This utility is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may also ask a question, via one of the following methods:

Ask a general question: post a question on that link. All candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit.
Ask an individual question: pick the statement of the candidate you wish to pose the question to from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements, click the "Questions for the candidate" link, go to #Individual questions, and post the question there. Only this candidate will respond to that question.

Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do make an effort to ensure you aren't overlapping a general question that has already been asked (even if the candidate hasn't yet copied it over to his or her individual question page), or indeed an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates:
Candidates are requested to answer all questions that are put to them, including all general questions, to ensure the Community is as fully informed as it wishes to be before voting commences. You are, of course, welcome to refuse to answer a question if you feel uncomfortable doing so, but do remember that that may well result in a voter choosing to oppose you. If a question is a near-duplication of another, you are—of course—welcome to as an answer to that question simply refer the editor to your response to the similar question.

Individual questions Information

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Question from NuclearWarfare

Do you have any additional information about your removal from OTRS? Has Cary Bass since responded to you?
A See meta:User talk:Bastique. fish& karate 07:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Questions from FT2

These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged.

There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
A To my eye, aspects of Arbcom that have worked well are the sober and considered approach, the neutrality, and the community acceptance of Arbcom's status as the final decision-maker when it comes to user conduct. Arbcom should function in a manner that minimises drama, and in a manner that enables reasonably timely responses. Arbitrators should communicate with the community; they remain a part of it, formed of many of the most experienced users, and it should not be a "big deal" when an arbitrator makes a comment on an issue - I prefer to see arbitrators active and involved in ongoing issues, even if they have not reached formal arbitration; better to work in a preventative manner. Arbitration proceedings are tough and draining on all involved, and the more cases that can be amicably resolved before reaching that stage, the better.

The issues the community presently has with Arbcom cannot simply be blamed on the present Arbitration Committee members. The system is faulty; the Arbitrators are, for the most part, doing their best. The only way to make real change is to look at the system, and reform it. Telling people to "work harder" without fixing the systematic issues merely causes more wasted effort; they are then doing the "wrong thing better" - this is not the same as doing the right thing.
Core changes I feel may help are pretty much inline with recommendations I made on the Arbcom RFC:
Limit the term length of an arbitrator to two years;

Increase the number of arbitrators;

Inform a user if their conduct is under formal consideration, even if this consideration is taking place off-Wiki due to privacy concerns;

A formal consideration of whether ex-arbitrators should continue to have access to Arbcom dialogue; and

Proceedings written in Plain English, with a minimum of legalese.
Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?
A This question is almost impossible to answer appropriately; I would not care to speculate on how much ex-arbitrator involvement in Arbcom discussion exists. I would be interested to know what ratio of emails on the Arbcom-en-l mailing list are from ex-arbitrators. I know from personal experience (upon emailing Arbcom-en-l when requesting information be oversighted) that ex-Arbitrators deal with a lot of such emails. I understand a separate mailing list restricted to sitting Arbitrators exists, and I would like to see controversial or particularly sensitive matters restricted to that list.
Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.
a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?

b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?
A I'll answer both together, as they're approaching the same thing from different directions. I believe that it is almost always possible to explain things, and certainly more so than you suggest - a careful and considered explanation can almost always be detailed regarding the thought process whilst still avoiding revealing privacy-related information. There will be times where information cannot be revealed, and rightly so, but even then, within the extent of what is possible, I would always try to explain my actions, and actively encourage other Arbitrators to do the same.
Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?
A My circumstances are stable, and are unlikely to change in the forseeable future; I don't have school or exams to contend with, as all that is (thankfully!) a few year's behind me now. I've been able to maintain my activity for a protracted period of time, and don't expect this to change much. There will always be a need for short breaks to be taken, as most arbitrators do at present - whether away from Arbitration to focus on article-writing, or away from Wikipedia entirely - but in the long-term, I don't believe I am the sort of person who burns out; in four years on Wikipedia, including three as an active administrator who has dealt with a great deal of disputes and conflicts, I've never once had any kind of inclination to do so.
Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
A Arbcom shouldn't push the community at all, nor should it tell the community what it "needs" . If a communal norm (e.g., a policy, or a guideline) causes issues, then the Arbcom can make a suggestion that the community may like to review the content and/or wording of that policy, but Arbcom does not make policy; it enforces it, and acts as the final arbiter on policy when all other avenues of dispute resolution have been attempted. As with any other member of the community, any editor may suggest policy change; each individual arbitrator remains a Wikipedia editor and can work in that role to enact policy change, but they must, as everyone other editor does, work from within the community consensus system, not outside or above it.
If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
A I don't have a particular hot topic, or special agenda. I'd like to be more open with the community about decision processes where circumstances permit, and would encourage other arbitrators to so the same, and I'd like to see consideration given to reducing the term-length and increasing the number of arbitrators.
How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?
A I alread keep my admin "hat" separate from my editor one. I have never been one to use my administrative tools in any capacity linked to my editing. I enjoy writing articles, have recently discovered the joys of submitting articles to DYK (I've got eleven now!) and will continue to make the time to do so. I would consider having a third hat to wear - that of an Arbitrator - to slightly reduce the time I have to spend as an active admin and as an article writer, but I will not allow my time as an article writer, particularly, to be severely curtailed. I don't believe being on Arbcom would affect my editing activities in any way. Will it affect my administrative activies? Probably, to some extent. I couldn't say what until I was in place on the committee, but from observation of fellow admins who have gone on to be Arbcom members, it necessitates sensible time management, such as focussing on contentious cases. I would like to remain involved, as I said above, in working on preventing cases reaching Arbcom where possible. I think Arbitrators should involve themselves in this where possible, and where proprietry permits. fish& karate 12:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Questions by MBisanz

