Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Snowspinner

I have a good amount of experience with the arbcom, having, I believe, a record for number of cases involved in. I have a lot of respect for what the job takes, and I feel confident saying that the single biggest thing it takes is wading through evidence pages - often confusingly ordered and worded evidence pages. It involves reading diffs, and a huge amount of dedication to piecing together what's going on.

This is a change from what the arbcom needed last year. Last year, the arbcom was dealing with cases like Lir, Plautus, and Irismeister regularly, and dragging at them. That's not the case this year - the last slam dunk malevolent user the arbcom dealt with was Plautus, which took them a week.

Anyone who knows me knows I'm not one to tolerate disruption, trolling, and malicious intent, and I won't - those who come to Wikipedia to be pains in the ass should be shown the door as soon as possible, and I'd prefer those cases never even hit the arbcom. But when they do, I will act to protect Wikipedia from the abusive. But that's not 10% of what the arbcom is about now.

It doesn't take anyone special to ban Plautus or Lir - I doubt there's a person running in this election who wouldn't have done that. What we need are arbitrators who are willing and able to put in the commitment to the harder cases - to the ones that involve the well-meaning editors with a legitimate disagreement that need to be disentangled, not smashed with a banstick.

Different circumstances require different kinds of arbitrators. And I promise to be one of those different kinds of arbitrators. If elected, I promise to review evidence carefully, and to look at situations with the larger Wikipedia community in mind. Like it or not, arbcom decisions are cited as justifications in policy debates now, and the arbcom needs to be careful about what it says in light of that. A recent near-disaster is the Coolcat case, when the arbcom nearly made a ruling that could easily have been interpreted as shutting down informal mediation. I was one of the ones who pointed out that problem, and if elected, I intend to keep problems like that from happening - without abandoning the need for effective rulings that minimize the need for repeat cases.

The point of the arbcom is to take difficult disputes - dispute that are disrupting Wikipedia, and making it impossible for articles to improve, and make it so that the articles can improve. Nothing more, nothing less. I understand that well, and if elected, you can trust that I won't forget it. And you can trust that I will be diligent and attentive to my duties. I promise that no case will sit more than two weeks without my attention - whether in the form of a vote, or in the form of a specific question to participants to clarify the matter.

Joke question by Snowspinner himself

Mr. Spinner, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Question from Sjakkalle

You write in your candidates statement "Anyone who knows me knows I'm not one to tolerate disruption, trolling, and malicious intent" and "those who come to Wikipedia to be pains in the ass should be shown the door as soon as possible". I have some questions regarding this:

1. What do you feel the community consensus is regarding your decision to delete a number of AFD debates at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2?
   • Considering that there are over 150 signatures split over 17 separate views, I'm not sure it's fair to call the result of that RfC a consensus. I think, if anything, that RfC showed that there are deep divides within the Wikipedia community regarding deletion issues and how to handle them, and no consensus either for or against the deletion of the AFD debates. In the absence of consensus, I haven't done it again - regardless of whether it's the right thing to do, its disruption clearly outweighs any benefits it might bring, and for that reason alone, it shouldn't be done. Snowspinner 15:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. A more philosophical question, so I only expect some thoughts rearding this, but what is a troll and what is not a troll in your opinion?
   • I still largely agree with what I wrote at Wikipedia:What is a troll. Snowspinner 15:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. How long is "as soon as possible"? As a case study, how do you feel the community handled and resolved the fairly long Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton?
   • I'm not sure there's a generalizable rule about "as soon as possible." When Plautus returned, I was pretty confident in removing him around edit #5. In the case of Samurai Clinton, he doesn't seem to me to fall into the category of "those who come to Wikipedia to be pains in the ass" in the first place, and so I'm not sure the "as soon as possible" description applies - I think the community handled the issue fairly well. It looks to me as though Samurai Clinton was a slow learner, but at least a learner, and his behavior, though irritating, seemed to only have a few out and out policy violations - the Insane Clown Posse edit, the Autosexual/Homosexual merger, and of course the use of sockpuppets for voting. I would think banning the socks would be a no-brainer. Past that, the central question I'd ask in looking at his behavior is whether the list of things he's doing wrong is shrinking or not. A similar case - User:John-1107 - I blocked indefinitely because he showed no understanding whatsoever of the social norms of Wikipedia, and seemed infinitely capable of finding new problems to cause. In general, I think for cases like SamuraiClinton where a probable diagnosis of Asperger's presents itself, the best thing that can be done is for the user to get a mentor. Ideally this mentor comes voluntarily from the community. Less ideally, it's forcibly imposed by the arbcom once there's already a lot of bad blood. (Speaking of which, an Association of Mentors would be a GREAT thing for some Wikipedians to get together and form) Snowspinner 15:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: 23, PhD student in English focusing on popular culture and on theater. Snowspinner 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: As many as it takes, and yes. Snowspinner 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.

