This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Unsure about the election process? Please review the election rules. Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions? Please notify an election volunteer.	Be civil No personal attacks Refrain from canvassing and harassment Discuss the election, or ask questions here
v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2010 candidate: HJ Mitchell Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

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.

   A: Ah, a BLP question. These are always interesting and it's a subject that's near-constantly being heatedly debated in some venue or another. I feel that BLP is adequate, but it could go further. Obviously, the overriding principle is "do no harm". In most cases, the author won't know the subject and the subject won't have asked for an article. On a), I think an "opt-out" for marginally notable individuals is a good idea, but should be decided case-by-case in an AfD (certainly not speedy) which would default to delete [straying into b)]. I'm not a huge fan of default to delete, but deletion in cases of no consensus should explicitly be an option, to be used at the discretion of the closing admin. Liberal semi-prot seems a good idea where there is a problem with vandalism. I'm certainly less hesitant to use semi-prot on a BLP than I would be on a non-biographical article, but alternatives, such as d) and e) should be given preference over long-term semi where there's a possibility that they'll work. Pending changes is a good idea in principle. In practice there are issues over whether it's here to stay or not and, more importantly, its speed (or lack thereof, though it has improved). If an updated version of PC were rolled out with most issues resolved, I would be very happy to see it applied to any BLP with a recent history of problems. I'm not a great fan of e) if I'm understanding you correctly (a "blanket" measure not turned on and off as easily as PC protection). Which articles get this kind of protection should be left up to admins' judgement imo. I will add that I think there's an important distinction between articles that attract routine vandalism ("hi!!!!", "I like pie" and other irritating but not defamatory crap) and happen to be BLPs and BLPs which attract the harmful, libellous type of vandalism. I also make much more liberal use of the block button and of RevDel (within the scope of RD2) with BLP issues than I might otherwise and would support broadening RD2.

2. 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.

   A:. I suppose it's a question of both (or neither, depending on your point of view!). It's a question of how policy is enforced on content. I disagree that it mandated policy (the most obvious example that comes to mind is the fiasco from the spring), but maybe it pushed the envelope a little further than normal. Particularly this spring, BLPs were a contentious topic and ArbCom nudged (in my opinion) the community into finding a resolution itself. Maybe they went a little too far, but I think, in these unusual circumstances, it was justified by being in the best interest of the project. I should have read this question before answering the first because I'm going to pretty much repeat myself here (sorry!). If another case similar to that from the spring landed at ArbCom's door (and it's certainly far from inconceivable that it would) and I were on the Committee, I would see it as another opportunity to gently nudge the community in the direction of a resolution. I would encourage, as much as possible, the use of admin tools that I mentioned above in upholding BLP and protecting the LPs and the expansion of the BLP PROD system to include older articles and articles with unreliable sourcing (though the details would have to be worked out by community consensus, of course). Essentially, ArbCom should be aiding and guiding the community, but certainly not dictating to it from Upon High.

3. 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.

   A. I personally have never heard that before, but now I have, I can see there is some sense in it. I don't think than the project has outgrown itself. I think we have a fantastically resourceful group of editors. For something as big as ArbCom elections, though, SecurePoll is the only feasible way. The next best option is the RfA-style !vote and rationale, but this is incredibly difficult to maintain given the sheer number of participants and the lack of an obvious way to filter out the ineligible voters, which, I believe, SecurePoll does. For day-to-day decision making, though, including the appointment of admins, 'crats and even functionaries (I was vocal in calling for an RfA-style election after the results if this year's functionary elections) can and should be done by consensus. The project itself is huge. So big that nobody can hope to even know every active editor, but most editors stick to a particular area (for example, I know most of the admins active around the "traditional" admin areas and all the ITN regulars, but I couldn't hope to know all the video game editors, for example, because I don't often edit in that area). Smaller decisions, like AfDs or ITN postings can easily be determined by consensus, because they don't tend to attract hundreds of participants.

4. 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?