How long have you been an editor of Wikipedia?
A Hello! I've been an editor with an account since March 2005, so over three and a half years. My First Edit: [1]
How many total edits do you have on Wikipedia? What is your % of edits to the article space?
A Just over 27,000. According to Wikichecker, my percentage of edits to the article space is 38%.
Are you an administrator? If so, how long have you been one?
A I am, yes. Here's my RFA. I've been an administrator since April 2006, so over two and a half years, now.
Do you hold any other userrights or positions at the English Wikipedia? (crat, medcom, WPPJ, etc)
A No.
Do you hold any userrights or other positions of trust at other WMF projects? Which ones?
A No.
Have you ever been named as a participant of a Request for Arbitration? If so, please link case(s).
A I have never been named as a participant, no.
Have you ever been blocked or subject to restrictions such as WP:RESTRICT, WP:BLPLOG, WP:AER, or WP:SANCTION? If so, please link to the relevant issue.
A I have been blocked once, for deleting some of my own images. The block was undone after 41 minutes by the same admin who made it, and who subsequently described it as " overly harsh and unnecessary".
Have you ever been blocked or formally sanctioned at another WMF project? If so, please describe.
A No.
What is your best work at Wikipedia? (an article, list, image or content template)
A Edward Low; an article I created, and took to featured status. Not only am I proud, it's also a darn good read if I say so myself. Shoe polish is another one. I'm also pleased with the number of new articles I have taken through Did you know? recently.
If elected, would you request the Checkuser and/or Oversight userrights?
A Oversight yes, Checkuser no. I do not have the technical knowledge of IP addresses needed to use Checkuser in an appropriate and capable manner, nor do I have the interest in learning to do so. Oversight is a necessary tool for Arbcom members, I believe - even if one never oversights something personally, the ability to view oversighted information may be required to fully understand a contentious case.
Please list any disclosed or undisclosed alternate or prior accounts you have had.
A User:Proto is my clearly disclosed gnome account. I have no other accounts. Before my present username, my main account was also known as User:Neil, and before that, User:Proto.
What methods of off-wiki communication do you use to discuss Wikipedia related matters? (IRC, Skype, WR, Mailing Lists, blogs, etc) Please link to any publicly available forums you use.
A I have an account on Wikipedia Review, a discussion forum (as do many sitting and former arbitrators, administrators, bureaucrats, etc). An alternate perspective is often useful, and I've improved a number of articles (including this, this, this, and this) due to discussions on WR bringing them to my attention. I do not use IRC, nor do I plan to use IRC. I would prefer to keep all my Arbitration discussions on-Wiki where possible, and if privacy prevents this, on the mailing list. I read WikiEN-l, and WikimediaUK-l but do not subscribe.
Do you have OTRS access? If so, which queues?
A No.
How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/MONGO and RFAR/Jim62sch as to off-site activities by users?
A Let's explain the apparent discrepancy first. The two cases are fifteen months apart. Not only had thinking relating to external activity greatly matured in that time (for the better), but the composition of the Arbitration Committee itself changed. The second principle you give (Jim62sch) is not really, though, at odds with the MONGO principle; it's a more targetted, smarter version of the initial principle. It still acknowledges that the use of external sites to carry out particularly offensive or disruptive acts may incur sanctions, whilst rightly removing the inappropriately Kafkaesque "Any user who is suspected of association with sites that are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their activities to be closely monitored". That was ludicrous at the time, and it is even more so now. The ArbCom are not the Thought Police; I am gladdened that normal service was restored by the more considered Jim62sch principle. Participation in external discussion sites is not a sin in itself; even those that are also participated in by editors opposed to many of the goals of Wikipedia.
What is your opinion on the new closed motions process?
A It's not really a process, as such. It's a repository for the occasions when Arbcom has, correctly, not seen a need for the full requirements of an Arbitration case, due to things being straightforward, and the findings are broadly uncontentious. I believe this is sensible.
Besides compromised accounts, under what circumstances would you support or initiate an emergency request for desysopping?
A There aren't many. If an administrator went clearly loopy, and started deleting and blocking left right and centre, then a temporary emergency desysop might be called for until they could explain themselves.
Currently, only Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee are authorized to perform/request involuntarily desysop an administrator whose account has not been compromised. What is your view of community-based desysopping decisions?
A Do I want to see Wikipedia:Requests for desysopping turn blue? No, I do not. I believe that, for better or for worse, adminship has come to be viewed as something of a prestige, and many people are heavily invested in that concept, either in attaining adminship, or in retaining it. I don't, personally, consider it to be that important, and would contribute to Wikipedia just as happily without my admin bit; I recognise many feel differently. The enforced removal of the sysop flag from an account is, therefore, deemed to be a Big Deal. It's contentious, whether we like it or not. Because it's a contentious issue, it is better for such potentially fractious decisions to be made formally, thoughtfully, and soberly; this is the sort of decision the Arbitration Committee does well.
If you owned Wikipedia as the WMF currently does, what would you do to fix the BLP problem?
A Firstly, apply the rules that are already there more stringently. If there's something contentious in a biography, and it's not referenced, it should be removed. If someone restores it without providing appropriate and reliable sourcing, they should be warned once - we can assume good faith, while ensuring they are now aware of our collective responsibility for biographical articles to be rigorously sourced - and blocked subsequently. In addition, biographical articles going through AFD should require a higher threshold than a typical article - a "no consensus" should default to delete, rather than keep.
In 2004, the Arbitration Committee referred issues to the Mediation Committee. However, as of recent, the Arbitration Committee has not referred issues to the Mediation Committee. Would you refer more content-based disputes to MedCom or continue the current practice?
A Formally referring cases, no. Where a case does not meet the threshold for an Arbitration hearing, typically if it's a content issue rather than a conduct issue, recommending mediation would be a good, sensible step.
In the past the Arbitration Committee has taken a checkered view of wheel wars, desysopping in some cases and not desysopping in others. What do you believe constitutes a wheel war which would result in a desysopping?
A Using the admin tools to repeatedly reverse the admin actions of another user or users. Administrators should be setting an example to other users; we expect discussion, rather than edit-warring from all users, and it is the same when it comes to administrative actions. There isn't a precise definition of what is or is not wheel-warring, and this is right; it's a matter of judgement as to whether the actions taken were appropriate or not. I would always want the first occasion of wheel-warring, if not especially damaging or egregious, to be met with a firm and final warning, rather than a desysopping.
How involved must an administrator be to be unable to enforce policy on a user? Given that it is expected that all admins understand policy when they pass RFA, under what circumstances would you not desysop an administrator who was clearly involved with a user they blocked or an article they deleted/protected?
A If there's a clear conflict of interest, or the administrator has a clear stake in the issue, then one warning, then desysopping without prejudice.
Besides the technical capabilities administrators have, the Arbitration Committee has granted administrators the rights to enforce certain general sanctions with regards to specific editors and articles. What is your view on these new non-technical privileges being considered part of the "administrative" function for purposes such as RfC, Recall, and RfAR?
A They should be considered in exactly the same manner as any of the technical privileges; misuse may lead to desysopping.
Current checkuser policy at the English Wikipedia prohibits checkusers from fulfilling "fishing" requests. However, global privacy policy does not prohibit such requests from being fulfilled, so long as personal information is not disclosed. Would you support the alteration of the en.wp policy to permit fishing requests?
A Checkusers are smart enough to make a determination of whether a check is appropriate. "Fishing" means, loosely, to make a check when no evidence of abusive behaviour exists. There are no checkusers who would make such a check, nor should they. I would not alter the en.Wikipedia policy to allow this.
In 2006 the Arbitration Committee asked the community to address the issue of protecting children's privacy on Wikipedia. To this day there is still no policy on how to handle children's privacy on Wikipedia. What steps would you take to ensure children's privacy is protected under policy?
A A formal policy is not really required; we have a standard practice of removing any identifiable information posted by minors; this is appropriate, and it's all a formal policy should say, anyway.
How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/LevelCheck and RFAR/Durova as to what may be considered justification for blocks of educated new users?
A There is no apparent inconsistency. Even - again - noting the cases are over two years apart, and thinking would have evolved and matured in this time, the two findings are not mutually exclusive. I would not have supported such a speculative, unevidenced finding as the LevelCheck one - and I very much doubt these days any arbitrator would have done so - LevelCheck was indefinitely blocked, and based on his actions, this was appropriate; whether it was for abusive sockpuppetry or abject trolling is pretty much moot. The Durova case, however, featured no evidence of poor behaviour of any kind by User:!! - as none existed. Evidence of abusive behaviour was apparent and obvious in one case, and not in the other; they are, therefore, not inconsistent.
Originally RfARs were named in the style of Party X v. Party Y in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in RFAR/Zeraeph?
A Using "versus" in the name of an arbitration case makes the whole thing seem like a court case, and presupposes that one party will "win", and one party will "lose". Frequently, both parties are partially to blame for the escalation of events around an issue. I would like to see case names continue to be as neutral and de-escalating as possible while continuing to be descriptive and relevant to the topic at hand.
A case is presented between two administrators who have repeatedly undone each other's administrative actions with regard to the deletion of an article. The basis for the deleting administrator's action was an OTRS ticket showing the article to be a copyright violation. In performing the deletion, the administrator clearly referenced the OTRS ticket number. Assuming the undeleting administrator did not have OTRS access, do you penalize him more or less for wheel warring? Do you penalize the deleting administrator for wheel warring?
A While this is an unlikely scenario, I would expect any administrator seeing an OTRS action carried out to refrain from immediately undoing said action. I would similarly expect the deleting administrator to inform the restoring administrator of the issues, and not to immediately redelete the article without ensuring the restoring administrator was aware of why the article needed to be deleted, and while listening to the restoring administrator's reasons for restoring the article. However, any administrator who is daft enough to repeatedly and knowingly undelete an OTRS-linked copyright violation without discussion to provide an outstanding reason for doing so is probably looking at a desysopping. The moral of this tale is communicate first, act second.
To what extent do you believe policy on Wikipedia is or should be binding?
A It's binding as long as it makes sense for it to be binding. If circumstances show a policy is no longer enabling behaviour that helps make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, the community should reconsider the policy.
Do you believe that former arbitrators should be on the Arb Comm mailing list? Why or why not?
A There are two lists; one for current Arbs only, and one for current and former Arbs in good standing. The current-Arbs-only lists should be the primary list, and anything sensitive, or pursuant to identifying information should be discussed there. I personally would like to see just one list, and with it restricted to current Arbitrators and Jimbo, but this is not my decision to make, and I doubt it would ever happen.

Question from Rspeer

Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A A scientific point of view reflects the consensus of the broad scientific community. All Wikipedia articles should reflect a neutral point of view; what that usually means on Wikipedia is that scientific topics which attract differing views from the scientific consensus may mention these points of view in the articles on these topics. I believe the scientific point of view should be strongly prioritised on such articles. Wikipedia:Scientific point of view, while a inactive, historical essay, has it about right ("The paradigm, then alternative scientific theories, then psuedoscience where significant and verifiable").

Question from Cool Hand Luke

Hello. I just happened to notice some (more) BLP-violations on an article I patrol. I thought of nominating it for deletion again, so I decided to look at the original nomination. In light of your answers to Lar, do you believe this closure was handled correctly? What would you tell admins like the one who closed this discussion to convince them that we should default to delete?

I'm not asking to be mean or confrontational, but because the attitude expressed by the closer of the debate is very common among admins, and you've apparently had a change of heart on the issue. What convinced you? Cool Hand Luke 19:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A No, no change of heart on the issue. I believe my close of this AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lon Horiuchi - was handled correctly, and was entirely appropriate. We don't, currently, have a policy in place that states BLP articles should default to delete, and if I had closed this AFD as delete, it very likely would have been overturned at DRV anyway. The role of the closing administrator in a deletion discussion is not to impose his or her view on the proceedings, rather to assess the discussion and make a close based on who makes the strongest policy-based arguments. If we had a BLP policy in place that stated the default for deletion discussions on biographical articles was delete (ie, "no consensus" would mean "delete", rather than "keep") - something I am strongly in favour of implementing - then yes, the debate probably would have been different, and the Lon Horiuchi article probably would have been deleted. If the closing admin of a deletion discussion can't separate their own views from fairly assessing the deletion debate and closing inline with the discussion therein, they shouldn't be closing deletion discussions, and my personal views do not - and did not, here - direct how I close such a debate. Thank you for an interesting question.

