Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/N419BH/Questions

Note: If you have additional questions that do not fit within the rules of the main questions page, please feel free to ask them here. I would appreciate a note on my talk page as I have a large watchlist. Thank you.  N419 BH  20:03, 23 November 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:
 * There is always room for improvement. Current policy gets the job done, so to speak, but I'm sure there is something we could do better. What is it? I don't know. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. An amazing idea can come from anywhere and anyone, if one simply listens and keeps an open mind.
 * 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.
 * If we are going to have a BLP policy, it should apply to all living persons. To enact a policy based on notability opens the proverbial can of worms. "Notability" is a subjective judgement, and creating an opt-out process is simply going to start a whole new debate on who is notable enough to opt out and who is too notable to opt out.
 * 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.
 * This might be a good idea, though there will be a large number of complaints. I believe there are better solutions out there. Specifically, the community could enact certain rules for BLP deletion discussions. For example, if a BLP fails notability criteria or lacks third party sources (one of the primary means of establishing notability), it is deleted. The important thing here is to base notability on an objective set of criterion rather than a subjective judgement.
 * 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)
 * Absolutely. Protection is probably one of the most under-used tools here at Wikipedia. Again, basing protection on an objective criterion, say, two vandalistic or unsourced negative contributions to a BLP within 12 hours is grounds for 24 hour semi-protection will help prevent needless debate over specific uses. Heck, we could even write a BLP watcher bot and have it automatically protect pages that meet community-enacted objective criterion.
 * 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?
 * Provided the technical issues with Pending Changes can be resolved, I believe implementing PC1 protection on all BLPs would be a net positive for the community. The implementation should begin gradually and manually so as to ensure the reviewing crowd can keep up. Assuming this happens, a bot might be employed to protect the rest of the BLPs. Extensive community discussion will be required, and I believe this should occur separately and after the discussion on Pending Changes protection in general is concluded.
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
 * The difficulty with such a concept is that you now have two current versions of the same page. You have the latest version, and the default version. Edit wars will break out over which version should be the flagged version. It could work, but there will be a large amount of debate and a dedicated noticeboard would certainly be needed.
 * 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?
 * This is a question of policy, as we are dealing with how to handle a large category of articles.
 * 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 have not been on Wikipedia long enough to know of the specific actions in question. Please provide a link and I will be happy to fully answer the question.
 * Here are three cases or actions where BLPs played a factor, there are many more:
 * Badlydrawnjeff (the proposed decision may elucidate more)
 * The motion regarding BLP deletions
 * Climate Change (again, the proposed decision may elucidate more)
 * As a note, you probably will want to familiarise yourself with previous cases. While they are not binding precedent they are very helpful reading to give you a good feel for how things are done. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I plan to review previous cases as needed to make decisions on future cases. As for the cases mentioned, I find a couple instances where the committee is right on the line (particularly the "detrimental editing" finding on Climate Change). As an arbitrator myself, my goal will be to ensure restrictions prevent disruptive editing, but do not prevent good faith and policy-compliant additions of controversial information to articles.
 * This is an example of an answer that could stand more elaboration. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first case, I can see how "Do no harm", "Summary Deletion of BLPs", and "BLP applies only to living people" can be seen as mandating policy. On the second case "Proclaiming an amnesty" might be seen as mandating policy. The counter-argument is that WP:ATTACK prevents creating attack pages, do no harm relies on WP:ATTACK to not mandate policy itself. Summary deletion in turn can be seen as an interpretation of WP:BLP, as BLPs must be sourced. BLP applies only to living people would most certainly mandate policy if ArbCom had said it applied to recently dead people. As the policy is named "Biographies of Living Persons" this might be seen more as an affirmation of an existing policy rather than mandating a new one. Nevertheless, borrowing from one of the dissenting arbs, this is a slippery slope. ArbCom's role might be seen as somewhat of a supreme court; while traditional arbitrators take two dissenting sides and decide who is right, the arbitration committee takes the policies, interprets them in their rulings, and determines appropriate sanctions. Flat out traditional arbitration would take two differing article versions, decide which was right, and mandate content. Obviously we don't want that. So while this is mostly an interpretation of existing policy, it is possible that, just like the supreme courts of several nations, the interpretation of policies might actually change the implementation of such policies. Care must be taken by all arbitrators to prevent this. Arbcom's role is really quite narrow, they can't mandate content, they can't mandate policy. They must nevertheless resolve disputes in the middle ground between.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * I believe the consensus-based model still works. I do not believe flat-out voting is the right answer for the encyclopedia. Strength of argument is a powerful tool, and the arguments presented often contain ideas that can be applied to other debates or even be the basis of a new policy or guideline.
 * 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?
 * I somewhat answered this earlier. The speed issues should be resolved, and then yes, PC1 should be implemented. I do not believe PC2 provides any net gain to the community, and that editprotected requests are the way to go when someone wants to edit a fully-protected page.
 * 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?
 * Yes, I believe anonymity provides a major gain to the encyclopedia. A number of contributors here would probably not be here if you had to disclose your real name to edit.
 * 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?
 * If you have divulged your personal information on Wikipedia, you are in effect outing yourself. There is only so much that can be done to stop the spread of such information once it is public. I believe oversight is appropriate if someone wishes to become anonymous again, although the best approach toward regaining anonymity is to make a Clean Start with a new user account (informing arbcom in confidence if needed for certain userrights).