   A. In principle, I love Pending Changes. I think it's brilliant. It's incredibly useful at RfPP, where it can be used on articles where semi prot is justifiable but not essential. I think the big problem with it was that it was rolled out onto very high-profile, long-term semi'd articles with inevitable results and this put a lot of people off it. I hope that it's kept, but I wouldn't support it becoming anything other than a protection option that provides an alternative to semi. I wouldn't like to see it used by default on large groups of articles or the entire mainspace because the numbers are too big for it to work without huge backlogs and many articles have no need for it.

5. 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. Absolutely. In real life, we have jobs (or are currently unemployed) or other responsibilities and are judged on the exams we've taken and a variety of other things. Wikipedia is very similar, except everyone starts with a clean slate. We're judged by the contributions we make and (hopefully) nothing else so we can be whomever we choose to be. I don't believe this principle should be changed as it may discourage editors, particularly those who, understandably, don't want to disclose their real names. Besides, this is the internet, you can't ID every editor and, hey, everyone has a silly name on the internet. If an editor decides to retract personal information based on privacy concerns, then, at oversighter discretion, I see no reason why it shouldn't be oversighted where feasible, but, if I were to change my username to Joe Bloggs, I don't think it would be reasonable to change every link from everywhere I've ever signed. The community and ArbCom should try to honour any reasonable request for privacy. Yes, I would consider that example to be "outing", unless, perhaps, they were blogging under their real name about pseudonymous edits they made to WP, in which case they pretty much outed themselves. Who we choose to be on Wikipedia should not have to be the same as we choose to be elsewhere on the Internet. It's a big place. I edit under my 2 initials and surname. I disclose my name on my userpage and have no strong reservations about doing so and I see no reason for that to change if I were elected to ArbCom. I think arbs should be encouraged, but not required, to give a real name simply because I think it would build the community's trust in the arbitrator and arbs' trust in each other as well as looking more professional than, for example, Whisky drinker. Unfortunately, I think it's up to individuals to protect their pseudonymity. I don't think it's the responsibility of the WMF because they don't run WP on a day-to-day basis. ArbCom should honour request for assistance in protecting a pseudonym, but, obviously, it has no control over what happens elsewhere on the internet. Finally, deliberate outing of somebody who doesn't wish such information to be known is completely unacceptable and I would support a permanent siteban and a block with talk page and email disabled for anybody who did such a thing with the intention of harassing, disparaging or otherwise upsetting the editor being outed. I would also like to see the revisions oversighted.

6. 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.

   A. I don't think the WMF should be doing anything like that because it could deter a lot of potential editors and, while a serious problem, stalking incidents are relatively rare and anybody contemplating starting out on WP is unlikely to be a victim of it until they become more well known within the community. Editors who eventually become well known and become administrators or take on other high-profile roles will usually be well aware of the possibility of stalking, outing and other undesirable actions. I'm not sure there's much the WMF can do, though obviously they should cooperate fully with any requests from law enforcement. They may be able to turn over CU data I accordance with the CU and privacy policies—protecting "the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public". If somebody has been the victim of real life stalking, then I would say it would be up to them not to disclose identifying information. As above, the community and ArbCom should honour reasonable requests to hide information already disclosed. Anybody who is here solely to cause disruption or to harass other editors should be indefinitely blocked. In the case of manipulating an article, WP:VAN and WP:BLP come into play and the result would be the same: an indefinite block. On e), lines are very difficult to draw in such cases, but unwelcome attention with the intention of upsetting that editor is obviously unacceptable, while scrutiny aimed at picking up copyright violations or detecting similar editing patterns for SPI purposes (examples) would obviously be legitimate. Finally, to f), I honestly don't know. Editors who have privacy concerns should take steps to protect their private information and report any genuine concerns about other editors to ArbCom and concerns of harassment on-wiki to ANI.

7. 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?

   A. For editors who do nothing (or almost nothing) but make a nuisance of themselves, this is the most efficient way of dealing with it. Certainly this should be applied to anyone at LTA and other vandals. In other cases where the edits aren't entirely disruptive, selective reversion of any disruptive edits would be preferable. If an editor wanted to restore some of the edits, they should do so, but with a specific edit summary. Blanket reversion of blanket reversion (except where the former was mistaken or unconstructive) is disruptive and risks restoring the bad edits the reversion were intended to get rid of.