Followup: What would you tell users to convince them we should change the policy to default delete on BLPs—doesn't it follow directly from the BLP policy we do have? Cool Hand Luke 01:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A The BLP policy is somewhat vague in regards to how it should be interpreted. I believe we should change the policy to default delete because we are an encyclopedia run by human beings, no robots. If it's obvious someone should be biographied, then they will have an article, and any AFD would end "keep". If it's not obvious we should have an article, then losing that article wouldn't be a big loss, and (particularly (if the subject wishes for the article to be removed) deleting via a "no consensus" AFD isn't a big deal. It's a matter of adjusting the bar slightly towards deletion when it comes to the biographies of living people. This is a good thing.

Follow-up questions from FT2

Thank you for your first answers, broadly on yourself and Arbcom.

These are some questions about your skill at Wikipedia dispute resolution:

Flexibility:
a) What experience do you have at a range of Wikipedia dispute resolution "styles", and in estimating how users may react to a given response? (This is a fairly essential skill in deciding whether to play hard or soft, direct or mediated, give another chance, discuss further, draw a line, or "try something new" in a case.)

b) Please outline your track record at choosing remedies that are effective, but not overly-excessive, in a sample of difficult cases.
(Note:- in a lot of cases, a remedy may potentially be "multi stage"; that is, take a step, see what effect it has, return to it if needed. This may include watching or warning first times, taking a tougher line later, or deciding it's an acceptable risk if they act up again, since action could be taken in future if needed. Although mild, it's a valid approach. I'd be fine if you use it, and what you do when it fails.

c) Please show some cases you gave a seemingly difficult user a chance to reform (when others were skeptical), and where you drew a very hard but fair line on a problematic user.

d) Please highlight a project space matter where there was much divisive opinion but where other administrators (on both "sides") listened to you, and you helped focus or resolve it.
Conduct under pressure:
a) Please point out a case you took a stand that was not universally popular, knowing you could face retaliation or rebuke.

b) Please point out a matter where you were badly attacked, accused, or heavily provoked, but remained in line with "best practice" conduct, yourself.

c) Please point out a dispute where you faced people trying to redirect the matter to a side-issue (soapbox, hobby horse, etc) and your response was to avoid the "invitation" of distraction, and to keep the focus on the main target.

d) Please point out a serious dispute which occupied your attention for between 2 weeks and several months, and which shows your sticking power and handling in the context of protracted disputes.

Like the previous questions, they are intended to be searching. Feedback will also be provided. Thank you. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 03:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A a) I have mediated issues (see for example, Talk:Fiddy2).

A b) Dealing with User:RMHED, remedying the antics of User:TharkunColl who was baiting Muslim editors, dealin with User:Betacommand. I believe short-term blocks, targeted appropriately, nip problematic behaviour in the bud.

A c) Mentoring User:Husnock.

A d) I deliberately do not get involved in divisive project space issues.

A a) Supporting and arguing against indefinitely blocking User:Pigsonthewing.

A b) See the comments from a couple of users regarding my removal from OTRS, on this vote page.

A c) I do not do this. I favour disengaging from people trying to redirect the issue, until they choose to refocus themselves.

A d) Mentoring User:Husnock through his various isses, and helping him reform into a productive editor (under a new name) who does valuable image work.

Questions from ElinorD

If you are appointed to ArbCom, you will have access to very sensitive information — information which could cause harm and distress to editors in real life, and to their families. Not only will you have access to the ArbCom mailing list, but you may also be granted oversight and checkuser privileges. In addition, there is the possibility that a harassed editor in good standing trying to start again under a new identity might confide in you. Can you state that you have never violated any such confidences in connection with Wikipedia?
You acknowledge the account Neil on Wikipedia Review. Do you have any other account there?
Under what circumstances would you find it appropriate to make a private report (e.g. to the Foundation, Jimbo, ArbCom, etc.) against an editor in good standing for some real or perceived policy violation without attempting to raise the matter privately with the editor himself/herself?
Several months ago, you blocked JzG for lashing out at someone with whom he was in a longstanding dispute, who had overturned a block he had made, and had posted a message that JzG (and others) saw as slightly taunting, just as JzG was preparing for his father's funeral. That would indicate that you have quite a low tolerance for incivility on Wikipedia. Do you see it as problematic (particularly for a potential Arbitrator) that while keeping your reputation "clean" and avoiding incivility blocks on Wikipedia itself, you have on Wikipedia Review written such things as "Tony [Sidaway] is not happy unless he is causing a rumpus and he is in the middle of it. Who was it on Friends who tugged on his testicles whenever he didn't get attention as a child?"
Several months ago, MONGO temporarily left while upset. An IP vandalised his page with "i like booby's with poo". When MONGO returned, you started a thread at WR, with the title "Guess who's back, Back again", and you linked to that vandalism and said you found it "funny". MONGO protested at your talk page, and you replied rather dismissively by linking to the now-deleted User:Neil/quack. [2] You later removed the whole thread from your talk page with the edit summary "Snore." [3] Do you feel that your behaviour first on WR and then on WP in response to someone upset by it falls within the boundaries of using an external site for legitimate, constructive criticism, particularly in view of your response to Lar on this page, where you say you hope people "would participate in a constructive manner, and should they fail to do so, then that can, and does, have an impact on their standing on Wikipedia"?

Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A Yes; I have made enquiries to Arbcom, in the past, about such issues for clarification - I believe this is one of the appropriate uses of private emails - but have never violated such confidences.
A No. Do you have any other administrator accounts on Wikipedia?
A Perhaps the most appropriate circumstance would be that the editor with whom the issue was refused to respond to repeated attempts to contact them.
A You are referring to a 24 hour block issued for one editor telling another " F**k off back to Wikipedia Review and F**k off and never ever post here ever again, period. You are persona non grata. (My censoring). JzG has since learned from this and from his RFC, and has made an admirable effort to curtail his temper. With regards to my post (as you didn't see the need to provide a link, I will - the post on WR you refer to is this one) concerning Tony Sidaway, Mr Sidaway is an inveterate troll and wind up merchant, and his conduct on various RFArbs at the time had been atrocious.
A I referred to the vandalism to MONGO's talk page as "childish yet funny" ( link), yes. The venue of where I said this is irrelevant; some vandalism does strike me as funny. It doesn't make it good, or helpful, or useful, and it should not be there, but the user who has never had their funny bone tickled by an imaginative or childish piece of vandalism would be a very boring and staid person. If you wish to see the contents of User:Neil/quack, it's at User:Fish and karate/quack, along with all the other pages that were moved when I changed my username. fish& karate 12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Additional questions from Pixelface

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?
Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. -- Pixelface ( talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

A 28, in seven tranches of four.
A Two years.
A Arbitrators are sensible and experienced people, and should not be swayed by such lobbying. It shouldn't take place, but it's not a big deal.
A Of course; if you don't, you shouldn't be on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
A As much as it is for any other user.
A Absolutely not.
A WP:N.
A No - to me, the "sum of all human knowledge" does not mean "all human knowledge".
A I would reject it; file an RFC first, as it's primarily a content dispute if the deletion nominations are appropriate. In my opinion, if the deletion nominations are appropriate, they could nominate 5,000 articles a day, let alone 50.
A The intransigence of the editor suggests this has crossed from being a content dispute to a conduct issue, and I would support such a case being accepted.
A Yes, no, no.

General questions Information

Questions that an editor would like a majority of the—or all—candidates to answer should be asked as general questions. General questions are asked here, and copied over and answered by the candidate as s/he sees fit. Editors should ask general questions at that link, and not here; only the candidate should place questions here. (See top of page for guidance.)

Question from Ultraexactzz

Good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?
A Fair.

Questions from Giggy

a/s/l?
A 29/m/UK

What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.
A 99% of editors who focus primarily in mainspace and 99% of those who focus in project space will never have a problem with each other. It's the 1% that does, and in doing so creates a greatly disproportionate amount of drama. The same names seem to come up again and again - most Wikipedians are hardworking, quiet, dedicated, passionate people who wish nothing more than to help build the best encyclopedia possible. A small proportion are also dedicated and passionate, but their methods and their intentions are not always inline with the rest of us. I believe strongly in progressive management of troublesome users; mediation at first, be it formal or informal, at first, then perhaps warnings, then if they continue to cause issues, ramping up restrictions. I believe this sort of approach on a widescale level would ease conflicts.

What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
A I would prefer each edit were taken on its merit; if a banned user happens to make an edit that makes the encyclopedia better, before they are caught, or identified, to remove or undo that edit is foolish and wasteful.

Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.
A The OrangeMarlin case. It should have been handled publically, properly, and fairly.

Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
A Edward Low, Shoe polish, Mr. Lady Records, Associazione Volontari Italiani Sangue, and Y1 (tobacco). I've either started or rescued hundreds of articles, but these are ones that I enjoyed doing the most.

Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
A I will vote, as I have same right to as any other suffraged editor, but will not engage in any negative voting (i.e., I will not oppose anyone). There are other strong candidates in this election, and I would like to show my support for them.

Thank you and good luck. Giggy ( talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list. reply

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.

To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
A So long as it makes sense for it to be binding and prescriptive. If it causes more issues then it resolves, then we need to take another look at the policy and amend it to suit what makes sense.
What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
A I am, personally, against it, but it's a decision for the Arbitration Committee as a whole to make.
At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?
A As someone who believes recall to be an unenforceable waste of time, it would be disingenuous for me to make such a statement. If, however, the community overwhelmingly told me I was a terrible arbitrator, and should step down, I would do so.

