Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/David Fuchs/Questions for the candidate

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Questions from Heimstern (r)
My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?
 * Short answer: it depends. Long answer: I think the tone and conduct of those involved in the edit war goes a long way towards convincing me of who's willing to sit down and deal. Often perfectly reasonable editors get "sucked in" or enflamed by more problematic users, but usually cool back down and are willing to take steps to solve the problem. My general philosophy, then, is to try and faciliate discussion between them and to advise rather than outright 'whack' this or that editor; of course, if it is clear the user is intent on disruption, straight, to the point action is better. This leads into bans- I am a strong believer in the 'lesser sanctions' idea, but unfortunately I would say the majority of users who undergo mentorship and similar 'programs' lapse right back into their old ways, and for them I would say admins and the community should be less forgiving. In regards to how to reach that descision, once again I believe it's usually clear from the actions of the user in question whether they're willing to buckle down and desist. I always keep in mind I was a callow vandal in my (relative) youth, and try to approach them from that perspective. 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?
 * This basically funnels back into what I was saying; incivil editors only aggravate and enflame issues, and a frank sit-down is often the best way to deal with them. People aren't perfect; if they were, they would a) not make stupid or angry comments, and b) if they did, at least preview and correct them before posting. Occasionally a miscreant editor will try and plead that they "didn't really mean it", and I'll usually assume good faith in that case; but it always becomes pretty clear whether or not they're abusing that assumption. 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?
 * Generally, I would want the community at large to decide something like a desysop-ization (yeah that's not a word) but I'm sure fringe cases are present where the transparency community action gives might not be appropriate. Generally, I would disagree with temporary suspension, as I believe if the admin was that off track that they were deemed to be denied the tools once, it's only fair to have a new RfA. 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?
 * When it's clear the ban was influenced by a case of 'tyranny of the majority', either deliberately induced or simply a misunderstanding of policy. If such a ban were to be appealed, I would expect the Committee to provide clear reasoning in why they decided to consider the appeal. 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Two recent cases, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?
 * hmm... difficult. I have occasionally seen cases similar to the one you describe, but my general inclination would be to let the voting, etc, run for a longer period; this gives a greater chance of at least eliminating bad proposals, and giving a chance for someone to step in with new evidence, et al. 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Righto :) David Fuchs ( talk ) 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from xaosflux (r)

 * 1) As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants.  Thank you,— xaosflux Talk 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)
 * I'd be looking for two specific, intertwined things: desire for the tools, tempered by the need. There are no quotas for oversight or CU priveleges; thus, the pool of those with the power should optimally be no larger than those who are using them- and those who are using them should, of course, be using them properly, and be reasoned, rational, and trustworthy. David Fuchs ( talk ) 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly (r)
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)


 * 1) How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?
 * I guess I'm a little looser than many users; I disagree with the writers of WP:SARCASM on several points. But I also know when it's time for jokes, and when it's time to be serious and buckle down. I'm also committed to trying to attain, if not justice, than a fair hearing for a valid complaint or point of view. 20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?
 * The Wiki is a strange place, and I feel real-life experience, though important, is always somewhat skewed when dealing with the internet and its denizens. Still, from something as small as trying to get my friends to speak to one another again to attempting to ‘clear the air’ with someone at school, I’d say every little experience you have can contribute in some way to what you have to deal with on Wikipedia, and the issues specific to MedCab, ArbCom and the rest. 20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time.  Majorly  (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, thank you. David Fuchs ( talk ) 20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions by east718 (r)

 * 1) Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
 * Short answer, yes, but I think it's important that ArbCom close cases "with all deliberate speed", not willy-nilly, of course. Naturally, some facets of cases will never come to light unless the members do digging, and that can take time. What will make cases proceed faster is more involvement and activity on the part of the members. 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?
 * I've never found myself expressly against any findings of fact or the like, although once or twice I've seen the wrong user get off scot-free, leaving me with a bit of head-scratchin'. The more "whaaa?" type proposed principles usually get knocked down anyhow, which gives me confidence in the Committee- like I've said elsewhere, my only big gripe is with the actual slow process, not the results. 18:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, east. 718 at 19:31, 11/1/2007

Questions from Picaroon (r)

 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 and User:Picaroon/Stats. Do you have time to vote on most of the approximately eight cases a month that will come before the committee? Would you resign your post if you found yourself consistently (say, 2-3 months on end) unable to even get near that goal? Under what conditions besides inactivity would you resign your post?
 * Short answers: Yes. Yes. If the community felt that I was not neutral, or some similar concern about my actions on ArbCom, I would resign. 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Under what conditions should non-arbitrators be granted access to the arbcom mailing list? Former members, checkusers/oversights who have never been on the committee, board members, others?