A: I think this question is misleading in some important ways. Certainly article writing experience is helpful - and I have a fair amount, though most of it is old. I think I would point to Heteronormativity as the best example of my working collaboratively and in a situation of dispute. The article has been under continual dispute since I got to Wikipedia, but I think what's been most notable is the fact that User:AlexR and I, who originally were on opposite sides of the dispute and edit warring kind of bitterly, have pretty much come together in agreement on what needs to be done on the article, and gotten an article that, even if neither of us are happy with it (Because we haven't had time to go do the referencing work the article needs), we're at least happy with what it's trying to be. Above all, what this indicates to me is that what's often needed in disputes is time. I walked away from the article twice, and that helped a lot.

But I think what's most indicative is not my edits to

A: I have edited under one other username, which I decline to state here. It's a sock I maintain so that I can edit articles without what I see as the priviledge of being an administrator, and so publicly declaring it would somewhat defeat its purpose. It's been admitted elsewhere, and is not hard to find if you want - User:Mirv is aware of it, and has commented on its existence publicly, and I am happy to disclose it to specifically interested people via e-mail or on their talk pages. Snowspinner 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that I asked Snowspinner to reveal his sockpuppet but he has not done so. Grace Note 01:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I did. I have now. Sorry. Snowspinner 01:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Ral315

You say that you've probably been involved in a record number of ArbCom cases. For the record, have any specific cases made rulings in any way affecting you? Also, curiously, are there any cases where you believe you've been partially at fault for?

I have never been affected by an arbcom ruling. The only two cases to be successfully raised against me Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Snowspinner vs. Lir and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde ended with the people raising them getting a one year ban. The one case I do feel partially at fault for is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2, which was in part prompted by a misunderstanding of the speedy deletion process on my part. I did not recieve sanction for that, I assume because it was a reasonable misunderstanding, if a misunderstanding, and not something I've done since. Snowspinner 15:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions: [1][2] [3] Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 08:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in some of those discussions, in fact. For the most part, I think the arbitration process works fine when arbitrators make decisions - it's just a matter of speeding that up. Somewhere - maybe in one of those debates - I proposed a specific timeline in which arbitrators who do not explicitly vote to accept (Or refuse) a case within two weeks would be assumed to be recused for it, thus eliminating the effect of people who essentially act as "no" votes on every proposal by never getting around to voting. This, coupled with, maybe, a six-person increase to the committees size (To prevent majorities of 3) would help a lot, and do so in a non-radical way, which I think is an important goal. No need to reinvent the wheel, honestly - the wheel turns. It's just a mite flat. Snowspinner 13:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I have only had one interaction with you before, and it dealt with conflicts between users. It was not a positive experience, and I wanted to ask you your perception of it in hindsight.

Background: back in April, I submitted thousands of untagged and orphaned images to

Regarding that conflict, you left me the following note on my talk page:

There are a handful of users on Wikipedia where, should you find yourself in conflict with them, it is almost certain that you have done something wrong. Anthere is one of them. I say this because, from what I can tell, you have upset Anthere. Also, from what I can tell, this was avoidable. When deleting an image uploaded by a respected and longtime contributor, you don't delete without asking questions first. Had you asked Anthere, she could have explained. But you didn't. And you offended a good contributor with it.

I hope you'll take this as a lesson in the future.

My question is, do you still stand by this statement? In arbitrating, will you be biased by believing that certain users should be assumed to be in the right because of who they are? This is especially relevant now that unverified orphans are being deleted within a week, and similar cases could certainly arise. Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by it in the sense that there are people who, when you find yourself in conflict with them, you should probably stop and reconsider the situation. Anthere is certainly one of them. Would I ever propose an arbcom principle along the lines of "Anthere is a priori right?" Of course not. Would I, if I were doing image deletion, leave an Anthere image until I checked with her? Yes, and I still think that's good practice.

Your question is also a bit misleading, in that I left that message before things had been worked out between you and Anthere. You make it sound like I came late to the party - I did not.