I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.

Questions from Celarnor

What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (e.g., types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
A Inventive, smart remedies are a must if Arbcom is continue to be a benefit to the community, and there should be very little limit on what remedies Arbcom can write. The only real restrictions should be that they remain in line with existing policy, and appropriate.
What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
A They should be setting an example to everyone as model Wikipedians - contributing to articles when time permits, working collaboratively with others to make things better, standing out as exemplars of honesty, good judgement, and civility. If an arbitrator can't uphold the standards the Arbtitration Committee expects others to abide by - to the utmost - they should not be on Arbcom.

Question from LessHeard vanU

This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction.

Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A Arbcom has always had the powers to investigate the conduct of administrators, and to remove the admin tools where it's deemed necessary. I don't see this changing. Cases are accepted or rejected on their merits; it's impossible for me to say whether or not I would push for more cases relating to the use of admin tools to be accepted without knowing what disputes may occur in the future. That being said, I have always expected administrators to adhere to a higher standard of behaviour standard than most, and would certainly push for any case involving (actual or alleged) admin tool misuse to be heard if I believe the case warranted it.

Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.

Question from Carnildo

How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
A As many as is needed. I would imagine an hour or two a day as a minimum, to review correspondance on the mailing list, new cases, etc, with more time being spent when circumstances require (such as writing up a case).

Question from WilyD

During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:

Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations? If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
A It's appropriate, yes; every admin is an editor first and foremost, and should expect to be treated in the same manner. However, as blocking an admin can be contentious, for better or worse, I would always suggest that if you think a block is going to be contentious, raise it for discussion on WP:AN first - not after the block. "Block posted for review" often translates as "I'm not sure I should have done this"; if an admin isn't sure whether a block would be viewed as appropriate, it should not be made.
Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when? If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
A It's pointless; a block does not prevent the use of the administrative tools. Such a block would therefore do nothing positive, would only be punitive in nature, rather than preventative, and might even inflame the situation - it would certainly restrict the blocked admin from explaining his use of the tools. If there is a concern over a misuse of the administrative tools, a user request for comment should be filed, and if the tool misuse is found to be egregious and ongoing, a Arbitration case should be opened to assess whether the user should retain their sysop bit.

Questions from PhilKnight

In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight ( talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A There are no subject areas I have a personal involvement in, or feel strongly enough on, I can think of that would require me to recuse myself. Likewise for other users - there aren't really any users I am particularly close to, in the manner that would immediately necessitate a recusal. Of course, were I ever asked to recuse, I would strongly consider it; the mere fact of being asked should at least cause one to ask whether a recusal would be appropriate with the fellow arbitrators.
Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?
A Discussion, firstly with the blocking admin. I would ask the blocking admin if he were entirely aware of the facts, and that the usage of the term "racist" was appropriate. Should the blocking admin refuse to consider this, I would present the case for further discussion, probably at the administrator's noticeboard.

Questions from Thatcher

1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?

A Wrong call. Firstly, administrator's account are automatically IP-block exempt, and the IP address should have been hard-blocked. Secondly, good hand-bad hand accounts are not permitted; if there is strong, persuasive evidence that the accounts are one and the same, then the administrator can probably expect to be contacted, and presented with the evidence. If it was the same person, they may choose to take this opportunity to quietly leave without making a big fuss. If they insist that nothing was untoward, and it was someone else vandalising (it is possible; multiple computers having the same user agent is more likely in a workplace than anywhere else), then it's going to have to be scrutinised more closely, and a case opened.

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?

(a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.

(b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.

(c) Write your own answer.

A (a) - running the check doesn't fall afoul of conflict of interest. Implementing a block might, and an uninvolved checkuser should, at this point, confirm the findings and enact any blocks as they deem necessary.

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?

A This bears a strong resemblance to a recent issue(!) If Smith was truly focused on building a better encyclopedia, he would have editing quietly and constructively under the new account name (Smythe), not simply using the new account to make a point. Good faith has been used up, and at this point, Smythe would be blocked.

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?

A No; public disagreement would probably help the Committee's credibility; better to show that something is being done than waffling in private and leaving the poor schmucks involved in the case twiddling their thumbs for months. By having the discussion in public, and voting openly in full view of everyone, the thought processes of the arbitrators is there for everyone to see, and it's vital for all cases to do so unless privacy concerns demand otherwise.

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Wikipedia they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?

A I expect certain aspects of my present involvement in Wikipedia to be dialled down slightly, but I will not allow them to be eroded entirely. I will certainly continue to write articles. And it's not a black or white issue; the choice isn't "write article" or "participate in case". I can still keep an eye on a case passively even if I have taken a step back for a week or two, and if there's something I find objectionable or incorrect, I can still bring the issue to attention.

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?

A Everyone knows my first name, and I have disclosed my full name on prior occasions to OTRS and the like. I am comfortable in disclosing my real name and employer to the Arbitration Committee should I be elected.

Questions from Newyorkbrad

1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:

(A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;

(B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;

(C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;

(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;

(E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;

(F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;

(G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).

A I am prepared to do all of the above. With regards to (A) and (B), Formal writing is something I am required to do in my career, and it is something I am able to do well. I am certainly prepared to scrutinize and review cases and evidence within cases. I would be able to participate in (C) through to (F) also, and would expect any other arbitrator to do the same. The only exception is (F); I have little technical skill when it comes to IP addresses, and would not expect to ever want to, or need to, use checkuser.

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?

A Rather than compare three drafts, I'll discuss the changes between the original policy and FT2's proposed draft, which is a refinement of the initial draft. The initial additions are, for the most part, codifying things that already exist (such as "partial deletion", the election format, resignation/inactivity standards). These seem, to me, sensible, although it duplicates much information which already exists at Wikipedia:Arbitration committee. The second part of the draft {" #Arbitration_case_processes") is where the real changes are. The scope is less rigid, with "in the arbitrator's best judgement" replacing much of the previous bullets. Specifying that while Arbcom does not create policy, it can - when needed - determine how it should be interpreted (the spirit and/or the letter of the policy); this is a big improvement and clarifies what was already known, but perhaps not spelled out. Other changes I particularly like is the requirement for arbitrators to explain a non-recusal when one has been requested, the advised timescales (7 days for proposed evidence to be submitted, the first draft of a proposed decision within a further 7 days, and voting to be completed 7 days after this), with progress updates should these timescales be necessarily breached. These are all useful, and productive changes, and I would like to see them in place as soon as is reasonably possible. I am also glad to see an affirmation of the role of the Mediation Committee and its interaction with cases that may subsequently be seen by Arbcom.

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.

A There are many changes that have taken place since 2004 - perhaps too many to list. It is impossible to isolate any one of the changes and ascribe its contribution to the lowering of the Comittee's caseload. However, here's many of the changes that have taken place which I feel may - in some part - have played a part in this:

The exponential expansion of the size of the encyclopedia. While the number of active editors has increased, it has not increased by anywhere near the increase in articles. I believe this means when two users are rubbing each up the wrong way, there are far more articles for them to work on, which means such a dispute is less likely to degrade into one that requires Arbitration involvement.
The improvement in the community's ability to deal with straightforward vandalism.
The improvement in dealing with abusive sockpuppetry due to the number of checkuser-equipped admins.
Admin tools such as page protection, which frequently enable editing disputes to be damped down before they spiral out of control.
The increase in community-determined measures (such as community bans, restrictions, and the like); many of the more straightforward cases do not go to arbitration, as they have already been resolved.

The net result of the above (particularly the last point) is while fewer cases go to Arbcom, the ones that do require an arbitration case being opened tend to be particularly contentious, or difficult to resolve. Many of these regard the use of administrative tools, or the conduct of administrators. I do not doubt this decrease in volume but increase in complexity will continue, and the Arbitration Committee will have to change to accomodate this. It is vital that these elections bring new blood onto the committee, and that the new arbitrators are cognizant of the task they and their fellow arbitrators are facing.

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?

A WP:3RR. It's gamed too much by experienced editors to get newer editors blocked, and a bright line that says "three reverts is fine, four reverts is a block" causes more problems than it resolves.

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?

A The amending, creating or abolition of policy is not Arbcom's job. Arbcom's role is to enforce policy when all other attempts to resolve a dispute have failed. Arbcom does consist of experienced Wikipedians, and if they want to

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?^(
AC/IRC)

A No, IRC should not fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom. Such a situation is unenforceable, and is akin to saying Facebook or MSN Messenger should be under the jurisdiction of ArbCom. However, I feel there should be few or no actions taken on Wikipedia based on IRC discussions, and there should be no promotion of IRC as a Wikipedia-approved medium on the English Wikipedia (this would need, for example, the deletion of Wikipedia:IRC channels and all related pages). I would not be so presumptious as to ban the mention of IRC, but its power as a decision-making tool on Wikipedia needs to be whittled away.

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?