 * Can you show an example or two of a normal case (ie, accepted via committee vote on WP:RFAR, not dismissed without remedies) where you largely disagree with the final decision? Please explain why you disagree with the outcome, and say what you would've supported instead (or, alternately, why the case shouldn't have been accepted).


 * Please list the total number of alternate accounts you have used, and please list the usernames of as many as you feel comfortable making public.
 * None, unless I'm forgetting a large part of my wiki-life. Wait, actually my little brother tried to impersonate me as User:David Fvchs, not sure if that counts. 11:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Under what circumstances should a case be heard completely via email, as opposed to onwiki? Under what conditions should the committee block a user without making public the full extent of the reasoning (for example, this user)?
 * I would hope we don't have to conduct any case out of sight of the community, however there might be extreme cases when this is appropriate; it really just depends, and I think such a descision should be made only on a case by case basis. As for Melseran's block, I would have to say while the community can't see the evidence, and as not familiar with the pertinent details cannot comment on why the full evidence was not specified, the end result was a ban for sockpuppetry, and since checkuser requests don't give us any more details than that (it's not like they give away where we live, etc.) I feel that there was nothing wrong in that case. 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Jimmy Wales desysop of a few days ago? (see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370‎)? What should he have done differently, if anything? What role should the committee have had in this?
 * Frankly, I feel that the desysopping of Zscout370 was horribly reactionary and ill-advised. Such actions, I feel, should not be made unilaterally, even if Zscout did make a foolish unblock; discussion should have taken place before such action, and a "cool off" desysopping should never be done. I feel that such an issue should have gone through dispute resolution first, and worked its way up to ArbCom if needed, although I suspect it would have been taken care of long before then. 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Under what circumstances should the committee implement an indefinite ban on a user? Under what conditions should probation/supervised editing be instituted instead of a ban of any duration?
 * Indef bans aren't really so, since any admin can simply revert such a block, even if that were ill-advised; still, I feel we shouldn't set everything in stone, and that extends to bans. At the very least, it should be a last option considered for obvious destructive or disruptive behavior. It should never be used, as I have seen occasionally attempted at CSN, to ban users who are considered "troublesome" but are in fact making good faith edits, but some admin editors (for example, on the Global Warming article or some other controversial topic) tries to use their clout to shut out discussion. Frankly, I have supported supervised mentoring and probation several times previously, but anecdotal evidence suggests that for troublesome users who are being considered for a ban, they usually will not improve in a parole system. 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What constitutes a wheel war? Was the Requests for arbitration/BJAODN situation a wheel war? How about Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot and Requests for arbitration/Alkivar? Thanks for your time, Picaroon (t) 21:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The failure with the BJAODN affair, I feel, was the BRD cycle wasn't practiced; if I acted once and was reverted, then seeking consensus on a Admin board would be the best thing to do- and that goes for admins, regular users, everyone. Reapplication of blocks, especially unilaterally, is just asking to have the tools removed. Unfortunately, when it becomes a number of admins reverting/blocking/et al intertwined, I think it takes a case-by-case look-see to determine who was (largely) at fault- and, perhaps more importantly, how the situation can be improved. 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Phoenix-wiki (r)

 * Do you think you have enough contact with users in areas outside arbitration?
 * Yes, since I haven't been active in arbitration as of yet; I participate/have started RfCs, frequent WP:AN and its subpages (mostly Incidents) and communicate frequently with users in the WP:WikiProjects I am active in, especially WP:WPGA and WP:HALO. 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from CO (r)
1. Question one: Is consensus really possible with over 200 people commenting on different processes?
 * Answer: Sort of. You're never going to get everyone to agree on everything, and there will always be vocal minorities determined to get their way, or stymy all efforts to the contrary. With so many difference processes or choices, it simply takes time for ideas to be hammered down and consensus to be brought to light. An excellent example is the perennial talk on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship; despite a large amount of noise and different ideas, it's become the general consensus that RfA is not broken.

