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

1. General questions: Editors submitted these from 27 October through 10 November; they appear first.
2. Individual questions: Eligible voters may ask an individual question of one or more candidates; it can be added to the section underneath the general questions. Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do ensure you are not overlapping with a general question, or with an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to provide their responses before voting starts on 1 December. They are reminded that voters may support or oppose based on which questions are responded to as well as the responses themselves. Candidates are welcome to refuse to answer a question if they feel uncomfortable doing so; if a question is very similar to another, candidates are welcome to simply refer the editor to their response to the similar question.

General questions Information

General Questions submitted by the users indicated. For more information, please see the guidelines posted here.

Arbitrators' skills

(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. ( UltraExactZZ)

A:

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. ( Tony1)

A:

(3) 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 the requests page) and for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;

(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Banned User Subcommittee or considering the subcommittee's recommendations;

(E) Overseeing the granting and use of Checkuser and Oversight permissions, including vetting candidates for these privileges and supervising elections for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;

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

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

(H) Carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators generally are given oversight privileges also);

(I) Internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming Arbcom-l mailing list traffic, reminding colleagues of internal deadlines, and the like;

(J) Assisting with policy- and procedure-related discussions, such as working to finalize the long-pending revision of the Arbitration Policy;

(K) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain). ( Newyorkbrad)

A:

Challenges of being an arbitrator

(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? ( Sam Blacketer)

A:

(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of ' groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? ( Sam Blacketer)

A:

(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? ( Juliancolton)

A:

(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? ( Tznkai)

A:

(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? ( EdChem)

A:

ArbCom and admins

(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? ( LessHeard vanU)

A:

(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? ( Davewild)

A:

(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? ( Finn Casey)

A:

(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? ( Majorly)

A:

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. ( NuclearWarfare)

A:

(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? ( Od Mishehu)

A:

ArbCom's role and structure

(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? ( Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply

A:

(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? ( Davewild)

A:

(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? ( Kotniski)

A:

(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? ( Camaron/ Majorly)

A:

(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? ( Camaron)

A:

(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can the committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? ( Heimstern)

A:

(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague 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? ( Heimstern)

A:

(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? ( Heimstern)

A:

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? ( Offliner)

A:

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? ( Majorly)

A:

(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. ( NuclearWarfare)

A:

(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months. [1] Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. ( NuclearWarfare)

A:

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making

(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? ( Jake Wartenberg)

A:

(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? ( Jake Wartenberg)

A:

(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? ( Jake Wartenberg)

A:

(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). ( Camaron)

A:

(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) ( Daniel)

(As a point of further clarification, it is entirely unnecessary to read the case these principles were originally decided in — the intent of these questions are to establish your opinion on the general principles that are linked to, while working under the assumption they are directly relevant to a case you are deciding.)

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007

A:

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007

A:

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

A:

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008

A:

(v) "Outing", June 2009

A:

(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? ( NuclearWarfare)

A:

Other issues

(33) 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 A/R/Zeraeph? ( MBisanz)

A:

(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? ( NuclearWarfare)

A:

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? ( Hipocrite)

A:

(36) One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? ( Newyorkbrad)

A:

Individual questions Information

Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here.

Interesting candidacy. I have a question about one aspect of your statement. You said,

• That many people do deal with it as if it were legitimate is no indication of its legitimacy

What difference is there between the community dealing with the committee as if it were legitimate, and the committee actually being legitimate? I would say that it is practice, and not theory, that is equivalent to reality. AGK 14:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe I explained the difference quite clearly in my statement. People are willing to pretend an unjust situation that they find thrust upon them is legitimate if it's their only option for getting by at the moment, but that doesn't mean that it actually is legitimate.

Note This exchange is discussed further on the talkpage.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Will you ever stop tilting at windmills?

A: I can't stop what I've never started. My aims are real, achievable, and concrete, and are in response to actual (not imagined) problems.

1. Scrambled or fried?

A: Depends on whether they're from a laden or unladen swallow.

1. Let's take as given your objective to eliminate the committee. Because of the way votes are counted, an arbitrator voting against everything is strictly equivalent with an arbitrator not voting on anything — which means that if you were elected it would be exactly as though the seat was left vacant. How does that help achieve your stated objective of removing the committee?

A: There are times when one vote is the difference between a case being accepted and not being accepted.

2. If you were elected, would you abide by rules binding the Committee? In particular, would you respect the confidentiality of information entrusted to the committee, including internal deliberations?

A: Basically...yeah, just to avoid creating a shitstorm. As much as I loathe secrecy, it's not worth the trouble. And in fact, I know there are already plenty of others who despise this secrecy as much as I do, and letting this secrecy continue is a great way to let them just continue to dig out their own hole.