A No one arbitrator can reform Arbcom. I will certainly make a case for change where I believe change is warranted. As for how I would reform Arbcom, see elsewhere (in brief - more arbs, shorter terms, less private proceedings, more timely turnover). As for how editors can be sure I'll stay true to my promise, I'll always be approachable. If nothing seems to be happening, hit me up on my talk page. I can only promise I'll try my best to argue for reform, and bring it about - if you can't trust me on that, you probably shouldn't trust me to be an arb in the first place.

Questions from Rschen7754

Arbcom questions 2008 - these will be asked at the December 2008 elections and scored on a hidden rubric, which will determine my level of support.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
A Four months is too long for any case to run. Particularly given the final remedies were common sense ("don't always edit contentious articles", "provide evidence of consensus when asserting it"). Such remedies should not take four months to arrive; I appreciate the case was quite complex, but there seems to be huge delays on voting timestamps (some Arbs voted in January, others in March(!)) which are unacceptable.

a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
A The purpose of Wikiprojects ought to be for like-minded editors to collaborate on creating and improving articles of interest to all the editors participating in the Wikiproject. The desire to enforce a standard article layout is understandable, but not what a Wikiproject should be doing.
Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
A Nope.
Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
A Yes. I would go to say that;s worse, as it may then be done without the awareness of others.
a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
A Rollback should never be used for good faith edits, and in the first instance, nor should blocks. Only if repeated explanations fail to change the good-faith editor's actions should protection or blocks be considered. Of course, this is different if the edits are outright, obvious vandalism.
An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
A If they're ignoring consensus, they are breaking policies. Smart aleck remarks are not a problem; disruptive editing - such as ignoring a consensus of other involved editors - is.
An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
A Whoa - not understanding English does not mean someone is unintelligent. That being said, if a user is clearly incapable of editing constructively due to a language issue, I would point them in the direction of the appropriate language Wikipedia, and if they refused and continued to cause disruption then blocks would have to be considered by the administrator reviewing the situation. If they are an English speaker yet are unable to grasp how to edit (honestly, this shouldn't happen often - it's not hard), then there are many ways to try and improve this - WP:ADOPT, Wikipedia:Mentorship or Wikipedia:Editor assistance are just three of the ways of doing so. If all else fails, then there has to be a point at which we accept Wikipedia is not for them right now, but we should do everything possible to avoid this happening.
a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
A The repeated vandal yes (but wouldn't be needed, as they'd already be blocked), the smart aleck, no, someone who doesn't speak English well, no.
(This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
A Lack of leadership. I don't mean from Jimbo, I mean from within the broader community. Anarchism was great for getting things started, but as the project matures, there needs to be people driving things, and making decisions. As the project gets bigger, the concerns become more complex and more difficult to answer easily, and there needs to be content leaders. It's nothing to do with Arbcom, but I'd like to see a somewhat similar group of experienced Wikipedia writers acting as a final arbiter on content disputes.

Thank you. Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Questions from Maxim

What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
A Wheel-warring is undoing another administrator's admin actions, more than once. Wheel-warring should be looked upon dimly by Arbcom, and I would be in favour of one strong warning and then a desysop (either temporary or permanent, depending on the circumstances).
What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
A I am against it. Many admins do unpopular but necessary jobs, and lynch mobs are not something Wikipedia needs.
What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?
A So long as the administrator running the bot is aware that should the bot malfunction, it will reflect poorly on the administrator, I'm okay with adminbots. Presently unapproved adminbots should be encouraged to go through BRfA, but only forced to if they are causing a lot of problems.

Questions from rootology

Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?

A No. It caused the case to become very large, and complex, and I believe was one of the primary factors in the case's prolongment. I would have kept the Cla68-Felonious Monk-SlimVirgin case seperate from the JzG-Viridae case, rather than lump them together. The cases were almost entirely disparate, with the only common factor being the fact that both Cla68 and Viridae have accounts in those names on another website.

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?

A A refusal to support "subjective" findings is fine, but to do so selectively (supporting the findings supporting some users and not others) suggested an existing bias, and the arbitrator should have recused from the case.

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?

A I believe the Wikipedia community can suggest policy, but the final approval for changes to Arbcom policy comes from Jimbo. If the community makes a persuasive argument for an amendment to the policy, then I would imagine it would be accepted. I have suggested many changes to Arbcom policy, and it's nice to see a few of them finally sneaking in (see the draft policy Newyorkbrad links to, above).

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.

A This is effectively the case; while Jimbo has retained a "veto", I don't believe he's ever used it.

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?

A No, of course not. The arbitrators are supposed to represent some of the best, brightest and most experienced members of the community, and in order for the community to have faith in their decision making, it is vital that they have the broad backing of the community.

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?

A Two-year terms, four tranches of seven, elections every six months.

7. Please rank these in order of whom the Arbcom serves and answers to, in order from first to last (the party who should have the most power over the AC goes first, the one who should have the least power over the AC goes last:

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.

A d, a, b, c. The Wikimedia Foundation owns and runs Wikipedia - if they need something to change, it is usually for very good reasons (usually legal), and their priority is for Wikipedia to continue to function. If they have a wish, but the community disagree, then this is pretty much the only situation in which the community should be overridden. The community comes next. Both Jimbo-the-person (as distinct from his role as Chairman Emeritus of the WMF) and the Arbcom are a part of the community, and make their decisions with what is best for the Wikipedia community in mind. Jimbo comes next; he rightly has the (unused) authority to request action from Arbcom, to veto any decision, or to appoint people to Arbcom. Arbcom doesn't answer to itself, so they come last.

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology ( C)( T) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Question from Davewild

Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?
A I support reducing the term length of arbitrators to two years, in conjunction with an increase the number of arbitrators from 21 to 28, in four tranches of seven, with an election every six months.

Thanks. Davewild ( talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Questions from roux

This question is to gauge your general thoughts on how civility applies as a general principle across WP. Please read the proposals here first.

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?

A If I had to, I would support A2, and oppose A1 and A3. Ongoing incivility is more of a concern then a one-off instance, and is a problem Wikipedia is having to face at present. I don't like the concept of "low-level incivility", though. You're either a civil contributer, or you are not civil. I am also diametrically opposed to giving long-term contributors more leeway than newbies; I believe they should have less leeway, as they should know what is and is not appropriate. The Golden rule is linked to ("do unto others ..."), and this is a good and sensible definition.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?

A I do not support the concept of civility restrictions enacted by the community; obvious incivility, or a pattern of incivility, can be addressed through RFCs, administrative action, mediation, or (should all else fail), the Arbitration Committee. If in the past these methods haven't worked, then we need to fix them and ensure they do in future, not introduce alternative routes of resolution.

2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?

A See above.

Thank you for answering, and best of luck with the election. [ roux » x] 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. – iride scent 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?
A I answered this on Wikipedia Review, and reproduce my answer here: I don't think it's likely, as anyone likely to be passed over by Jimbo would probably have had enough things thrown at them through questions and voting to cause them to exit the "chosen few" before that situation arose. Jimbo has the power - for better or worse - to pass on anyone he doesn't consider suitable. As those spots have to be filled, the next person down the list is the obvious choice. If it happens to be me, then so be it. I really don't think it's going to happen, though.

Questions from Lar

Note: 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.

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.
A In favour of both a) and b).
Clarifying followup: Are there other proposals or ideas you would favor? disfavour? why? ++ Lar: t/ c 15:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A In 2 c) below, I mention a more liberal use of lengthy or permanent semi-protection for BLP articles; while codifying this as a proposal mighty be fiddly, I would very much like to see the community's traditional reluctance to protect articles for too long relaxed when it comes to biographical articles.
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?
A It's a question of policy; this needs to be put in place by the community, not arbcom. I feel sooner or later if the community does not act, such a policy will be imposed upon Wikipedia anyway by the WMF when something seriously damaging happens. I would rather see the community act proactively and prevent this arising.

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?
A Refers, I believe, to the "BLP special sanctions"(?) - the policy is already in place, so this wasn't mandating the policy, more the interpretation of it. BLP has to be strictly enforced, and I'm broadly in favour of what they did.

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.
A I would like to see BLP strengthened, through the "opt-out" and "default to delete" means mentioned above, as well as through a more liberal use of lengthy or permanent semi-protection for biographical articles that attract problems.
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?
A I disagree; while the English Wikipedia is getting bigger and bigger, the consensus mechanism works, still, in most situations. As Wikipedia has grown, it has also stratified and diversified, with the result being there aren't that many situations where the number of people having their say overwhelms things. There are situations where consensus fails, which are nothing to do with the size, rather the stakes people have in the issue. With such occasions, while we have something in place to deal with this in terms of conduct issues (Arbcom), we do not have a similar body to make final, binding judgements on content disputes. I believe it's something the community should consider.
Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we 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?
A I would like to see sighted/flagged revisions. Arbcom has no role in making this determination. I would like to see it piloted for a period of six months on a subset of articles, preferably BLPs (the latest trial proposes Featured Articles as the pilot, which would also work). I think most people are broadly in favour, but the ins and outs of how to implement it have caused it to stall. If the community is unable to come to a decision on exactly how to implement sighted revisions, then word needs to come from the top (and I don't mean Arbcom, I mean WMF).
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?
A Yes. I prefer to judge people on their contribtutions, not their identity or lack of.