8. 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?

   A. Decisions about Wikipedia (with the exception of ArbCom decisions where there are privacy concerns) should be made on Wikipedia in the interests of transparency. However, there's nothing wrong with commentary of WP elsewhere on the web or with bouncing idea off of other editors privately. I do not have any such blog. If I have pertinent commentary about WP, I'll make it on my userpgae or elsewhere on WP, but I don't have a problem with people choosing to blog about Wikipedia. Plenty do and ArbCom, the community or anybody else shouldn't seek to control what editors do elsewhere on the Internet. I don't have an opinion on WR itself. I'm aware that many banned editors use it as a forum to disparage WP editors, but I'm also aware that many respected Wikipedians, including arbitrators I believe, also participate there. I think anybody should be able to say what they like about Wikipedia, wherever they choose to make their comments and others can make their own minds up. I think whether editors (including admins and arbs) participate on external websites dedicated to the criticism of WP is entirely up to them, though if they make disparaging comments about other editors there, that may come back to bite them on WP. I do not have an account on, nor have I ever participated in any external criticism website. I certainly don't think that "outing" one's accounts on other websites should be sanctioned, but I wouldn't call it "outing" in the Q5 sense, either. Using another pseudonym elsewhere on the internet to criticise or disparage editors with whom you've worked on-wiki is cowardly. Any arbs who participate on such sites should disclose it and I would say it would be inevitable that somebody would eventually make the connection. I think external criticism sites have become more high-profile over the last few years and participation there has become less of a taboo, but, inevitably, as they've become more popular, they've attracted more people with axes to grind.

9. 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. Yes, to some extent, but it's not as bad as many people say it is. There is a problem when perfectly legitimate blocks of established editors are unilaterally reversed, meaning the block can't then be reimposed because it would become a wheel war. ArbCom has the ability to admonish and even desysop admins behaving in such a manner and should be more willing to act to prevent undermining legitimate admin actions, even those against well-liked editors. Of course, blocks for retribution or other improper reasons certainly should not stand up and should be reversed when it becomes clear that they're improper.

10. 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. Yes, but it's mainly restricted to some of the more disputed areas, like the Israel-Palestine conflict. Editors teaming up to repeat actions and sidestep things like 3RR is even more disruptive than violating the 3RR the "old-fashioned way". I've found, as an admin, that 1RR restrictions and short page/topic bans can be a useful way of dealing with this kind of behaviour and, if elected, I would encourage fellow arbs to allow admins to impose more of these in hotly disputed areas.

11. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)

    A. Teal.

Submitted 00:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c

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.In my own opinion, vandalism. Vandalism is what gives Wikipedia its reputation for unreliability and, in my experience, the levels of vandalism are ever-increasing, both the drive-by replacing contents with "fuck you" or something equally mature and the long term abuse type. I think we need to be much less lenient with vandals. Four warnings gives them far too many chances to stop. I would also like to see more abuse filters, which have considerable success in preventing vandalism. I also thing article creations should be limited to autoconfirmed editors and (I'm aware this is a minority viewpoint in contrast to the founding principles and therefore unlikely to happen) I would like to see account registration made mandatory.

2. 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.WP's greatest strength is in the consensus-based decision making processes. It's greatest weakness is that dispute resolution for all but the simplest disputes is a long and arduous process and, often, by the time a dispute reaches Arbcom, the only thing that can be done impose restrictions, which only makes editors even less happy editing in those areas. We excel in the writing articles on modern and current events, which is a major advantage that we have over paper encyclopaedia, but our articles on the history of non-Anglophone countries are largely poor—a reflection of our editors' interests. The disadvantage of being a volunteer project is that we can't dedicate editors to certain subject areas like we could if they were paid employees.

3. 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.I think we have enough. I'm not sure it's possible to have too many. There are always articles in need of improvement and notable subjects in need of articles. That said, I think there is a need for more active administrators or some other group of editors to deal with the various backlogs. While admin tasks all get done, they are being done by a relatively small number of editors who spend large amounts of time, often longer than they would like, fulfilling those functions.