Regardless, yes - for editing practice, it makes sense to give people who have repeatedly proven their respactability the benefit of the doubt. I see this as an extension of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Is it possible that Anthere could be wrong? Of course. But glancing at a situation, I assume Anthere to be the voice of reason, and I'm surprised if I see otherwise. Snowspinner 21:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q from SchmuckyTheCat

What's more important - the letter of any specific policy, the intent of the policy, or the goal of the project? How do you balance these? SchmuckyTheCat 01:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The goal of the project always trumps individual policies, and nothing that conflicts with the goal can be considered a policy. Phil Sandifer 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I teach freshman composition at a public university. My bullshit detector is as sensitive as they come. Phil Sandifer 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You more or less already answered this above, but many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then
  WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It would depend entirely on what the two policies were, how old they each were, who was involved in crafting them, etc. Phil Sandifer 19:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?

--Victim of signature fascism 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Not that spring to mind.
2. If I think the other arbitrators are making a problematic decision, I will contest it without hesitation.
3. No, but requests to re-address cases need to bring some evidence of a reason to readdress them. A good example of this is the recent readressing of the climate change issue, where the fact that one user's parole was being used only as a means of harassment was at issue.
4. I think that if a problem is staring the arbcom in the face, it would be remiss of them not to aid in its correction.

Phil Sandifer 17:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 16:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the creation of a

I support, as a general rule, all elements of the code of conduct. I adamantly oppose codifying it - to do so seems to me nothing more than an invitation for users involved in arbitration to become even worse wikilawyers. Phil Sandifer 20:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This invites a question of my own. I regard what you call "wikilawyering" as simply a natural part of the development of the community and its processes, not something particularly good or bad itself, but something to be handled pragmatically. In fact, there is one sense in which it is arguably good, in that it represents respect for the rules and working within an approved context—sort of a sign of maturity and cohesiveness, of a developed sense of structure. But I've always observed you to vehemently oppose "wikilawyering". Could you outline some of your views in this regard? Do you disagree that it is a natural development? Do you disagree that it should be handled pragmatically, instead favoring a harder, activist "anti-rule" philosophy (not to say that I think you oppose all rules, although for all I know you might, but that you have a general disdain for them as a matter of philosophy and prefer flexible administration by assertive individuals)? Should "wikilawyers" be punished for choosing "wikilawyering" as a manner of argument? Is "wikilawyering" generally an easy or a hard thing to define and identify? Everyking 09:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would define wikilawyering as putting process ahead of product, to the point where no concern for product is actually expressed. This is definitively, to my mind, a bad thing. I do not think this should be punished - mostly, I think it should be ignored entirely, as though the would-be lawyer had never spoken. When they have something of value to contribute, they are considerably more worth listening to. But, for example, when someone's only objection to an arbitration process is that they had two days less time to get their evidence together than they had asked for, and yet they still present no shred of an actual content-based argument, I find it difficult to take them seriously. Phil Sandifer 03:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 21:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support

No. Phil Sandifer 03:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless the underlying idea that wikipedia ia a powerful world influence that has the propensity to become a much more powerful one, i.e. one of the main de facto sources of truth in the world, what does this candidate think are the guiding principles the arbcom should follow as wikipedia progresses and in order to help make it progress? Matt Stan 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

   As much as I have to. Phil Sandifer 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

1. Policy formation and the maintanance of policy pages, and the general cleanup of trolls, vandals, and other idiocies. Phil Sandifer 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

1. I think all of those projects have plenty of other people who could take up the slack. Phil Sandifer 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?

   Can you be more specific? Phil Sandifer 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?

   This seems designed to be a loaded question. In what context? Administrators are, generally speaking, respected members of the community who have proven their good will and cool head. This gives them certain credibility and respect that other users - particularly users with proven track records of problems - may lack. This does affect treatment, but it has nothing to do, inherently, with their admin status. Phil Sandifer 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of
   WP:AGF
   ?

   Certainly not inherently. Phil Sandifer 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?

   If I were genuinely personally involved, I would recuse. Phil Sandifer 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5. Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?

   What do you mean by this? Phil Sandifer 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One or two of the other candidates appear to be people that you really don't get along with. What would your reaction be if both you and one of them are requested to join the ArbCom (by Jimbo or by the community)? Radiant_>|< 02:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reaction would be "Drat, that's going to be annoying," followed by a lot of being professional, assuming good faith, and working towards consensus - just like I would if one of them showed up to edit an article I was working on. Phil Sandifer 02:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. In a recent RFC against another administrator [4] (whom you unblocked during the dispute which instigated the RFC), you wrote an outside view that said: "I propose that the seriousness of the offenses is such that [the user] should not be allowed to have a cookie tonight. If [the user] gives his word that he has refrained from a cookie tonight, I consider the matter settled." [5]

Jimbo Wales said about the same administrator: "I think for an administrator to behave in such a fashion is a terrific disgrace and that he should be desysopped. I'm sure the ArbCom will take care of the matter in due course, of course." [6] [7]

Why is Jimbo's view is so different from yours?