2. Question two: Does Wikipedia need some sort of governing body? If no, isn't ArbCom a governing body? If yes, what would you propose?
 * Answer: Wikipedia isn't an anarchy (unfortunately, it's not really a democracy either). But I wouldn't say Wikipedia is a true government. The nature of the web prohibits what we would call a state. I think it's much fairer to compare it to an always in session town hall meeting- there's the town's charter to follow, but half the rules are made up as you go. In this 'town hall', the Arbitration Committee is sort of like the 'elders' to which the really contentious decisions go to. But I think comparisons stop there. The lack of centralized power, except for Jimbo, means that Wikipedia is almost entirely autonomous in its day to day operations (from the perspective of the editor). And to that end, no, I think Wikipedia's current quasi-governmental functions are sufficient; after all, there's no need for extra bureaucracy.  David Fuchs ( talk ) 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I (r)

 * 1) What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any issues with the process, although there are doubtless some good changes which could be made. But I think the committee itself should take a more proactive role, not only in being on top of cases, but also in trying to steer potential ArbCom cases to lesser steps in Dispute Resolution if they have a good chance of being corrected there. This saves everyone time and grief. 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57 (r)
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally fair, but unlike RfC's based on articles, member RfC's have much more a chance to become grudge matches and spitting fights- after all, if we use the adage "comment on content, not users", the content has been stripped away, and all that's left is accusations. Still, conduct RfC's have their place in determining community sentiment and the like, I just wish they were used properly more. 22:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Daniel (r)
1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-
 * a) Do you believe that IRC conversations in Wikipedia channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand?
 * b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it?
 * c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?

2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?
 * I'll answer these two together, as they're pretty much intertwined. I would say emails and IRC logs, as well as conversations, should be admissible as evidence; however, if these items are going to be permitted as evidence, then they should be visible to the entire committee- the ArbCom shouldn't be making tribunal-style rulings where the evidence is kept out of site of everyone else. If it's a clear cut case of disruption off Wikipedia funnelling into Wikipedia from the specified channels, I believe sanctions are appropriate. As for c), I do not pretend to know the workings of IRC, however if such a logging account could be created, I would fully support it. 11:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?
 * If their actions violate a policy or compromise the wiki from off-site, then action should be taken on-site. But otherwise, even if we don't like what they're doing, it's their business first and it's not ArbCom's position to jump in. 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.

The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?
 * Semi-credible is iffy for me; I'm not a big legal guy, but I know that if it's not fact (or even if it is) it's often too murky to tell this from that. Still, the admin should have brought the 'legal threat' to a better channel; if other admins are reverting, then he was either too rash or didn't communicate properly in the edit summary. If the second administrator simply reverts without explaining his reasoning, he is unduly charging the situation. Since both are reverting with no clear attempt at communication, I would support desysop for the first two. The third admin, I believe, was simply trying to stabilize the situation, and should not be penalized for doing so. 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?
 * Well, WP:WHEEL says.. . ;) In my "own words", a wheel war is simply an edit war with more explosions. The above hypothetical scenario is clearly a wheel war, and the obvious question I would pose to the two admins is "Why the -blam!- didn't you go to WP:AN?" If you're reverted, chances are that simply hitting the 'delete'/'protect'/et al button is not going to help; I think restraint is the best way to prevent these things from happening in the first place. 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc (r)
Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a little clearing-up: do you mean areas in the mainspace, or controversial Wikipedia topics? David Fuchs ( talk ) 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Subject areas in the mainspace or Wikipedia space. Addhoc 17:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't say I shy away from any topics, but my scope is usually limited to a few topics that interest me, outside the Halo series and the associated wikiproject- for example, Chicxulub Crater. In terms of Wikipedia space, I've found myself staying away from some areas I was active for a while- WT:SPOILER comes to mind- just because I don't think discussion at that venue has produced any tangible results, and I'd rather just write the encyclopedia than argue the same points. 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz (r)
Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One word? I'm an english major, I can't sum anything up in one word! More detail is required! :)


 * Personally, I think the best quality for an arbitrator is fairness. Sure, experience is helpful (we don't want our arbitrators having to figure too much right out of the gate) but as the role of arbitrator is the last-stop mediation and descision-making of the community it is criticial our arbitrators be fair. 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Bloodpack (r)
How would you described the present condition/status of the Wikipedia community in general from your own POV? †B lo o d p ac k† 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Continually evolving". I would say 90% of the articles that should be on Wikipedia currently are. The english Wikipedia has essentially expanded to roughly its mature size (barring future occurences, etc.) and scope. What we must now do is improve these articles. Wikipedia's growing attraction and popularity brings more trolls, spammers, and POV-pushers, and thus it's important our dispute resolution, sanction, and admin institutions are in place and in full force; still, plenty of people have predicted Wikipedia's doom, and obviously we're still here, so all it takes is a little dedication. 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wikidudeman (r)
In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As you say, much of the problems arise from the caseload issues, so simply being an active arbitrator would lessen that burden, and hopefully lead to better decisions. Besides just being there, however, I would also try and be active in research and the other facets of the cases; being proactive makes everything go faster, without compromising the quality of the outcome. David Fuchs ( talk ) 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Geogre (r)
Several times over the past twelve months, ArbCom and the Administrators noticeboards have come face to face with the practice and consequences of "back channel communications" between users (communication by private means or non-Wikipedia means). Do you believe that administrators and users "need" to have private conversations? If they do not need them, do you think that media that cannot be transported over to Wikipedia (IRC, instant messengers) have a proper use? Do you think that media that should not be ported over to Wikipedia (e-mail) because of the expectation of privacy inherent in them have a proper use for non-Arbitration purposes? Geogre 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Back-channel communications are helpful as they are far more rapid than on-wiki conversation, and if the ArbCom caseload is ever to be dealt with in an expedient manner, then it should be used. However if anything deliberated or brought up is used as evidence in a case, then transcripts should be provided to make the ArbCom process as transparent as possible. In general, asking this gets into the question of whether or not you feel off-wiki actions are actionable on-wiki, but I feel that no sort of ‘executive privilege’ exists for members of Wikipedia, ArbCom or otherwise. 21:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from User:Secret (r)

 * What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? This is a Secret account 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As Privatemusings himself admits, it doesn't help anything, and in my opinion fractures the integrity of members- just an unnecessary propagation of the Internet Dickwad Theory. Are there users out there doing nothing wrong with their multiple accounts? Most likely, but the bad far outweighs any good that comes from using multiple accounts, since too often it ends up as (ab)using those accounts. 15:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Wikipedia Review? This is a Secret account 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if people say we're all sad, pathetic losers for putting so much time and effort into an internet encyclopedia, then the people who put so much time and effort into bashing the people who put time and effort into the internet encyclopedia must be even more sad, pathetic losers. I have nothing against the site, since it really does us no harm; from what I have read, many there are just disgruntled vandals, but I'm sure there are some valid criticisms as well. All in all, though, I don't care about them one way or another, unless they began plotting mass disruption to the site. 15:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss (r)
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 03:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does science deal with facts? Yes, but the devil is in the interpretation, and thus a scientific article could be biased unintentionally, due to regional differences in scientific opinion or something of that sort. This funnels into NPOV, which in the case of scientific articles doesn't place one set of valid science over another due to state or language preferences. 13:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68 (r)
I notice from your user page that you've been a major contributor in taking six articles to Featured status and five others currently to GA status which I find highly commendable. Do you believe that the time demands of being an arbitrator would effect your article editing work? Cla68 06:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Most definitely, which on one hand is unfortunate. Still, I have no doubt I'll still be able to work on promoting articles, just not the two or three at a time I'm used to. :) David Fuchs ( talk ) 21:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing though, which I've considered every since I put my candidacy up; if being on ArbCom forced me to give up all editing of significance for a significant duration, I would promptly resign. No matter our internal affairs, we are still here to write an encyclopedia. 13:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe (r)
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.
 * 1) Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?
 * Like Adminship, I believe their should be a mechanism to prematurely remove a user's special privileges or duties; perhaps it would take the form of a special RfC or even a sort of modified ArbCom case, but I think it would be up to the community at large to decide what form it would take. 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?
 * I don't necessarily see any reason to remove cu and oversight access one reasons such as "User XX hasn't used CU in a month, remove it!" as if that user did need the tools at some point, it would create a jumble and annoying process; what if admins didn't perform an admin action since they were busy in regular editing? Should we remove those rights? I don't think it makes sense; if the user is still responsible and in good standing, the tools can stay; of course, if the user in question left wikipedia, all permissions should be removed from the account. 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?
 * In the quasi-government that is Wikipedia, I think it's not completely erroneous to compare ArbCom to a Supreme Court; but I do not think that ArbCom is invested in enough power to shape policy beyond a certain degree. To 'break stalemate' for the good of the wiki by forming a policy? Sure, but actions such as 'striking' policies should not be undertaken without community support and oversight. 23:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718 (r)
I apologize in advance for the range and number of questions, or if I've accidentally managed to ask a question that has already been answered.

1. Can you point to a dispute (could have been at ArbCom or Mediation, or even on a talk page) that you've gone into (as an involved party or 3rd party) with a strong opinion, but had that opinion change in the course of discussion?
 * Hmm... I'd be hard-pressed to link you one off the bat, but the best example I can think of actually took place on another Wiki that I've never actually set foot on. A while back (shortly after I became an admin, I believe) I was contacted by a blocked member of the Hebrew Wikipedia. Apparently the project over there was so small that a group of admins had essentially a true cabal going on, strangling all attempts at discussion and censoring the wiki (apparently the dispute which got the user blocked was about pornography). At first I thought it was kind of unbelievable, even with the transcripts the user provided; however when me and a Jewish friend looked at the actual case, we found deleted diffs and a strong case for a corrupt group of privileged users. Unfortunately, despite my concerns being voiced on the -l mailing lists and on the actual site, as far as I know the problem hasn't been solved. But it further strengthened my beliefs in terms of preventing a power structure from forming on the wiki, and in the importance of multiple steps in dispute resolution and a broad distribution of power. A group of 10 admins can get together and monopolize a wiki, but only if there aren't another 100 admins who are nuetral and a body like ArbCom who can prevent such harmful actions. 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Why would you be willing to give up a portion of your (looks fairly successful) article writing to serve on ArbCom?
 * We are here first and foremost to write an encyclopedia, and as I stated above if my editing contributions to the project were entirely negated by ArbCom duties I would resign. However, due to the very nature of the wiki we need a more rapid and responsive ArbCom to deal with the ever-expanding project, and this goal to serve the entire project is often more important than a seven foot tall supersoldier from a fictional universe. 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Disputes over nationalist conflicts involving multiple editors seem to find their way to ArbCom fairly regularly. Do these topics, articles, or editors need to be treated in some way differently by ArbCom?
 * Having accidentally run into the middle of an UK-American English crossfire over Yogurt, I think most people don't realize how strangely enflamed these topics get. However I don't believe that ArbCom needs to treat these issues any differently; in fact, the best examples of solving these problems often were a wikiproject devoted to the material or something similar coming up with guidelines (for example, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone instead of the american "sorcerer's stone"). 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

4. In what way, if any should ArbCom treat or view administrators differently from non-administrators?
 * I think the quote that "adminship is no big deal" is total bs. It is a big deal, as a rogue admin can deal far more damage to the project than the average old user (of course, if they are devious and crafty, any user can sow discord and mess things up quite a bit) and that's why desyopping should always be on the table. However non-admins and admins should be treated the same in process, especially at ArbCom. If we treat an admin with kid gloves, or value the word of an admin over a non-admin, not only is it placing us admins on a pedestal and emboldening miscreants, but it also breaks down trust and furthers the cabalist thinking which never benefits the project. 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

5. This group of questions relate to durability. I will ask for specifics, but general answers relating to your ability to serve would be sufficient: How old are you? Are you a student? What do you do? (real question: do you have a job that gives you flexibility? that has long inflexible hours?)
 * I'm a student, and I'm also a slacker who has enough intelligence and writes fast enough to do his homework during school. So yes, I have enough time to sit at my computer and write articles about fictional superweapons and asteroid impacts which I only wrote because I watched a TV show about it when I was a little kid. 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