4. 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 reasonable job, but starting out on Wikipedia is a daunting experience for a newbie. We should do everything we can to help newbies get a foothold and certainly not eat them for breakfast when they cock up, as they inevitably will. Editors burn out all the time. It's just a fact of life. I don't think we should read too much into it, but certainly we should encourage editors who seem to be suffering from early stages of burnout to take a wikibreak.

5. 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.Yes. Content creation is important, but improving what we have is not as high-a-priority as I think it should be. The trouble is that it's much easier to start a new article from scratch or to improve a tiny stub than it is to get the mediocre articles up to B-class or GA standards. Obviously, many of the poorer articles will have other problems, like notability, so a drive to go through all unreferenced articles, starting with BLPs, and either reference them or mark them for deletion where notability is questionable could be a good idea and, who knows, there could be some future FA material in there.

6. Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?

   A.No. Although this is a founding principle and I'm aware that mine is a minority viewpoint and so this is unlikely to ever become a reality, I do believe that unregistered editing should be disabled because it's simply too easy to abuse. There are, of course, many constructive IP editors, but they are given a bad name by the vandals, trolls, genre warriors and long-term abusers.

7. If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?

   A.I'll get back to you on that. this requires more contemplation.

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?

   I support both. We should do everything we can to help and support editors who are having difficulty, but not everybody who wants to edit in good faith is suited to a collaborative editing environment. This is often seen in very young editors who have difficulty understanding the effect their edits have and in editors who have very little grasp of English, which leads to severe communication problems that are often mistaken for malice. The best thing to do is gently encourage them to edit the Wikipedia in their mother tongue or come back in a couple of years or whatever might solve the problem, but without making them feel unwelcome here. Sadly, though, good faith isn't enough and if people are causing disruption, even without meaning to, because they simply cannot help it or don;t realise they're doing it, then, if they won't respond to gentle encouragement, the only measure left is to resort to restrictions, up to and including blocks.

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?

   Absolutely not, no. Such things should be decided by consensus. If they can't come to a suitable agreement amongst themselves, then they should get a third opinion or try other DR measures. If the guideline itself is unclear, then an RfC may be in order.

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

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)

Administrators

Q1. In your opinion, are unblocks more harmful than blocks? Why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Not in and of themselves. What matters is the manner of the blocking and,, more importantly, the manner of the unblocking. I myself am not at all territorial over my admin actions and have a big red note at the top of my talk page saying so in the hope that other admins will use their best judgement of what's right for the project. I'm probably on the more liberal end of the spectrum (I think most admins are at least slightly more territorial than I am), but I think being highly territorial over one's admin actions is detrimental to the project. I think admins should be trusted to use their initiative to negotiate an unblock with the blocked editor and not necessarily in consultation with the blocking admin. However, unblocking an editor almost immediately after they've been blocked (I'm not going to give examples because I want to keep this hypothetical rather than a criticism of a particular admin or admins) without any proper explanation or negotiation of unblock terms is equivalent, imo, to putting two finger up at the blocking admin and is conduct unbecoming an administrator.

To put it in context, User:Decltype blocked User:Heymid for repeatedly pestering an editor the latter knew from another wiki. He appealed the block and, after negotiation, I unblocked him on the condition that he avoid the other editor. I didn't consult with Decltype because I think nay reasonable admin would agree that the block had served its purpose. If I had unblocked Heymid a few minutes after Decltype blocked him without any discussion or log summary, then Decltype would have been perfectly within his rights to take me to ArbCom and demand they strip me of my bit.

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) 14:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Well, if such a case landed at my door, my exact decision would obviously depend on the circumstances. However, given the facts in the question, I think there are two ways to proceed. The first would be to desysop the admin in question and the second would be a stern admonishment that, if this hyper-territoriality over admin actions continued, they were at a high risk of being desysopped. If my fellow arbitrators agreed that it would be proper to take action without further notice (ie without a second case), then I would be inclined to go with the admonishment and, if there were further complaints of hyper-territoriality, desysop them. As I said above, I believe being highly territorial over one's admin actions is detrimental to the project.

Q3. {placeholder}

A. Placeholder answer. Further questions welcome if clarification is needed on anything.