Because Jimbo and I are not a hive mind, and sensible people periodically disagree. Phil Sandifer 03:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. You were also recently involved in a block war with other adminstrators. [8] Can you describe what happend there?

That's an interesting choice of block wars, since I never unblocked myself once. If you mean the block war over karmafist? Simply put, I believed karmafist was acting under a good faith interpretation of the 3RR, and that a block was inappropriate. I made no effort anywhere in that to unblock myself, nor did I ask to be unblocked. I unblocked karmafist once, and when SCZenz subsequently wheel warred over a block about wheel warring, I blocked him because he had, frankly, added to the problem instead of fixing it. I made all of these actions once and only once.

But that may not answer your question - what are you really looking for here? Phil Sandifer 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

Since you are asking explicitly about Kelly, I will say only that reading the RfC as a request for censure is an appalling way to read it, and that Wikipedia is not and never has been run by numbers alone. Phil Sandifer 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Victim of signature fascism 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing actively comes to mind on this topic - if it is truly of interest to you, I advise looking through my history yourself. Phil Sandifer 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all"

2. Are there any parts of

I oppose its existence. This seems rather hard to improve.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

I don't see how extra seats are going to alleviate backlog, as it will just require more votes. I think the solution remains empowering administrators to deal with things themselves more often.

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

I have not, because polls are evil and I avoid them when possible. Phil Sandifer 08:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this edit [9] say about your suitability for this job? --NathanDW 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very little. Phil Sandifer 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You've had your fair share of dealings with ArbCom. Do you feel that's given you a bit of an insight as to what needs changing?

   I can't honestly say I think a lot needs canging. The arbcom is very, very good at what it does, and is consistently the part of the chain that gets it right, with only a handful of exceptions. (To my mind, they've flubbed three cases this term, two of which they reversed themselves on) There are things I would change about Wikipedia, but the arbcom isn't really one of them. Phil Sandifer 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. What do you feel about the effectiveness of our dispute resolution processes as a whole?

   As a whole? Mixed. RfCs remain little more than dress rehearsals for RFArs, and mediation is a rarely-productive timesink. So of our formal dispute resolution process, only 1/3 of it works. That said, our informal dispute resolution process of several thousand users existing still works wonders on article content, even if it's completely broken on matters of policy. Phil Sandifer 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. If
   WP:IAR
   was to be revoked tomorrow, what would you have to say about it?

   I'd probably ignore it. Phil Sandifer 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Rob Church ^Talk 13:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking, right? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - I really have stopped beating my wife. Phil Sandifer 20:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, supposing you get elected, what happens if/when you get involved in another Arbcom case? Do you think that maybe if you've upset some fellow members (by questioning their votes, voting against them, etc.), you might be shot down? Wouldn't it destroy the integrity of the system if the other Arbcoms voted for a temporary ban on you? In addition, you've made your share of enemies, or so it seems. Since these "enemies" would likely be the sort of people to appear in Arbcom cases, wouldn't you have to recuse yourself from an awful lot of cases?

All this to say: don't you think that someone a little less controversial would be a better choice for an arbcom member?

I can count on one hand the number of people that I think I would have to recuse if they were to come to the arbcom. Which is to say, I may have a number of enemies, but I am very few people's enemies. Nor do I see why you are fretting about the possibility of a temporary ban - no ban has ever been proposed as a remedy against me in an arbcom case. The only time I have ever gotten any negative mention in an arbcom case was when all parties were sanctioned regarding civility in the webcomics case. And as far as I know, I have cordial relationships with all current arbitrators. So I fail to see what grave controversy you're seeing here. Phil Sandifer 09:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being an Inuit, your nickname "Snowspinner", a racial slur for my people, is deeply offensive to me. Tapir 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Phil Sandifer 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with

NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [10]

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I largely think the arbcom is somewhat ineffective in creating new policy, and is at its weakest when it is trying to force the Wikipedia community to adhere to something it's running away from. On the other hand, its job is in part to uphold Wikipedia's principles even when a bloc of users disagrees. I think the best bet here is for the arbcom to impose sanctions on those who edit war to attack other users - but I would be leery of a policy declaration. I think I would just be inclined to sanction those who edit war to attack, and to be sympathetic towards those who edit to maintain sense and civility. Phil Sandifer 21:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]