6. Without specific reference to yourself or other candidates, what qualities, characteristics, or experiences would you be looking for in an arbitrator? What qualities, characteristics or experiences might lead you to oppose a candidate?
 * Someone who can take a joke but knows when it's gone too far, someone who admits he has biases but does not act on them, someone who is willing to jump in and defuse a situation but knows when he shouldn't get involved. (Or she, call me a chauvinist pig, I guess.) 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jd2718 23:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear (r)
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear  16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly, due to the fact that the servers are located in the United States, US law is often technically the only law we have to follow. However there are certainly drawbacks to not being on the 'right' side of the law in other countries, such as Myanmar or China, like denial of access. As the email stated, Wikipedia is not responsible for libel posted, however it is responsible for libel posted once they are notified. In other words, it's up to the users as well as the Foundation to make sure that BLP concerns and other issues are dealt with. If there are legitimate concerns about US law violations, as a member of ArbCom or a member of Wikipedia, period, it is up to us to take immediate action. Laws of other countries do not *always* have the same effect on us, however when the law and our policies are at similar ends I see no reason to flaunt the rules.  David Fuchs ( talk ) 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus (r)
1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in? 2. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
 * Ideally, yes to both questions. But there will always be extenuating circumstances, i.e. something unexpected in real life. 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?
 * I would say that the worthwhile of contributions of these "old assholes" should be taken into account in terms of their usefullness to the project, but when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a civil wiki; either way, resulting sanctions/consquences for incivility should come regardless of newbie status or not. 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

4. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?
 * As with other policies, WP:CIV should be enforced. It's a policy because without it (and NPOV, et al) the wiki cannot fufill its mission. Unfortunately, 3RR is hard and fast, while civility is far more subjective, and thus I think it would be hasty and often erronous to apply a similar policy to civility- what, three personal attacks and you're out? That, unfortunately, does not fly in practice. 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?-- David  Shankbone  18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If Michael Crichton wants to say global warming is a hoax perpetrated by an evil scientific community, that's his prerogative. But that doesn't mean his opinion should be duly noted on the global warming page as 'proof'. I think this is the portion of WP:NPOV which sometimes gets left behind: "...representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias". 'Proportionally' matters. If there was an important groundswell of revisionist historians saying Hitler actually sent the Jews and gypsies to his summer home on Mars, and this became a major movement, should it go into the Wiki? Yes, but it should still be weighted - in other words, half the article shouldn't be about his Martian home. Sorry if my examples are pretty bad. :) But anyway, I don't necessarily see your percieved change as good or bad, more like inevitable; however I feel that as long as the good half of users are committed and knowledgeable about our opinions, then the Wiki will be fine. After all, Conservapedia wouldn't exist if neo-cons could sway wikipedia pages as much as they liked, eh? David Fuchs ( talk ) 18:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate (r)
Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 11:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gotten Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Iridion 3D, Golden Sun, Populous: The Beginning, and Master Chief (Halo) up to FA, but I think the most recent (not to mention the article of most real-world importance) I've contributed to is Chicxulub Crater. David Fuchs ( talk ) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Question from Cla68 (r)
So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. The only mailing list I was ever part of was the general -l list, for a few weeks at most much earlier this year. David Fuchs ( talk ) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754 (r)
1. What are your views regarding debates such as Requests for arbitration/Highways (WP:RFAR/HWY) and State route naming conventions poll (WP:SRNC)? (In terms of dispute resolution).
 * WP:RFAR/HWY is quite a messy case which I feel in one that needed to end up at ArbCom's door- as noted in the opening lines, some users were simply not interested in any sort of mediation and were intractable. It's also a textbook case of no 'right' side, which was reflected in the findings of fault on both sides. However, the lack of directive in terms of the root cause- highway naming- bothers me. I can't really elaborate, as I'm not sure exactly what happened after the ArbCom case, but while encouraging consensus is good, perhaps the project might have benefited from more direct action. On the other hand, it appears State route naming conventions poll was successful, so everything worked out in the end. 23:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on sibling WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * A WikiProject is a confederation of editors who work together to improve articles; WP:PROJECT notes it as "a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing and editing." I feel that as long as consensus had a hand in the creation of guidelines, those style guidelines should be followed by articles under the project's umbrella. It's really necessary for good article writing and navigation: imagine the mess that would have occurred if all video game articles didn't use Infobox VG. Some caveats: all guidelines should conform to Wikipedia-wide guidelines first; secondly, the guidelines have to have flexibility for change. The projects don't "own" articles, but as a method of consensus do have the ability to "enforce" standards, as you say. 23:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

4. a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * Canvassing, (the bad kind) in my definition, is sending messages to editors with the intent to obstruct a normal consensus. By this, take a case: WP:GUNDAM runs to defend a crufty articles which fails WP:FICT; more GUNDAM-members show up than regular AfDers who were not drawn to the discussion by a message or canvassing. The article gets kept by sheer weight of numbers. That kind of action is bad for Wikipedia. Newsletters and me showing up on your user page to request input is not 'bad' canvassing; neither is alerting a wikiproject of an article under their scope you nom'd for FAC or similar. While IRC is out of Wikipedia's realm, it does affect us, and I hope people would refrain from disruptive behaviors off-wiki as well. 23:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

5. 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?
 * Blocks shouldn't be needed for bad good faith edits, because if they are that horrible, no one in their right mind is going to assume good faith ;) But blocking a troublesome but well-meaning user only breeds anger against the project and unnecessary drama. For these users, a sit-down and chat is the best remedy. David Fuchs ( talk ) 23:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I did make a mistake on question 3 - it should read as follows.
 * 1) 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)
 * My answer remains the same. 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Krator (r)
Your contributions that are most known to me include articles only. For arbitration, another skill is important: consensus building. Which non-article consensus you contributed to are you most proud of? User:Krator (t c) 14:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably my best actions were in the realm of WP:SPOILER, where me and Jere7my were able to forge a compromise guideline to appease both the 'anti-spoiler brigade' and 'pro-spoiler' factions. And hey, it lasted maybe a month before the template went to XfD and the two sides got to bickering about it, which continues to this day. Admittedly, it failed in the end, but spoiler warnings are evidently the equivalent of trying to have peace in the Middle East- although the spoilers are a tad more trivial. David Fuchs ( <small style="color:#993300;">talk ) 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker (r)
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Having been in the midst of a guideline debate free for all (WP:SPOILER) I can say that from my own experience, no such protection is needed. The people who do edit war get blocked, bad edits get reverted, and people with full-scale rewrites draft it first. I think that policies are less subject to change and more subject to scrutiny, and as such an extension of awareness is all that is needed. David Fuchs ( <small style="color:#993300;">talk ) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie (r)
1. Can/should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?
 * ArbCom should only decide or clarify policy if all other attempts by the community have failed. As for 'creation', I cannot imagine a situation where ArbCom should unilaterally make policy. 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member?
 * As a member of ArbCom, no, as per my comments to #1. As for my capacities as a regular member, I might take initiative, however personally I find the proposition of policy better done by more cunning linguists than me. 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