 * 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 believe a distinction must be made between what occurs on-wiki and what occurs off of it. We as a community can control what is on this website. We as individuals can control what information we disclose elsewhere. In the end, the internet and everything on it is basically public information, even secure websites. If someone wants to keep their real name a secret on Wikipedia, we as a community need to respect that, even if this is disclosed elsewhere on the internet. If someone is concerned the connection between their anonymous Wikipedia life and their real life has been exposed, their strongest means for regaining anonymity is to have a clean start.
 * 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)
 * I have disclosed parts of my real-life identity to a few select individuals who I trust off-wiki. Do enough sleuthing off-wiki and you could probably figure out my real name. I do not plan on disclosing my real-life identity to the community at large if elected but if it happens (as it probably will at some point if I am elected), I will be okay with it.
 * 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?
 * In the end, users control what information about themselves they post on the internet. Anonymity cannot and should not be guaranteed. All WMF can do is provide a framework for contribution. Once someone's real-life identity has been exposed, their only real means of erasing that is to make a Clean Start.
 * 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.
 * The appropriate sanction is an indefinite block. If it occurs off wiki there really isn't much we can do here to remove that information as we do not control what happens elsewhere on the internet. Again, Clean Start if you feel you need it.
 * 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?
 * No. Other massive online communities don't and neither should we. Cyberbullying and cyber-abuse are known internet-wide problems. Adults should be familiar with these topics. Children should be educated by their parents regarding them.
 * 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.
 * There is not much Wikipedia can do. This is a situation between a victim and the police. Wikipedia might be able to provide evidence, but this is about all they can provide.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * There is not much Wikipedia can do. I would hope users who have experienced real-life stalking will be able to take the necessary precautions on their own.
 * 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.
 * Stalkers should be immediately and permanently blocked, the inevitable socks blocked and tagged, and stalking material revdel'd and possibly oversighted.
 * 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?
 * Stalking is blatant behavior meant to disrupt an editor's enjoyment of the encyclopedia. Reviewing contributions is a means of ensuring compliance with relevant policy. The line occurs when a single editor begins following another around the entire website at random. However, there are different levels, and discretion along with good judgement must be applied in cases like this.
 * 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.
 * Possibly. The proper response is to encourage the two editors to disengage. If there is a legitimate ongoing violation of policy it will be noticed by another editor soon enough.
 * 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?
 * I believe an edit should be judged on the merits of said edit. However, I am okay with tools being applied to revert a user's entire list of contributions if this is deemed necessary. Any good edits will be re-added by the users on that particular page.
 * 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?
 * All is a very overreaching term. There is a place for IRC, e-mail, and outside posts. The difficulty with off-wiki conversation is it prohibits or substantially blockades contributions to the discussion from other editors. As a community we should not limit a user's right to exercise free speech, wherever they may wish to exercise that right. If in exercising that right a policy of ours is violated, it needs to then be dealt with.
 * 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 do not have any accounts of this nature.
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * External criticism of Wikipedia is users and ex-users venting. If someone wants to improve the site, the means of doing that is to make a proposal on the site for community review, involvement, criticism, restructuring, and possible adoption. If someone does not wish to go through that process and simply complain about the status quo, that is their decision.
 * 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)?
 * If someone wants to criticize Wikipedia, let them. Admins are just editors with extra tools. Arbitrators are technically the same thing, although the visibility of arbitrators means that additional discretion is essential, as their actions will be under the intense scrutiny of others.
 * 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 do not have an account at any outside criticism site, anonymous or otherwise. I do not believe the outing of the existence of such an account would be a violation of current policy.
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * As I have only been active for one year, I cannot make a judgment regarding this.
 * 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 have seen some users exhibit this behavior. I believe the actions I witnessed (blocking, to be exact) got the point across. I believe all edits should be evaluated on the basis of the edit, not the experience of the contributor.
 * 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)?
 * I believe again the merits of the edits are the primary concern. Confirmed evidence of editing in violation of policy should be utilized where necessary to prevent damage to the encyclopedia.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * Just in case my signature didn't give it away, Black and Gold! As for the reason, a little sleuthing would fairly easily reveal the answer, though I haven't publicly disclosed it on Wikipedia. If someone finds it, feel free to post it. I won't consider it outing.
 * Well my alma mater's colors are Black and Gold too... ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * I do not have an account at any outside criticism site, anonymous or otherwise. I do not believe the outing of the existence of such an account would be a violation of current policy.
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * As I have only been active for one year, I cannot make a judgment regarding this.
 * 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 have seen some users exhibit this behavior. I believe the actions I witnessed (blocking, to be exact) got the point across. I believe all edits should be evaluated on the basis of the edit, not the experience of the contributor.
 * 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)?
 * I believe again the merits of the edits are the primary concern. Confirmed evidence of editing in violation of policy should be utilized where necessary to prevent damage to the encyclopedia.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * Just in case my signature didn't give it away, Black and Gold! As for the reason, a little sleuthing would fairly easily reveal the answer, though I haven't publicly disclosed it on Wikipedia. If someone finds it, feel free to post it. I won't consider it outing.
 * Well my alma mater's colors are Black and Gold too... ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * Just in case my signature didn't give it away, Black and Gold! As for the reason, a little sleuthing would fairly easily reveal the answer, though I haven't publicly disclosed it on Wikipedia. If someone finds it, feel free to post it. I won't consider it outing.
 * Well my alma mater's colors are Black and Gold too... ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Submitted 22:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c