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)?
A Moot, see a)

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?
A If they wish to change their identity, or dissociate themselves from their prior identity, then they should be prepared to create a new account and avoid editing the same articles in the same manner as previously. This has been done a lot more times, I think, then people realise. I am in favour of expunging personally-identifiable information from Wikipedia if it supports this, although if people keep giving things away after being given every opportunity to start afresh eventually the efforts others will be willing to make to continue to protect them will understandably diminish.

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?
A It is not outing, although I would hope most people would have the good sense to report it via email to the individual, and perhaps to arbcom.

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 in that it's more extensive)
A I do not, no. I don't believe Arbitrators, or anyone, should have to; I recognise many do. I am "pseudo-pseudonymous"; my first name is known, I have revealed enough information about myself that if someone really, really wanted to they could probably link me to an online identity if I actually had any kind of online identity outside of Wikipedia. I don't, really.

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?
A The only way for someone to guarantee their pseudonymity is not to reveal personal information. We should be as assertive and helpful as possible in cleaning up issues when this does occur against a person's wishes. What should Arbcom be doing? Arbcom should set an example, and rigorously refrain from "outing" a user if their real life identity has not been revealed, or if they indicate they do not wish it to be further revealed.

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)
A If it is clearl and deliberate, then it's a clearly sanctionable offence. The severity of measures taken would depend on the circumstances; if it was done so through human error, then the sanctions would necessarily be less severe than if it was done so maliciously.
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?
A It's not the WMF's job to do so; I would expect WMF to participate fully if/when asked to do so in any broader inititative. Online stalking is not a problem unique to Wikipedia - far from it.

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.
A Real life stalking is not an issue WMF is equipped to deal with, nor should it be. In such a situation, which should be handled by the Office, full disclosure of the situation and full cooperation with the appropriate authorities is mandated.

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
A If they have been previously stalked in real life, I would expect them to be very cautious about releasing any personally identifiable information that might link them to their identity. We should be as helpful as possible in enabling and advising them how to avoid this, and timely and assertive in cleaning up any issues when this does occur.

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.
A If harassment is proven (not alleged - proven), the stalker should be immediately banned from participation on Wikipedia, and the stalkee supported as much as is humanly possible. Should this harassment spill out to other venues, then the stalkee should consider contacting the authorities.

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?
A Intent - solely reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor is not harassment. Doing so in a manner intended to demean, ridicule, offend or upset the editor may cross that line into harassment, but (and I keep saying this) each case should be judged on its merits. Allegations of harassment where none exists, or where no evidence is proffered, should be viewed as dimly as actual harassment.
A certain editor has been characterised 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 Every edit should be taken on its own merits. If the edit is scrutinised and found to be a good one, undoing it purely because the user who made it is banned is foolish and counterproductive.
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?
A Discussion off-wiki is fine. Decision-making is not, as it removes the opportunity for everyone to participate.

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?
A I don't have a blog, or anything similar. I have never cared for blogs, and have never owned one. I have an account on Wikipedia Review, and participate there, in constructive discussions of Wikipedia and relared topics.

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
A There are users on Wikipedia Review who are supportive of Wikipedia, and those who are not. There are also those who support the aim of Wikipedia, but not its current ways of working. Differing perspectives are useful, and interesting. I have no real opinion on Wikback; it was a short lived site that I never really looked at much.

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?
A Yes, it is appropriate for anyone who so chooses to participate in an outside criticism site (note criticism does not necessarily mean negative criticism!). We have neither the ability nor the right to prevent them from doing so, nor do we have the ability or the right to cast aspersions on them on-Wiki simply because they openly have an account on an outside site. I would hope they would participate in a constructive manner, and should they fail to do so, then that can, and does, have an impact on their standing on Wikipedia.

e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
A Yes, my account is called "Neil", on Wikipedia Review ( link). If someone has an account on Wikipedia Review not publically linked to their Wikipedia account, then there wouldn't be much you could do about it, as you wouldn't even know the two users were one and the same person.
Clarifying followup... would it be "outing" if someone actually discovered the linkage and presented it? ++ Lar: t/ c 15:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A I'd say it could only be classed as "outing" if in revealing the linkage, they revealed real-life information about the user that had previously not been publicised.
Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
A I am of the opposite view; I believe the longer a user has been around, the less excuse they have for not knowing how to behave appropriately. I hold "vested contributors" up to a higher standard, not a lower one. Newer users should be given more leeway, as they at least have the excuse of not knowing what is tolerable. I appreciate this may be a little too far, but treating people equally would be a start.
Clarifying followup... I'm reading an implicit statement by you that there is a problem... and that you're suggesting that the pendulum be swung the other way from how you perceive things to be now? Is that correct? ++ Lar: t/ c 15:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A Yes. I believe that long-time contributors are allowed to get away with things others can not, and worse, that they are often the people who enforce such restrictions on the newer users. I would like to see long-time contrubtors held to at least the same behavioural standards, if not higher.
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
A Green, because it is awesome.
Yes, but WHY is it awesome? So far no one has answered this question satisfactorily. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A Because it is the colour of trees, grass, go signs, Yoda's lightsaber and apples. All of which are awesome.

Questions from Heimstern

Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
A I believe there should be very little tolerance of such disputes on Wikipedia. There is no easy way to solve this problem; if there was, it would have been solved. Arbcom already incorporates general restrictions / sanctions in its repertoire (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and Wikipedia:General sanctions). Continuing to do so, and being more willing to do so, will help deal with nationalist and ethnic disputes.

Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?
A For my general view on civility restrictions, see my answer to Roux, above. As regards the point you make about administrators differing oin a block, I would remind administrators that to unblock a user where such an unblock might be in any way contentious, you should make some kind of effort to discuss the block first with the blocking administrator, and if that fails (no response, poor response, or you disagree with their reasoning), then take it to another venue, such as WP:AN. This is already in policy, and if admins fail to do so on an ongoing basis, I would expect to see their tool usage examined closely at RFC and if serious fault were found, then by Arbcom.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
A 50% +. I don't believe Jimmy Wales would ever appoint anyone with less than a majority of support anyway.
Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
A I have answered this earlier; see my response to Sarcasticidealist. In short, no, as I consider recall to be an near-unenforceable waste of everyone's time.

Questions from UninvitedCompany

Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
A As far as articles go; I create a lot of articles on a multitude of topics, and have got a couple to Featured Article status (see my user page for these). As an admin, my main tasks seem to consist of closing deletion discussions, responding to requests for assistance on WP:AN or WP:ANI, and clearing speedy deletion, vandalism or requested move backlogs as needed.
Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
A I have a master's degree in engineering from the University of Birmingham, although haven't used it since graduating. I am a business process reengineering consultant, specialising in local government and healthcare.
Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
A None.
Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
A There hasn't been any.
Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
A I don't, no. I vote, but am not a member of any party. I am pretty much agnostic.
Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
A I line manage a team of fourteen people at present as part of my job, although the number of people I manage varies by the project on which I am working.
Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
A No, and will not do so unless forced to. I would prefer not to disclose it unless circumstances make it necessary.
Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia? What are their user names and their relationships to you?
A Not that I am aware of.
Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
A Wikipedia Review, chiefly.
What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
A Wikipedia doesn't have constituencies.
What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
A It's impossible to say for certain; each case should be taken on its individual merits. However, I would always expect the Arbitration Comittee to take on cases involving user conduct when all other avenues of dispute resolution have been tried. I would always expect the Arbitration Committee to accept cases involving the misuse of administrator tools.
How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
A This is very broad; again, all cases should be taken on their metis and generalising is dangerous. As a general principle, I would note Arbcom can only issue on-Wiki sanctions, and if a user's conduct on-Wiki is good, then their off-Wiki behaviour would need to be appalling before action could be taken here that would be seen as anything other than punitive.
What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
A I prefer the committee to enact targeted restrictions; if a user's behaviour is only problematic when dealing with one person, or with one article or topic area, then restrictions are wholly appropriate. I am not a fan of enforced mentorship.
Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
A No. I would like to see, as I mention further above, a reduction of term-length and an increase in the number of arbitrators, but would not use my membership of the committee to evangelise for this.
Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
A In the past, I always admired the work done by Theresa Knott, Mackensen, and Sam Korn. I would very much like to see Sam gain re-election this time round. Of the current arbitrators, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin and FT2 are those I have seen the most of, and believe them to be excellent arbitrators. Traits I admire in arbitrators are openness, honesty, and the kind of empathy that provides a willingness to see both sides of a story and to avoid making snap judgements.
To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
A A high one. If something cannot be conclusively proven, then I would hope and expect to see a high degree of circumspection and care with any subsequent findings or proposals, until and unless conclusive proof was obtained.
What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
A Vaguely positive. I am glad they exist to keep Wikipedia running. I do wish the WMF would provide clarity on the issue of fair use (aka non free content), though, and I am moderately concerned occasionally when I see things that suggest conflicts of interest with Wikia.
To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
A Actively dealing with issues member of the public have is very important, and for the most part the OTRS team do an excellent job. They need to be ever-mindful of the need to communicate with others who may not be fully apprised of the facts when managing OTRS issues.
Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
A No. It was kept confidential at the time, it was for good reason, and I have no intention of breaching this trust.

Questions from TomasBat

In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)
A Being fair and patient with new users - and, indeed, all users - benefits the encyclopedia in the long term. It always does.

