 13:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A: With such an administrator, I would assume that it would be a matter of course that he or she would be brought to ArbCom by an aggrieved editor. The RFC would demonstrate both the combative behavior of the administrator and that a prior attempt at dispute resolution was tried. Given those, I would probably vote to accept the case. While I appreciate the work of all administrators who take up arbitration enforcement, it is definitely a stressful job and if the administrator cannot learn to control his or her stress, I would recommend that he or she would be desysopped for a prolonged period of time. This would be for a first-time-at-ArbCom case. If this were the second, I would propose desysopping, with resysopping requiring a new RFA.

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?
 * Competence is a very good thing, but there will always be people to clean up your mistakes (and that's one of the great benefits of a wiki). Likewise, while Wikipedia isn't structured therapy, and mental illness is not an excuse for one's behavior, it can be therapeutic for many people. Of course, the essays are reasonably balanced and so they document my counterarguments. The reality is that it's a lot more nuanced than "competence is required" and "Wikipedia is not therapy," and while the essays note that, people tend to sooner remember the page titles as slogans rather than mind the intricacies of the arguments. This is something that everyone, including myself, need to be careful about.
 * 1) 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?
 * The operative phrase in this question is "significant opposition." I usually don't have an objection to specialized groups of people deciding on how, say, to format cheese infoboxes. The people who care can debate it, they can come up with a consensus, and the rest of us agree via silent consensus. That is fine. But if there is significant opposition, then of course it's not okay for a self-appointed group of people to impose their views. They can hold a discussion, they can make the case for their idea, and debate the merits of it, and compromise where necessary. But pretending there is a consensus where there clearly is not one is unacceptable.

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

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. On the encyclopedia side, it's that we have over 3 million articles and over two edits per second, and that we have no effective way to uniformly police them. I am not sure whether the consequence of this is some major scandal or just a gradual decline of quality over time, ultimately resulting in Wikipedia as a poor resource sometime in the future. On the human resources side, the biggest long-term threat is the size of our community as well as our editor retention rate. The stakes of editing Wikipedia have grown tremendously; any error has the risk of becoming super-visible, and editors have been publicly humiliated before the press. There are people who want to see Wikipedia (or specific Wikipedians) fail, and will stop at no measure to make it happen. Not to mention that it simply has become more complicated as time has gone on, making the learning curve all that steeper. That Wikipedia can at times be extraordinarily stressful does not encourage one-time editors to become long-term editors. Yet in spite of that, our community is huge, and as a result, it can certainly get impersonal at times. The weakness of our interpersonal bonds makes it more difficult to resolve conflict, to find common ground and work on making a greater encyclopedia. This is obviously an unfortunate reality.
 * As far as our enormous encyclopedia is concerned, I am happy to say that we are making some kind of progress in spite of its enormity; tools such as the edit filter and pending changes allow for edits to be more efficiently monitored. As for the size of our population, I am not too sure if there is anything we can do about that. It's an issue that affects all large civilizations. Wikipedia, as of now, is functional and doing great things, but at times I long for the simpler community of early 2005. (I am sure editors who have been around even longer than I have would argue that 2005 was too hectic, and they long for the days of 2003.)
 * 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. We are awesome at deleting things and reverting editors. We are not so good at improving our existing articles. Reflect upon that. Content-wise, we are fantastic at covering computer science-related topics, but not so good with the fine arts. And the mathematics articles can be a bit high-level at times.
 * 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. Wikipedia has a ton of contributors, rivaling that of many publishing companies. I am not sure if they're being channeled that efficiently, however. On the other hand, if you view it from the perspective of people doing what they want, we have a huge workforce for ancillary tasks and a small workforce for encyclopedic tasks.
 * 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. Please refer to my answer for the first question. I see the burnouts as part of a trend of editors working in an increasingly high-stakes, hostile, and impersonal environment. One of ArbCom's missions should be to help make this better, though some of it is regrettably inevitable, what with the size of Wikipedia.
 * 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. In 2006, when Wikipedia only had a million or so articles, Jimmy Wales at Wikimania 2006 said that the time had come for Wikipedia editors to stop focusing on creating new articles and instead focus on improving existing ones. Four years and two million articles later, I see no reason why the opposite should be true today. I am not too sure that there is an ideal ratio between creation and improvement.
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A. Yes, as people who want to contribute but don't want to make a big deal of it should be able to, and it is a good way to attract new editors. People like the idea of low commitment. Besides, we have the tools for when anonymous editing gets out of hand.
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A. I would like to see some serious reform of talk page template messages. First of all, there shouldn't be more than a few levels of them: "hi, please don't do that," "seriously, cut it out," and "okay you've been blocked now." My problem with them is that they resemble government form letters, and editors don't like being treated like cogs in machines. Because of this, I personally use template messages as infrequently as possible. The fact that "don't template the regulars" is a thing we say further suggests that they're for a "lower class" of editors, and that to use it with an "established" editor is considered condescending. I don't like that, and think that if we can't get rid of them entirely, we should at least make them more natural sounding.

Question from NuclearWarfare
What was your opinion of the climate change case? What were your opinions on the decision as a whole? What, if anything, could have been done to improve it? How does the fact that there is significant academic consensus about anthropogenic global warming affect your thinking? NW ( Talk ) 04:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What interested me about Climate change was that the case was of such huge scope, they didn't even bother to compile a list of "involved parties." There was also the "enough is enough" principle, which stated that ArbCom can do what it takes to get the drama down to a minimum. That being said, the result of this case was somewhat pedestrian; it was the standard fare discretionary sanctions and topic bans. Don't get me wrong, I think that ArbCom coming down hard on a topic such as climate change for the sake of a more collegial editing environment, but those two factors made me think that ArbCom was going to do something especially awesome, for lack of a better word. The question that remains, however: has it had a positive impact on the editing environment? While it is not perfect, with protection and semi-protection still used in some cases, I've noticed that a lot of the edit warring has slowed down. This could be because of ArbCom's intervention, though simple exhaustion may also play a role. In any case, on the surface the decision appears to work, though, especially for situations as complex as this, there is always room for more creative decision making.
 * As for the role of significant academic consensus, I am satisfied to see that ArbCom recognized that "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints." More important than editors being able to work together cordially, the articles should be right.

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) 18:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the list of arbitrators, I find that there indeed is not much geographic diversity. This puts ArbCom in the position of having to make decisions about categories of articles having to do with geographic regions not represented by ArbCom. I personally would like to see candidates from such regions of the world stand for election to ArbCom. As for my nationality, I believe Bruce Springsteen put it best. harej  19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)