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. Success. Success creates exposure. Exposure attracts individuals and groups who want to either cause disruption because it's funny or take a slice of pie for themselves. Success is also the greatest thing keeping the project going, as it draws in new editors and donors. Fortunately, our current processes are doing a decent job at managing success and keeping the project running smoothly. Provided this continues I believe Wikipedia will continue to be around for many years to come.
 * 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. This project does an excellent job of creating content. Massive quantities of content. Some would say too much content. Our content creation process works well. Our handling of incidents however is our weakness, as a large amount of drama often ensues. This is part of the nature of humanity, and there really isn't a clearcut answer or solution. Disputes are a normal part of life, and we simply need to accept this, enforce civility, figure out a solution, and move on. As for content categories, BLP gets all the attention. As such BLPs are generally well-attended to. It is my feeling that video games receive too much attention. We need more attention paid to the general "bread and butter" articles of a traditional encyclopedia if we are to be taken seriously.
 * 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. The more the better. A project such as a wiki will adapt to the contributor numbers it has. I do however believe additional administrators are needed. There are frequent and substantial backups at many admin processes. This is a topic of much debate. Any solution must not sacrifice quality of administrators for quantity.
 * 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 actually think we do too good of a job. A few long-term contributors are seen by some people as being above the rules, particularly civility. I believe burnouts happen when someone finally crosses the line, gets blocked, realizes they are just another editor, and quits in disgust. Holding everyone to the same standard will eliminate this problem, though it will take time and we will lose some contributors in the process.
 * 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. I believe there is too much emphasis on article creation. Improving stubs and even general articles is just as important. At this stage of the game, a huge number of articles have been written. It is time to focus on making the articles we have the best they can be.
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A. Absolutely. My watchlist is full of positive contributions from IPs. The new ClueBot is going a long way toward sorting out the vandals, and Hugglers are finding most of the rest. There will be vandalism whether we allow IPs or not. Why would we eliminate a huge net gain for the community in order to make it two or three clicks harder for bored high schoolers to write "PENIS" on some random page?
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A. I would create an anti-vandalism userright, capable of blocking IPs and unconfirmed accounts for 24 hours and semi-protecting pages for the same period of time. The userright would be requested in the same manner as rollback, and would be subject to specific rules just like rollback is. This would be a great method for up-and-coming admins to prove their ability to safely and appropriately manage some of the tools, and would eliminate many of the perennial backups on RPP and AIV.

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) *Every one of us had to learn Wikipedia at some point. AGF is extremely important. People can change and mature. If someone is disrupting the project, they need to be blocked to prevent further disruption. If someone thence says they understand the problem with their behavior and will abide by the relevant policies if unblocked, AGF and let them back in. If they prove they were being honest, the project wins. If they don't they're blocked and the project moves on. Where we run into difficulty is with repeat long-term blocked users. After a failed AGF unblocking it should really be policy that you have to go to another wiki-style project, prove your worth there, then come back.
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) *Consensus must be established. If two groups cannot come to an agreement, that is what DR is for. If the dispute does not remain civil, that is what the civility rules are for. If you have to go to arbcom you have to go to arbcom.

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

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from N419BH
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) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators
 * No. In fact, the opposite is eventually true in some cases. Blocks serve to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. I believe in second chances and believe that many blocked editors can become positive contributors to the community as they age and mature. Hence I am a supporter of the standard offer provided it is requested concurrently with a sincere apology regarding previous behavior and a promise to abide by policy. If the individual has indeed become a net gain the community wins. If not, it takes one person a minute or two at most to reblock, revdel any egregious personal attacks, rollback any vandalism, and move on. I do not however believe in recurring standard offers. If someone has been given the standard offer once and doesn't play nice in the sandbox, I am going to need to see positive contributions on another wiki-style project for an extended period of time before I'll support a second unblock request.

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) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL applies to everyone, and administrators must hold themselves to a higher standard due to the extra trust the community has expressed in them. I am not a fan of desysoppings unless absolutely necessary. Administrators must in the end make hard decisions, and they do not need the added stress of having the tools easily revoked. In this case my preferred outcome would be a severe admonishment for egregious disregard for WP:CIVIL (possibly including a block to prevent immediate damage and let the message sink in), and an editing restriction from participating in AE and uninvolved AC related matters. Should the administrator in question fail to heed such a strong warning and editing restriction from ArbCom, a desysopping is thence in order to prevent damage to the encyclopedia.

Q3. {placeholder}