Question from MBisanz

In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond? If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.
A I would reveal it myself, and save them the bother. I am not heavily invested in keeping my real life identity secret. I prefer it, but it's not the end of the world.

Questions from Pixelface

Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
A None.
Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
A Almost all workship stuff. This is a list of all arbitration pages I've contributed to in some manner. Some in a minor way, some more so. /Sarah Palin protection wheel war, /C68-FM-SV, /Betacommand 2, /Geogre-William M. Connolley, /Tango, /Mantanmoreland, /Anonimu, /Alkivar, /Pigsonthewing 2, /Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war, /Philwelch, /Husnock. Here's a statement I found I made for a case that wasn't accepted, and here's one that was.
Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).
A None.

Questions from Badger Drink

It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
A I don't believe there are many situations where Arbcom has "screwed the pooch". There are decisions I disagree with (merging the JzG-Viridae dispute into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, which should never have happened, the time some cases have taken, the fairly toothless closes of some cases), but these are degrees of "not quite right", rather than clearly "wrong", and few issues have ever been close to the level of pooch-screwing, with the exception of the below.

What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
A Discussions should only ever be made in private if there is very good reasons for them to be private. This did not meet that threshold in any way, and the case was a huge mistake. OrangeMarlin was given no opportunity to state his case (see [4]), and this was not acceptable. That it was vacated was entirely appropriate. I believe this case was the primary cause of the recent loss in faith the community has suffered with regards to Arbcom.

This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
A Considering I authored a bunch of the proposals (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#Various_suggestions_by_Neil), it wouldn't be right for me to comment on it too much. I believe many of the RFC's proposals are now being incorporated into the draft policy. I still believe the size of the committe needs to be increased and the term duration increased.

Question from BirgitteSB

Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled, I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases [5], which follow, slightly clarified:

Have at least two arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence in isolation.
Allow all parties concerned to review at least the portions of the evidence presentations regarding their owns actions before any decision is reached.

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases, the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However, the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny, it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation, even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?-- BirgitteSB 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A Comprehensively presenting evidence is a lot of work, and to duplicate this is wasteful. I can see why you think it might be useful, but to do something twice over is not the solution; it's far better that it be right the first time. I am afraid, therefore, I do not agree with your first point. A less wasteful idea might be for an previously-uninvolved arbitrator to peer review the evidence. I agree with your second point, however; allowing the parties concerned to review all evidence relating to them before a decision is reached is essential; not allowing them to have their say turns the process into a kangaroo court.

The first point is not something I would have ever thought necessary before being given an actual case study. My belief that such labor intensive measures are necessary is a direct result of the analysis I undertook at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence#The Evidence Itself ... and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Workshop#Misuse of Twinkle. That such errors made it through the normal review process has shaken my confidence in simple peer review. I don't believe the failing here was that FT2 was "involved" with the case, but rather just run of the mill human fallibility. If you become an arb, please look through the archives and determine whether it was more of an absence or more of a failure of peer review that occurred here. And if it turns out it was failure of peer review, please re-consider your position that the peer-review process is a strong enough check.-- BirgitteSB 20:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A The evidence you quote indeed had some errors; this is why I believe peer review is essential. I don't believe the evidence in this case was peer reviewed. The process you went through with the evidence - clicking and double-checking every diff, and confirming or questioning the interpretation of each, is precisely what a peer review is. Evidence is reviewed in the case workshop (in this case, /Workshop). I would expect to see a second arbitrator review evidence, particularly in contentious cases (which most RFARs are these days). To sum up, there was no failure of peer review; rather an absence, as it didn't take place. It should have.

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

1. In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community? As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy" [6], which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.

A I note all your questions are about content; are you aware that content decision, such as determining the reliability of sources, is not part of Arbcom's mandate? In my opinion, I believe each journal should be reviewed on its individual merits.

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT#CENSORED? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?

A The interpretation of a content policy ( WP:NOTCENSORED) is also not part of Arbcom's mandate. My personal view is the intent of the policy is that Wikipedia articles include potentially offensive text or images where they are relevant to the content. Every time a deliberately offensive image is used in a unnecessary place, it erodes Wikipedia's reputation and utility as a general encyclopedia. Images, in particular, should be scientific, not frivolous or titilatory. I do not see a problem with making potentially offensive images "Click here to view", and I would like to see Wikipedia start doing that.

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.

A Again, this is a content issue, so would not be something for Arbcom to discuss. My personal view is that the widely held common scientific view must hold sway as the neutral point of view, although if dissenting reports are found that buoy the popular opinion, by all means include mention of them in the article. The debate can be discussed while a neutral point of view is maintained.

Questions From Ϣere Spiel Chequers

For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.

How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
A See my answer to Pixelface's question, above. I review most cases, but those are the ones I've been actively involved in.
In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
A I would imagine pretty much all the unanimous decisions but I am not going to count them, see below). They tend to be unanimous because they are obvious.
In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
A I have read pretty much every Arb case over the last four years - going through every decision of every one and adding them up just to get a meaningless percentage is something that would take ages, and a percentage wouldn't tell you anything useful, anyway.
How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
A Reopening a case is something Arbcom is empowered to do, and has done so in the past (see, for example, /Everyking 3). I think this is a pretty good way of handling new evidence. That being said, the time for when evidence is to be submitted is clear; there would need to be a good reason why the new evidence only came to light following the closure, and/or the evidence would need to be very compelling.

Ϣere Spiel Chequers 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Question(s) from LtPowers

There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment? If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust? (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with. My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.) Powers ^T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A For background, you may like to review my answers to FT2's first question and Newyorkbrad's 3rd question, both above. I agree that faith is beginning to be lost in Arbcom. I think this is due to a combination of issues; the time Arbcom takes to hear cases, the toothlessness of many of the remedies, the OrangeMarlin furore; much of these issues stem from the burnout of many of the Arbs. Why are so many burning out? the greater complexity of cases, the greater amount of time required, and the vicious cycle where as soon as one arb goes inactive, the load on the others gets bigger and bigger. On a recently opened case, we have twelve I would suggest that a larger and faster rotating Arbcom would be more suited to these responses - more Arbs, shorter terms. I keep suggesting far more Arbs, in 4 tranches of 7 (instead of 3 tranches of 5), with an election every 6 months (each election would necessarily be shorter-running than these yearly ones).

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor

These are questions I am putting to all candidates - apologies if they have already been asked you before.

Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself. On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki. On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days. Which definition do you prefer?
A First, see my response to Lar's 9th question, above. A vested contributor is one who has been around for a long time, and receives (not deserves, not believes they deserves - gets) special treatment.
Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
A See my answer to Roux, above.
Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
A It's nonsense; expert contributors willing to donate their time to Wikipedia are rare, not in infinite supply.
Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right. It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly. But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back. Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented. In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
A If they have been secretly allowed back, there would be no consensus in the community, as the community would not be aware. If the community were aware, it would not be a secret. So one does not suggest the other. If a user banned by Arbcom is found to be editing constructively under a new name, then the current practice is until and unless they start causing problems, they are allowed to continue, but would probably be monitored.
Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR. All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests. Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use? If so, what should those be?
A There are clear criteria. See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating and Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2.

I wish you the very best with your candidacy, I hope it goes the way you would like, but also that it goes the way that is ultimately of benefit to the community and the project. The Land Surveyor ( talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Questions from Will Beback

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?

A' Yes, one - I have a gnome account, which I have used very infrequently - see Proto ( talk · contribs). It is fully disclosed on my user and talk pages, and both the user and talk pages of User:Proto redirect to my main account.

2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?

A With reference, I presume to User:Catherine de Burgh? To have a little fun, yes, to make a point, perhaps if done so without disruption, but to disrupt, no. Alternate accounts should be disclosed, unless they are separate from the main account for specific and legitimate reasons, per the advice at WP:SOCK.

3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?

A Revert, Block, Ignore - the less fuss that is made of a banned user's trolling attempts, the less likely they are to continue to try and return in order to disrupt. They will either give up and go away, or they will try and start (or resume) editing constructively. Improving the handling of sock checks is difficult - we could, for example, expand the number of checkusers. We could also address the handling of checkuser requests; Requests for checkuser is quite complex and forbidding for a first-time user. A review of whether all the bureaucracy there is needed could be worthwhile.

Question from harej

Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? -- harej 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A "Promulgate" is one of those words you rarely see outside of Wikipedia. It means either "to make generally known", or more formally, "to announce officially through public declaration". From the context of your statement, I believe you probably meant it in the misused sense, where it is used instead of "promote", or "spread". So, does the Arbitration Committee exist to spread and promote the good times? That depends on your definition of "good times". I believe the "good times" for Wikipedia are when there is no drama, when people are working together collaboratively on making the encyclopedia better, in a constructive and respectful way. Arbcom plays its part in promoting this, as the final arbiter on user conduct issues. So yes, in a way the Arbitration Committee does exist to spread and promote the good times.