1. Can you withdraw, you know you are making yourself look like a fool in a important page like this. You been close to banning several times, and this could be the final straw in this project for you. This is as pointy as it could get.

Am I making a point? You betcha. Am I disrupting anything to do it? Absolutely not...I'm participating in the established process, within the confines laid out, to achieve my goals. It doesn't get much less disruptive than that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I also completely disagree with Kmweber's arguments, motives and stated objective. However I fully respect his right to participate as a "protest candidate" in the election process and I don't see anything malicious or disruptive about it. Manning ( talk) 00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Seriously, really? What makes you believe this community is in any way competent to resolve the kinds of problems that end up at Arbcom? Have you seen the community?!? Friday (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't see how that's relevant. Competent or not, they're the only ones with the authority to do it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As I understand it, you wish for the Arbitration Committee to be disbanded and replaced by a community-approved process. In your opinion, what kind of process would ideally replace the Arbitration Comittee, if any? -- Aqwis ( talk) 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It's not something I've given too much thought to. I'm not the kind of person who gets involved in the kinds of disputes that wind up at the AC, simply because my areas of interest are not particularly controversial; so I'm not well-informed enough to be able to judge what kind of process would work best in those situations. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If elected would you subscribe to the Arbcom mailing list?

No. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

What do you think of the role of the Arbcom mailing list in wp:SOCK, and if elected what would you do if an editor notified you as an arb of an alternate account of theirs?

Socking is not a big deal in the first place. If the sockpuppet is only being used for acceptable purposes, then it shouldn't matter whose it is or whether or not it actually is a sock. If it starts being used for unacceptable purposes, it can be dealt with on those grounds alone, regardless of it being a sockpuppet account or not. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you not view your self-nomination for arbcom as prima facie evidence of power hunger?

I don't, because I know my own motives and trust myself. I don't expect others not to, though. If they choose to interpret it that way, that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation because they don't have any special insight into the inner workings of the mind. I don't ever expect anyone to just "take my word for it." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Have you ever read or seen Lord of the Flies?

Read it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, 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. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.

The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The next question determines your ability to go through evidence. The last question is a bit open-ended.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?

   Don't know anything about it; not relevant to my candidacy.

2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

   If they represent the consensus of those who are actually making substantial contributions to the articles, sure. The Wikipedia community as a whole can come up with general standards, but those who actually work on certain areas know those areas best and are best equipped to judge whether or not those standards are ideal for that subset of articles. It is not, however, necessary for those editors to be organized into a "WikiProject"; nor does a WikiProject trump a wider consensus of editors not formally associated with the project but nevertheless are active editors in that area.

3. 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?

   There is no such thing as "breaking policies," since so-called policies are not binding rules to begin with. There are also no such things as "administrators" on Wikipedia.

4. There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?

   Well-intentioned.

5. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?

   Correct them, clean up after them, but they're only a problem if they're belligerent about it. Someone who makes a lot of technical/procedural errors, but isn't upset when someone else comes along and fixes them, is not a problem.

6. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?

   Absolutely not.

7. Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.

   It's a non-rule that shouldn't be enforced. Use common sense, not rules.

8. When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?

   Ignore it unless someone actually makes an honest, reasonable complaint.

9. A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?

   When they would be reverted were they made by anyone else.

10. During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. b) When the story was made public, do you believe that the editor you chose handled this situation properly in stepping down? Were they forthcoming enough with information?

    Not interested enough to worry about it.

11. Tell me as much as you can about User:OrangeCounty39. You may refer to any page on the Internet except for other ArbCom candidates' replies to this question.

    Not interested enough to worry about it.

12. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

    A class of self-appointed "elite" (though they'll never admit they think of themselves that way) who, despite not possessing any sort of legitimate authority beyond that possessed by everyone else, nevertheless have the muscle to enforce sycophancy and kowtowing.

Thank you. Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you seriously think that the community wants (as in, will elect) an Arbitrator who is going to openly and deliberately disrupt the work of the committee?

Do I think they want it? Sure. Do I think they'll elect one? Not yet, but I am merely the vanguard here. I do believe the bulk of Wikipedians agree with me, but at the moment they just don't feel they can come out yet. We can only make progress on this front if those of us who are willing to be open continue to lead the fight. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

These questions are being asked of all candidates.

• In limited conversation with past and present arbitrators, they have regularly mentioned the pronounced time demands which being a member of the Arbitration Committee can require, particularly in the difficult or complex cases, on such matters as reading evidence, reviewing behavior of individuals, and discussion of solutions. Do you believe that you will be able to give such matters the time they require?
• Also, as has been mentioned above, several editors have indicated some arbitrators become less active as regular contributors, either because of the "politics" or because of the demands on time. Do you anticipate being able to continue to function as an active content contributor while an arbitrator?
• Also, do you anticipate that your exposure to the seamier side of wikipedia might make you less interested in continuing as a content contributor on the conclusion of your ArbCom term?

• A. It doesn't take that much time to type "decline ~~~~" once every five or six days. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

During your campaign last year, you stated (primarily off-Wiki) that those who opposed you "hate Wikipedia." Do you still believe as such this time around?

I never believed it to begin with. It was nothing more than (ill-advised) posturing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Have you considered taking my suggestion, offered both on- and off-wiki, of resuming your mainspace participation in Wikipedia, which has been valued, rather than your governance-related participation, which has received rather less approval?

Considered it, but I don't see how it would make progress. The problem hasn't been with my ideas but rather with the manner in which I've expressed them (a wholly uncalled-for remark to SV on a mailing list, and some posturing that in retrospect I should have known better than to engage in, etc.). As long as I keep it low-key and keep myself on message rather than drifting off into the realm of attacks, I should be fine. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Have your views of the Wikipedia community changed since December 15, 2008?

That never was a view of the Wikipedia community as a whole, but of certain individuals within certain illegitimate governance structures who have the muscle to impose their will. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Do you understand the definition of the word "permanent", as in, "Users in good standing may request to leave Wikipedia permanently."?

1. Do you apologise for your campaign of harassment of other Wikipedia editors that you undertook last Fall?

1. Why have you failed to answer these questions? Why aren't you even challenging my (evidence-supported) accusation of harassment?

Wikipedia has gone from being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but only successfully if they're aware of a morass of overlapping policies, recommendations, suggestions, procedures, committees, and teams". I think some of the questions you're being asked during your trek towards serving on the Arbitration Committee demonstrate the surprising complexity of the systems that are in place.

My questions surround your role in that bureaucracy, and your ability to make changes for the better. Thank you for entertaining them, and good luck with your candidacy. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

1. How do you manage to have the time to learn and study all of these policies, guidelines, procedures, committees, and navigate their politics? How do you think you, or anyone else, could possibly be effective in the complicated editing environment and intricate political landscape?
2. As an Arbitrator, you will be managing multiple postings, doing check user checks, reviewing cases, analyzing evidence, overseeing oversight and checkuser permissions, moderating a busy mailing list, monitoring a few other mailing lists, working on policy- and procedure-related discussions. This is volunteer work. How much time per week can you spend on all the tasks an Arbitrator must execute? What is your motivation?
3. It's clear that Wikipedia has the goal of recording and redistributing knowledge. But some of its own policies prevent it from reaching that goal, and it very frequently ends up redistributing information that isn't correct, reflects bias, or has never verified. How can you, as an Arbitration Committee member, help Wikipedia find its goal?
4. What do you think of the questions you're been asked here? For example, how do you think your opinion of the previous handling of an RfA involving a sock puppet tells us that you'll be any more effective at rectifying Wikipedias multitude of problems than any other candidate?
5. Do you think the Arbitration Committee's procedures are understandable and approachable by most editors? Do you think conflict resolution on Wikipedia, in general, is understood by most editors, and that it enables productive work on the improving the quality and correctness of content presented here? If so, what will you do to correct it?

Please see my response to John Carter. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.

1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

   a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

   b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

   c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)

   d) " WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get

   e) " WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied

2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:

   a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

   b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

   c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?

4. 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? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?

5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

   a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

   b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

   c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

   d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

   e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from last year in that it's more extensive)

   f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

   g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from last year)

6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.

   a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

   b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

   c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

   d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

   e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

   f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?

7. 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?

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

   a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

   b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

   c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. 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)?

   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?

   e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

   f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?

9. 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)?

10. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

11. One final one: Why do you hate Wikipedia? :) More seriously, why was it appropriate to respond to criticism with that rejoinder?

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Per your statement and, "If elected, I would, quite simply, vote to decline any and all cases presented before the Arbitration Committee, instead referring them to community institutions and processes that actually have legitimacy and the moral authority to enforce a final decision." I would ask what community institutions and processes do you refer to? I ask because cases are generally only accepted at ArbCom once it is evidenced that the available processes and institutions have been exhausted - it appears that you would be returning issues back to the places where resolution has not been found possible. How, as an Arb, would you force those institutions/processes to be better able to resolve the issues when they are referred back? Would I be correct in assuming that you don't mean to pass them onto Jimbo, who was previously the process of last resort in dispute? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

A Whatever institutions and processes the community wishes to devise, should the existing community institutions and processes prove insufficient. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Do you still think I should be indefinitely blocked, as you stated on July 29, 2008?
2. Even though I lost adminship ten months ago?
3. Even though I've largely stayed away from Wikipedia administrative matters and concentrated on working on articles? -- Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

   Since that was a year and a half ago, I don't remember the circumstances that led to me saying that, so I don't know if I should still think that or not. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi ( talk) 17:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

1. What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
   1. Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
   2. Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?

      The community giveth, and the community (and only the community) taketh away. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

   3. How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?

      It shouldn't.

   4. What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?

      I have none; it's not something I concern myself with.

2. What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
   1. What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
   2. Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
   3. Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
   4. Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
   5. Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
   6. If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?

      Not important.

3. What is your opinion regarding Wikipedians "rights," or at least "expectations" to privacy and ano/psuedo-nymity, and what is ArbCom's role in either supporting or adjusting these expectations/rights?

   It has no legitimate role in anything.

4. Lastly, please list one to three issues that you believe are of primary importance to the ongoing future of wikipedia and how you will contribute to the handling of those issues. Please feel free to copy/paste sections from your nominating statement if you have addressed it there.

   Eliminating the "Arbitration" Committee is essential. There should be no formal abolition, but rather it should simply be ignored, as it possesses no legitimate authority to be abolished in the first place. I will contribute to this by doing my part to render it ineffective.

Questions from Piotrus

1. How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?
2. How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
3. In both my experience, and that of some other editors I talked to, being "grilled" at arbitration for weeks (or months) is "one of the worst experience of one's life" - and it doesn't matter if one is found innocent or guilty afterwards. Do you think that something can be done to make the experience of parties be less stressful? How would a community discussion be better?
4. Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
5. ArbCom commonly criticizes editors, publishing findings about their failings and remedies to correct them. While nobody disputes this is needed, do you think ArbCom should also try to clarify whether noted failings are exceptional, and accompany critical findings with positive reinforcement, such as here?

   Did you not read my candidate statement? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

   Yes, also now in I see that Q1-2 are not really relevant to you. But I'd still appreciate your thoughts on Q3-5 - if needed, relace arbcom with community :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

IRC Question from Hipocrite

Do you use any of the wikimedia related IRC channels? If you do, will you please permit any logs of your conversations to be posted, in full? Thanks.

1. Yes; I don't mind, but others might. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Question from NE2

Have you read War and Peace?

1. Yes. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing [2]. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones ( talk) 22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The Outlaw Jimbo Wales is no different than anyone else, and so he properly has no special role. That said, so-called "policy" on Wikipedia is not terribly important, since on Wikipedia, policies are not normative rules that we are bound to follow, but rather positive descriptions of what has been typically done in the past in certain situations that we can use to judge how best to deal with a specific situation we find ourselves confronted with now. We are obligated to do what makes the most sense in a certain situation--there are absolutely not, nor have there ever been, any binding "rules" or "policies" that must be followed. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

1. What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?
2. How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.

   Did you not read my candidate statement? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

   Yes. In your case, "punt" to where it should be (more legitimate entities) has a certain siren calling to it. That said, how do you simply not throw something over the wall and wash your hands of it? Clearly you are running to fix something. ArbCom may be filling a function which should not exist which it should not be performing, but should you be successful, how do you insure that the vacuum you create is not filled by something that is not even more dysfunctional? You may find you need something more discerning than a big "Schmutz!" label. One can unite people in tearing down something which is wrong; knowing what to build as its replacement is the challenge.   PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk  05:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Questions from Sarah777

1. A major concern of mine is the use/abuse of WP:CIVIL to silence editors by Admins who are often less than objective or neutral. Have you any concerns about the enforcement of WP:CIVIL?

It's a bad idea. It encourages people to tiptoe around their problems rather than be open and frank about them, for fear of being whacked for perceived (whether that perception is justified or not) incivility; then these issues just simmer and simmer until they blow up big time. There's a reason professional hockey leagues let small-time fights go on so long as no one's getting hurt.

2. Related to the above; I believe that there is cultural difference in the acceptability of robust and frank language between America and Europe. An illustration of this is the censorship of "bad language" on US television, words which would pass unnoticed on TV in the UK or Ireland for example. How do you react to the charge that US standards of "civility" are being imposed on Wikipedians from places that happily embrace forms of expression that some Americans seem to find "uncivil"?

While I don't think "civility" as it is currently enforced/understood is all that important, I do agree that if it is going to be enforced then if a choice is to be made among many different cultural standards the one that is the strictest needs to be chosen; it's a lowest-common-denominator approach that best ensures that the intention behind the rule (to prevent people from feeling offended) is served for everyone.

3. Would you regard your candidacy as hopeless? Sarah777 ( talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply

No.

Question from Hiberniantears

Officially, Jimbo is no different than any other user, and ArbCom doesn't deal with content disputes. Functionally, the only part of this statement that is true is "officially". Intellectually, how do you reconcile the existence of such fallacies on a project like this. and what do you see as their impact (positive or negative)? Hiberniantears ( talk) 05:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate: Kmweber Candidate statement ( create) Questions for the candidate ( create) Discuss this candidate ( create)