--Blue Tie 13:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork (r)
How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in ArbCom are best protected by registering than by sleuthing".  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 17:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by your meaning here. Is your question whether I feel that meta activities are best protected by requiring registration rather than hunting for socks/non-suffrage users? David Fuchs ( <small style="color:#993300;">talk ) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A number of candidates also found the question lacked clarity. I think I compressed a lot into the question and made assumptions that people would pick up on implications. The core of the question concerns disruption to the project by people who wish to push a point of view generally considered unacceptable to the community, and is asking where you stand in regard to the methods employed to protect the project from abuse by such people. Crudely put, the choice is a liberal system whereby people are free to make anonymous accounts which can then be misused and so therefore need the occasional scrutiny, the exact operation of such scrutiny being kept secret as betrayal of the methods would lead to avoidance of the scrutiny. Or a more rigid system of account creation, where once an account was created the user was in a walled garden and trusted and therefore scrutiny was not needed. The more rigid system of account creation would not be employed for everyday editing as that would be against the founding principles of the project, and also prevent the very valuable editing done by many anons. The rigid system would only be needed for the meta-wiki activities such as moving or deleting pages, voting/discussing in AfD or RfA or ArbCom elections. The question was written so that a candidate needed only give a Support or Oppose answer as I just wanted to get a feel for the candidates thinking. Sometimes we can all get bogged down by over analysing, especially when under intense scrutiny that our every slip is recorded and can be brought up in difs against us, but this is not a debate as such - it's more like speed dating. So, Night Club or Opera? Sprint or Marathon? Gay or Straight? Searched On The Door Then Trusted or Let In But Spied On In Secret?  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarity. In response then, I suppose I would be against the 'rigid' system. David Fuchs ( <small style="color:#993300;">talk ) 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen (r)
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private. Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
 * Mailing list
 * I would like the ArbCom mailing list to include no one besides current ArbCom members, (and I guess Jimbo). 12:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it  has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
 * Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators
 * Concerns and charges may be brought up privately with an ArbCom member, but for those charges/evidence to be actionable it must be identified and published on-wiki, unless there is a strongly compelling reason for otherwise; this should be the only exception in most cases. 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
 * Recusals
 * I would not support a 'prohibition', because I feel we should be electing ArbCom members who a) know when to recuse, and b) will not try to influence other members in a bad way. 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
 * Community oversight over the arbitration policy
 * I do not see why ArbCom should be able to make policy extending up to its own formation (who watches the watchers, and all); this is something that should be decided by the community, (or by Jimbo, as he is godking in the end....) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Mrs.EasterBunny (r)
As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really MONGO, but no discussion on what got MONGO banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=MONGO, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edit was reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a policy against sockpuppets and policies about disruptive behavior for a good reason. Some people's opinions vary, however, on whether blocked users should be allowed back onto wikipedia. I personally feel that it is highly unlikely, especially if they are using socks, that they will be constructive the second time around; if they wish to edit again then a appeal should be made on their first account. The result of ArbCom was that SoD was another banned user, not MONGO, who stated he didn't care if Diamonds was a banned user. And to address the thrust of your question, I would generally lean towards behavior; even if one editor does a good amount of work, to me it seems if that editor is a dick it only frustrates the project in general more than the lack of that editor to begin with. 12:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please clarify. Occasionally, I see admin blocking people because of a disagreement on articles that both the admin and other editor edits.  If the original edit is referenced and not extremely POV and the other editor then creates a sock to resume editing (citing improper block), then should the sock be punished citing behavior or let go (the admin is very rarely punished for improper blocks)?  If content is emphasized, then the orginal reason for the block should be examined.  I bring this up because in the above ArbCom case, there is no mention of why NuclearUmpf (sorry, not MONGO, a typo) was blocked.  Thank you for your answer.  If you add an additional answer, that's nice! Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point that I didn't address; if the intent is to protest an improper block, I do feel that direct communication (email) is often more fruitful and less "fishy", but a sock may warranted or order to restore editing on the first account. Either way, that it's an alternate account should be noted.  David Fuchs ( <small style="color:#993300;">talk ) 17:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from wbfergus (r)
In a somewhat similar line to Risker's question above, what is your position on the following? 1. After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
 * A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.
 * A consensus isn't a vote count. It's what works for the improvement of the encyclopedia in accordance to policies; if applied to the above scenario, probably only a compromise would eke out broad approval.

2. If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
 * Locking the page is generally unconstructive and tends to fuel the 'anti-admin' sentiment. If consensus has been reached, all parties have the right to revert to the agreed-upon version.

3. Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
 * Simply put, no. Admins should not act as a gang of enforcers.

4. Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
 * Of course.

5. Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
 * The former.

6. Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?
 * Generally. Guidelines give leeway, Policies are the bedrock which the rest of the wiki is propped up on. 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

wbfergus undefinedTalk 15:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank for your well thought out responses. For the record, I feel that I need to clsoe my questions to all candidates, as one of the editors in the above 'subject' has filed an ArbCom request. As such, it could be interpreted as unseemly or whatever for these issues to be addressed in this forum. I was in the process of cancelling my questions and replying in and RfC and the related ArbCom request when I had to leave to take my wife to a Dr. appointment, so pardon the delay in cancelling this. wbfergus undefinedTalk 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Pinkville (r)
Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While it's about as overhyped and inflated as the 'War of Christmas', there is the inclusionist v. deletionist force, the 'anti-spoiler brigade' vs. spoiler fans conflict, the british v. american spellings groups... However, as many factions as there are, James Madison was right when he wrote that all the factions in a community cancel each other out. We have certain structures which have been hammered out after blood and toil, but luckily the more radical elements of our contributors are hardly likely to hijack our practices, and so the quality of our articles continues in an occasionally painful direction upward. The nature of Wikipedia allows regular editors to make the vast amount of decisions, including guidelines that run the place; and we have a good enough crop of admins to prevent most flareups. Love it or hate it, however, ArbCom is sort of necessary to be the stopgap measure; the alternative would be Jimbo running the entire show, and I'm pretty sure most people would trust a group of editors over one person. The upside of this is that if there are aspects of Wikipedia that need to be challenged or developed, they will be, and hopefully ArbCom will have little to say about it. David Fuchs ( <small style="color:#993300;">talk ) 23:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt reply. Pinkville (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)