Question from Ncmvocalist

1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A (a) All cases are distinct in some way; this one is unique, perhaps, as it's a request to formally vacate a case, which hasn't happened often. (b) No, I would not; while I appreciate the reasons for User:Shoemaker's Holiday to wish the case be vacated, the evidence of the Matthew Hoffman case remains valid (see [7]); it was right and proper for the User:Vanished user account to be desysopped. The personal circumstances of Vu/SH mean we should treat the situation with care, and certainly courtesy blanking is appropriate, particularly given there were glaring improprietries in the way the case was handled, but the fundamental facts of the case remain valid, and to vacate the case would suggest (Vanished user's inconsisten evidence, the two grossly improper blocks - see [8], and the unfair insinuations of sockpuppetry) did not happen. They did, and I believe the result (exoneration of User:MatthewHoffman and a desysopping of User:Vanished user) was appropriate. Why should this be vacated? (c) Based on the motions presently up for discussion, I would support 1.1, and oppose 1, 1.2 and 1.3. (d) I would propose that the case and associated pages be courtesy blanked, and Shoemaker's Holiday be required to go through RFA like any other user if he requires the administrator's tools returned, not Arbcom. I am very much in favour of an RFA always being required should a forcible (as opposed to voluntary) desysop be carried out.

Thank you for your honesty and answer. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Questions from Al tally

Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).

Good luck with the election! Al Tally ^talk 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A Hi Al. Adapted from here: Requests for Checkuser and Oversight access should be decided by means other than by the Arbitration Committee. This will devolve some of the activities in which Arbcom don't really need to be involved. Their role is final-level dispute resolution. Two options; firstly this could be determined by community decision in a similar manner to a request for Bureaucratship, the passing mark will be higher than that of a request for adminship. I would hope to see an "RFCA" or an "RFOA" require at least 90% support to pass, and with no major objections from members of the community in good standing. The second option would be determination by the current holders. As the recognised current experts (similar to the Bot Approvals Group), requests for Checkuser access could be discussed and determined by all those who currently hold checkuser access. A similar process for Oversight. Of the two, I would prefer the first option, and have the community make the determination. One caveat is that Arbitrators currently have access to oversight by default as a necessity, and I would expect this to remain the case, with the access removed upon the expiration of their time on the Committee, and if the user wished to retain access then they should go through the same process as everyone else.
A Arbcom decisions are made carefully, over a period of time, require strong evidence, and are considered and thorough. The community should be very much entitled to make a case to overturn Arbcom rulings, but I would expect a similar level of careful, studied consideration, and the best way for this to be done is not a show of hands on WP:AN over the course of a half hour; it should be done in a considered manner, giving everyone who wishes to participate the opportunity to do so, through the arbitration process (either via a request for clarification or a new case to amend an old one).
A Yes, yes, maybe. I would expect an Arbitrator to lose their rights to Checkuser and Oversight once they cease to be a sitting Arbitrator. I would note that this may not mean they have resigned - they may have decided not to run again at the end of their term, or wished to continue as an Arbitrator but did not get sufficient votes at election. I still believe they should lsoe the privileges, though. As far as the mailing list goes, I believe there are two lists, one for current Arbs only, and one with a broader readership including the ex-Arbs, and I believe they could continue to have access to this so long as they are providing useful, helpful advice or support. If they are not contributing, merely reading, or (worse) using the list to forment problems or press old grudges, then they should be bounced post haste by a majority vote of the current Arbs.
A From here, which I still stand by: Should a significant portion of the community hold concerns over the activity, conduct or capability of a sitting Arbitrator, a Request for Comment may be opened. Their fellow Arbitrators are encouraged to participate. If the Arbitrator in discussion fails to engage in the process, the RFC continues, regardless. The arbitrator under discussion may simply be required to amend their behaviour, however, should the community conclude categorically that an Arbitrator is unsuitable to continue in the position, the Arbitrator is expected and encouraged to step down amicably. It is clear that there is no current way for the community to redress the behaviour of an Arbitrator other than voting them out up to three years later. This is not sufficient.

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit

Two questions related to the balance of power between ArbCom and admins. Pcap ping 16:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you think that the special civility restrictions enacted by ArbCom in several cases have been successful? If not, what would you do propose instead?
Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of an ArbCom case ( WP:AE)? If the answer is no, what should be done about admin A?

A Partly. If a civility restriction doesn't work, then the situation needs to be reviewed; why doesn't it work? Iss it the editor under the restriction testing the boundaries of what is acceptable? Is the editor being unblocked by friendly admins? Is the feeling it doesn't work due to a vocal minority, but on the whole it's working? Was the restriction appropriate in the first place? What is the fundamental issue? Why is the editor being incivil? Resolve that and the rest will right itself.
A No. If the action is clearly under the provisions of an arbitration ruling enforcement, I would expect Admin A to be warned once, desysopped the second time.

Question from Ling.Nut

I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut ^{(
talk—
WP:3IAR)} 15:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A Blech. Codifying IAR is daft. Just because the "rules" didn't at the time say you couldn't redirect your talk page to your userpage, that you didn't see why this was a bad idea, and thought it was a good idea to do so, suggests you're not quite au fait with common sense. It is important that editors be openly available for discussion, and this means their talk pages should be usable at all times.

Questions from Caprice

Please consider this question (which Whiteknight posed previously to the candidates for WMF Trustees)...

Question on Due Process
Hidden in Wikipedia's Administrator's Noticeboard, there is a quote from Lar:
The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair.
The question, in response to quotes like this, is: Should Wikipedia reform its regulatory structure to better respect modern society's concept of Civil Rights and Due Process? —Whiteknight ( meta) ( Books) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In particular, should Wikipedia evolve its governance structure to at least catch up to where Thomas Jefferson and the Founders took us some 235 years ago, when they wrote into the US Constitution a prohibition against Writ of Attainder (the legal term corresponding to the Jimbonic practice of banning and indefinite blocking without due process).

If not, should Wikipedia evolve its governance structure to at least catch up to where Hammurabi defined the Rule of Law back in 1760 B.C. when he required that banning at least be proven at trial?

First Law of Hammurabi's Code, 1760 B.C.
1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

If not, should Wikipedia evolve to where Western Civilization has stood since the dawn of recorded history, where one could absolve themselves of the stigma of unproven charges of wrongdoing by engaging in a baptismal ablution ritual?

Second Law of Hammurabi's Code, 1760 B.C.
2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

Fourthly, should there be some (perhaps more merciful) remedy for dealing with those condemned admins who have treated editors harshly (e.g. by arbitrarily, capriciously, and summarily imposing unproven bans or indefinite blocks), in accordance with the third secular law ever carved into stone tablets?

Third Law of Hammurabi's Code, 1760 B.C.
3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

Finally, in view of the WMF Mission to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and to disseminate that educational content to students, teachers, and scholars around the world, should Wikipedia be modeling a more up-to-date governance practice than the pre-Hammurabic tribal overlordship that has come to dominate the absurd carnival of political soap operas of the Wikisphere's legendary drama machine?

Caprice 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

A Hi Moulton. I mention earlier that unfounded or unproven claims of poor conduct should be viewed as dimly as the conduct itself. Making claims without providing evidence is a damaging and repetitive issue on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need Due Process, or at least not your idea of it; what it needs is accountability and a willingness for people to think for themselves, rather than taking sides and squabbling, and a refocussing on what is important - building a better encyclopedia.

How would an aggrieved party deal with an instance of unfounded or unproven claims (e.g. "disruption" or "tendentiousness" or "vandalism") when those vague and highly subjective labels are tossed about, slapped on a user like a stigmatizing Scarlet Letter, and then used as a lame excuse to permanently silence or exclude a rival editor? I would have settled for civil dialogue (even if the parties ultimately agreed to disagree on the substantive issues). What disturbs me is the tendency for such disagreements to escalate to a "Mad Max" scenario where an irresponsibile and unaccountable admin rides around in a jeep firing a machine gun at other editors. Cla68 has called such battles "farcical" as they resemble Saturday morning cartoons with Elmer Fudd blasting away at Bugs Bunny. As things stand now, the only functional way to deal with it is to lampoon it offsite as a Carnival of the Absurd (Kato's term of art). This seems a poor way to inculcate the youth of the 21st Century into modern and responsible systems of self-governance that honors the contributions of Stephen Langton, Thomas Jefferson, Mohandas Gandhi, ML King, and Thich Nhat Hanh. — Montana Mouse 11:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Questions from Tony1

My good wishes for your candidature, Fish. I wonder whether you might respond to these questions.

What is your attitude to the notion of introducing commercial advertising on WP?
Many users believe that the current "official" processes for ensuring that administrators adhere to the policy requirements of their behaviour—particularly the use of blocking—are inadequate. What is your attitude towards the reform of those processes so that they avoid the accusation that admins judge the behaviour of admins?
Some of the policy tenets embedded in the policy page WP:Administrators are cast in terms that may require ArbCom's interpretion during your term. Can you give us an idea of how you'd approach the interpretation of this potential exception from the critical policy that admins avoid conflict of interest in their role? The text in question is green and includes a commented-out section. The hypothetical case you face as a member of ArbCom would involve a claim that an admin who has not followed the putative "best practice" has breached the WP:UNINVOLVED policy by themselves blocking a user with whom they've had a negative interaction on the talk page of the same article several months before.

However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases (although not required to). Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will "stick", in certain exceptional cases.

Tony (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply