Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Hemlock Martinis/Questions for the candidate

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Questions from Majorly
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'm fair, unbiased, open-minded, and without prejudice. I want conflicts resolved effectively, efficiently and speedily so we can get back to writing an encyclopedia. --Hemlock Martinis 18:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?
 * First, your question. Other than some Speech/Debate and Mock Trial back in high school, I do not have any experience relevant to carrying out the role of an arbitrator. Wikipedia is such a unique environment, with situations and scenarios so different from other communities it is difficult to think of ways in which outside experience could benefit my duties.


 * Second, I have qualms with the concept of separation between Wikipedia and "real life". We've seen increasingly that what we do on Wikipedia has an effect on "real life". Seigenthaler, Wikiscanner, Essjay - all of these had consequences both within our community and in the world at large. This dangerous paradigm risks giving editors the view that their actions here don't really "count". Anonymity has its dark side, and we seem to forget all too often that there are real people on the other sides of those usernames, for better or for worse. --Hemlock Martinis 18:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time.  Majorly  (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Picaroon

 * 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?
 * I'm hesitant to set concrete boundaries for myself about this since the future is unwritten, but I will say that 1) I have enough time to fulfill the role of an arbitrator and 2) my resignation based on inactivity would be dependent on factors such as the factors leading to my absence, the length of my absence, whether or not I know when I will be active again, and how many other arbitrators are inactive. --Hemlock Martinis 18:55, 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?
 * There's no need to remove people already on the mailing list, but only arbitrators should be added to the list. --Hemlock Martinis 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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).
 * I disagreed with both the handling and the outcome of the Allegations of apartheid case. In my mind we should have been more willing to rebuke editors who were clearly violating WP:POINT. --Hemlock Martinis 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * I have one alternate account, The Doctor, which I reserve for editing from computers that are not my own. --Hemlock Martinis 18:55, 1 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)?
 * No case should be heard completely via email. There are instances where parts of cases, the example most speedily springing to mind being privacy violations, may need to be relayed over email. Taking into account those exceptions, and in the interest of openness and fairness, cases should be dealt with in a public manner. --Hemlock Martinis 18:55, 1 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?
 * The issue has been resolved, both parties seem satisfied and Zscout370 has been restored to sysop. The dispute is settled, and I see no need to reopen old wounds. Only if the dispute had not been resolved would ArbCom even begin to be talked about, so our role is irrelevant.--Hemlock Martinis 18:55, 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?
 * Indefinite bans should not be applied unless they are needed. Each case's individual characteristics and nuances mean that I cannot simply say all one way or all another. There are shades of gray. --Hemlock Martinis 18:55, 1 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?
 * A wheel war is when administrators disruptively undo the actions of other administrators.
 * As per BJAODN - given the three month span between the last administrative action and Alkivar's actions, I would say that Alkivar did not wheel war. However, Georgewilliamherbert most certainly did.
 * As per Sadi Carnot - Clearly wheel warring.
 * As per Alkivar - I'm not convinced that the undoing of the block on Nishkid64's part was inherently disruptive, but the case is ongoing and it may simply be too early for me to make a judgment about it. --Hemlock Martinis 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, Picaroon (t) 16:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718

 * 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?
 * Too long by far, the best example being the Allegations of apartheid case. The solution is more arbitrators who are committed to the process. We could've closed that case months ago, with actual progress, rather than just let it sputter out with no resolution. --Hemlock Martinis 22:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) You mentioned that you will bring "new blood and fresh ideas" to the committee. Please elaborate on this.
 * I'm concerned about seeing the same people be elected to the Arbitration Committee. Not because of the current arbitrators as individuals, not by any means, but more because I'm worried about stasis. I don't want ArbCom to become too rigid and set in their ways; it needs to adapt and remain flexible for the growing and changing community. The best way to do that is with new membership, and that's what I'd like to represent. --Hemlock Martinis 22:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, east. 718 at 16:13, 11/1/2007

Question from xaosflux

 * 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 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)
 * I see nothing wrong with our current levels of Oversights and Checkusers, but I do not wish to automatically exclude new applicants from joining. I would have to assess each person's merit individually. --Hemlock Martinis 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern
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?
 * It would what they're edit warring about and if they have a prior history, but I'd generally say a warning then blocks of increasing length. There's nothing more disruptive and damaging than edit warring. --Hemlock Martinis 22:47, 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?
 * Incivility has no place on this project. I would say a warning and then start blocking. --Hemlock Martinis 22:47, 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?
 * It would depend on the admin, the specific incident, and the scale of it. I'd be much more tolerant in general of an isolated case than I would be of a long history of it. Although I had reservations about the idea of suspension when it was first used, it seems to have worked, so I see no problem with continuing to enact similar sanctions for cases like Jeffrey's. --Hemlock Martinis 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?
 * The first factor I would take into account when the ban was made - the community of 2005 was of a much different composition than the community of 2007, after all. Other factors would include why the person was banned, what they've done in the intervening period between their ban and their appeal, and of course whether or not they've expressed a desire for reform. --Hemlock Martinis 22:47, 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?
 * It would depend largely upon the conditions of the case, but I would try to contact inactive arbitrators and ask them to return temporarily to break a deadlock if one were to occur on a large scale. If that doesn't work, try to find some sort of commonly agreeable ground and work from there. If and only if we exhaust every option, then should we begin thinking about dismissal. --Hemlock Martinis 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from CO

 * 1) Question one: Is consensus really possible with over 200 people commenting on different processes?
 * Answer: It seems to have worked out fine so far. But what does that have to do with ArbCom? --Hemlock Martinis 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) 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: Nope. And ArbCom doesn't govern, it mediates. Some cases just require a little more forceful mediation than others. --Hemlock Martinis 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Is banning people really mediation? Wiktionary defines mediation as "to resolve differences, or to bring about a settlement, between conflicting parties." Banning people is not a settlement for a conflicting party or group. It is a punishment.  C O   23:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the course of mediation we may come to the conclusion that a user is not contributing positively to the encyclopedia or to the community. If said user continues to disrupt despite warnings and/or other methods of sanctioning, we turn to bans. --Hemlock Martinis 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't "contributing positively to the encyclopedia or to the community" subjective? If ArbCom is to mediate, what's the point of MEDCOM?  C O   23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The intro to WP:ARBCOM sums it all up: "The Arbitration Committee is a group of users that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes, which may be anything up to and including a ban from editing Wikipedia. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking." --Hemlock Martinis 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict; not the candidate) Arbitration is so wildly different from mediation that there is no comparison. In mediation, i) the parties discuss, find and agree to the solutions, not fifteen elected people; ii) the solutions are non-binding; iii) all parties are intended to leave 'happy', compromising and giving up something to reach an amicable and agreed-upon solution. This is how it works in alternative dispute resolution in real life, not just Wikipedia.  Daniel  23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So it's up to a group of editors to decide if an editor is contributing positively? Again, isn't that subjective to ArbCom? What exist to prevent abuse by ArbCom? Shouldn't there be a balance of powers?  C O   00:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I

 * 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) 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The process is fine, it just needs be implemented better. We have to reduce the number of inactive arbitrators so that cases can be resolved more quickly and more efficiently rather than just withering away without resolution like the allegations of apartheid case. Barring unforeseen circumstances, I would be an active arbitrator and I would participate as much as reasonably possible. And that's where change begins. --Hemlock Martinis 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57
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 01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed an RfC/U closely, but if an accused party felt that they had been treated unfairly, there's still ArbCom. --Hemlock Martinis 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Daniel
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?


 * No. --Hemlock Martinis 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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?


 * We do not have the jurisdiction to do so since IRC is not a part of the project. --Hemlock Martinis 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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?


 * Absolutely not, since IRC is none of our business. The Arbitration Committee does not and should not interfere or involve itself in the workings of a separate Internet entity, since it could be perceived as official approval for said entity. --Hemlock Martinis 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?


 * They should not be published on Wikipedia since they are 1) separate from the project and 2) difficult if not impossible to factually verify. --Hemlock Martinis 18:12, 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?


 * Editors, no. Administrators, yes. A regular editor's involvement in sites such as Wikipedia Review is of no concern and should not be an issue. Although I was frustrated with Gracenotes' RfA outcome, I do not believe the Arbitration Committee should weigh in on matters not brought before it in a case, because to do so would shift us away from arbitration and towards governance. The desysopping of Everyking was a different matter entirely, since he had specifically stated he would repost deleted material. In his case, removal of adminship was the correct decision. --Hemlock Martinis 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I said no such thing. Please refrain from posting false material about me. Everyking (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you for catching that. My sincere apologies. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:28, 29 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?


 * Since OTRS actions are hardly common, I can understand if the reverting administrator simply made a mistake. I'd be willing to assume good faith there if it was just one revert, and if the OTRS respondent explained the situation to the other admin. But since neither party in your example resolved the issue through discussion and instead went straight to wheel warring, I would support desysopping both of them. The third admin, having likely seen that it was an OTRS action, was correct in reprotecting it. --Hemlock Martinis 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?


 * Administrators are expected to know the lay of the land, so to speak. If they see for example a block or a speedy deletion they disagree with, they should know to discuss it with the admin who did it. If Admin 1 blocks someone, and Admin 2 disagrees and unblocks them, Admin 1 should know not to reblock because that'd be wheel warring. Thus, both Admin 1 and Admin 2 would be wheel warring, since an admin should know not to undo another's action without discussing it, at the very least in edit diffs.


 * Now, this is certainly not set in stone for me. There are a number of variables that would have to be taken into account for each case - your OTRS example above is a good one of how complex the issue can be. But in most cases, I would be in favor of temporary desysopping, dependent on the specific infraction, the number of reverts, and the amount of discussion (or lack thereof) undertaken or attempted by a party. --Hemlock Martinis 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc
Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Subject areas? If I had been involved either as an editor or as an administrator I would most certainly recuse myself, but other than that, not really, no. --Hemlock Martinis 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz
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 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Distilling it to one word somewhat oversimplifies the qualities needed for a good arbitrator, but if I had to? Fairness. --Hemlock Martinis 18:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Bmrbarre
When you say that you were just another editor, doing minor cleanup work and generally helping out. That sounds quite demeaning to those who do such important, though minor, work. How can you compare what you do now to helping out in little, albeit necessary, ways? These are two different things, and they are both essential in their own ways. Doing the minor work is what improves the quality of Wikipedia. Any responses or thoughts? Ben 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only person whose edits I referred to as "minor cleanup work" were my own, and I definitely could've phrased that better. My point was that since the bulk of my edits are categorizing uncategorized articles, diffusing large categories, or recategorizing existing articles, a single edit of mine is minor in the grand scheme of things. But when you look at all my edits together? Hardly minor at all. The same goes for any other editor whose primary focus is maintenance. Thank you for pointing that out and allowing me to clarify! :) --Hemlock Martinis 21:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding! You answered my question very well and clarified for me what you are about. Thanks again, Ben 21:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from User:Secret

 * What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? This is a Secret account 01:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They're acceptable within reason. I have one (The Doctor) for editing from computers which are not my own. This is to prevent my admin tools from falling into less than suitable hands. Creating an alternate account for the purposes of commenting on topics without personal repercussions is allowable but should only be employed sparingly and certainly not in the manner shown by the ones you mentioned. --Hemlock Martinis 02:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Wikipedia Review? This is a Secret account 01:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I read it every once in a while when I'm bored. They've become very disappointing as of late though - the influx of so many banned editors with personal vendettas has severely damaged people's ability to take them seriously. Also, according to their ArbCom election thread I'm "well known but not enough involved in wikipolitics", which confused me since I never really thought of myself as well-known on here. Oh well. --Hemlock Martinis 02:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So how does it feel by being "well-known" by WR here :P This is a Secret account 03:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha actually I don't really know how to take it. If they had outright bashed me I would have just ignored it. If they had praised me I would begin worrying someone would bring it up to derail my candicacy. But this vague in-between? No idea. Maybe that's part of their plan... --Hemlock Martinis 03:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 03:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SPOV is outdated and historical for a reason - it forces us as a community to make judgments, to decide what the scientific community is thinking. WP:NPOV is more than comprehensive enough, and is far more suitable for our purposes as an encyclopedia. --Hemlock Martinis 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
Have you been the primary editor on any article or other content that has reached Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 07:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. --Hemlock Martinis 08:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Wikidudeman
1. 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) 14:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can personally do is be an active participant and give all sides their fair chance. What's really needed is a shift towards more active and involved arbitrators. Sure, the occasional absence is fine, but we shouldn't be operating with half an ArbCom. If we had a full committee of people dedicated to sitting down and evaluating each case carefully, we'd be a lot better off. I hope I can be the first step in that direction. --Hemlock Martinis 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

2. In some arbitrations, editors will introduce numerous irrelevant proposals in an attempt to obfuscate the real purpose or create a fog cloud with unrelated material to misdirect the arbitrators from the intended purpose of the arbitration, generally user conduct. What will you do to prevent arbitrations from getting off track due to editors introduction of irrelevant material in mass which can sometimes cause confusion or the false impression of difficult or complex circumstances for arbitrators.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, this is a sympton of the larger problem of inactivities in ArbCom. I've noticed many arbitrators do what I call "drive-by arbitration", where they play no role in proposal writing, formation or development and instead look at the case once, vote on all the proposals active, and never look at it again. If we had more arbitrators who were dedicated and consistently active like I would be, they would be able to cut through the smokescreens that occasionally arise during lengthier cases. --Hemlock Martinis 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe
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?
 * I am uncomfortable with a recall mechanism. We should be making sound rulings and decisions and not ones swayed by public opinion. The length of the term should be considered by each and every voter in determining their trust, and if something does come up with an arbitrator such as an Essjay scenario, I'm sure Jimbo will again ask the person to resign. --Hemlock Martinis 19:50, 12 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?
 * Access should only be withdrawn if there is evidence of abuse or misuse. I don't support punishing volunteers for inactivity. --Hemlock Martinis 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:30, 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?
 * No, we only interpret policy. The community makes it, and if the community can't agree on policy being made, then it isn't policy and is therefore outside of ArbCom's concern. --Hemlock Martinis 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear
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  16:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Only the act of making a legal threat is within the purview of ArbCom, and always results in a ban. The legal threat itself is best left to far more learned men in the employ of the Foundation. --Hemlock Martinis 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

 * 1) Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
 * That's why they're there. --Hemlock Martinis 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
 * Not necessarily. I don't want arbitrators adding things just to make it look like they're involved. But if they have something of value to contribute then by all means they should do it. --Hemlock Martinis 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) 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?
 * Absolutely. An experienced editor should be more familiar with our policies and what is expected for that editor, and thus treated with more severity than a newcomer who might still be getting acquainted with our ample collection of guidelines and policies. --Hemlock Martinis 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should. I'm tired of good and valued contributors being driven away by incivility. --Hemlock Martinis 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718
Thank you. Jd2718 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Should ArbCom distinguish between administrators and non-administrators?
 * An administrator should be more experienced and well-versed with our rules, policies and guidelines than the average user. I would hold the administrator to higher standards than I would another editor who has been around as long or contributed as much. --Hemlock Martinis 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Editing conflicts over national disputes seem to make their way to ArbCom fairly regularly. Sometimes those arbitrations involve dozens of editors. What gives? Should ArbCom treat these topics, articles, or editors in some way distinct from other topics?
 * No matter the number of parties in a case, we should always carefully and judiciously examine each participant's role in a dispute. I'm not afraid of complex nationalism-based cases. --Hemlock Martinis 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, would you? And if so, which?
 * Oooh, I'd love to be able to reshape our category structure to my will - prevent non-administrators from creating them, get the programmers to allow us to move/rename categories with the click of a button, et cetera. Alas, I have not the powers. Other than that, we're doing just fine. --Hemlock Martinis 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Not to my knowledge. --Hemlock Martinis 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What are some qualities, traits or experiences that might make for a bad Arbitrator?
 * Bias. Inflexibility. Misunderstanding the nature of ArbCom. --Hemlock Martinis 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator, a WPian needs to first be a good editor. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? You've already seen some concern, above, with how you characterized your own editing in your statement. Do you distinguish between the relative importance of different types of WP work?
 * I agree with the statement. After all, we're here to build an encyclopedia - nothing more, nothing less. Arbitration simply allows us to build it with greater ease and less interference. As for the relative importance of different types of WP work, I don't distinguish. Every editor can play a key role in building the encyclopedia no matter what their specialty may be. If I may draw a complex metaphor, think of Wikipedia as a huge library, and each article as a book. We've got awesome editors who pound out fantastic books on a regular basis, the kind of books you put in the front shelf of the library so people see them when they walk in. But without editors like me who do categorization work, all those books would be filed randomly across the shelves with no rhyme or reason, and nobody would be able to find anything. If it weren't for our anti-vandalism crews, the books would all have crayon scribbles in them and readers wouldn't be able to get anything from them. We all work in tandem to improve Wikipedia, and we are each critical and important in its continual growth and maintenance. Some of us just operate in more unseen ways than others.--Hemlock Martinis 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you 15? 25? 55? Are you a student? Do you have an occupation that lends itself to allowing you time to be involved in ArbCom?
 * I'm 18 and a student. I have sufficient time to be an actively involved arbitrator. --Hemlock Martinis 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Hemlock Martinis 00:41, 13 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  18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * An excellent summary of Wikipedia's NPOV disputes. Your comment about the dichotomized public debate is very astute - I do think some editors have begun drawing battle lines of sorts across topics and articles. I do wish we'd focus less on the why and more on the other four Ws. Let's use Accession of Turkey to the European Union as an example. When I first came across that article, it had been neatly divided into basically two large sections: "Arguments for" and "Arguments against". That's not a neutral portrayal. Saying "Turkey shouldn't be a member of the EU because of the Armenian Genocide" is not neutral. A way to explain Armenian-Turkish relations in relation to the accession bid neutrally and factually would be "The European Commission stated in a 2004 report that Turkey needs to improve diplomatic relations with Armenia and move towards reconciliation." But like so many other things on Wikipedia, numerous factors could affect whether that statement is truly neutral or not. That's the benefit of ArbCom: we are enabled to look at the big picture with respect to "POV warriors", far more so than with a simple talk page. We can examine whether or not editors demonstrate repeated insertions of bias and we can take necessary steps to remedy the situation. But on the other hand, I do believe many bias-inserting editors just simply don't know better - for example, most of the biased statements in the Turkish accession article were added by new editors, uninvolved editors (that is, they added one thing and never returned to the article) and IP addresses. It's important for us to look at who's deliberate and who's innocent.

Random question from Ral315
You say that cases are currently at an all-time high. What do you mean by that? Ral315 » 06:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Two trends have collided to make the situation far worse that it appears to be. First, we have more case filings that ever before, as shown by User:Picaroon/Stats. These peak at odd times and can vary, but the overall trend is up. Second, we have more arbitrator inactivity than ever before. The number of inactive arbitrators, some of whom have been inactive for lengthy periods of time, is also extremely high. When I first announced my candidacy half of the arbitrators were inactive (this has lowered slightly to one-third), and many of the arbitrators that are active do "drive-by" arbitration, where they take little to no part in resolution forming or evidence evaluating. These trends have merged to result in more cases being accepted, and more cases open for longer. This stagnation has bogged down the arbitration process and hindered its effectiveness. I am running to help eliminate this foot-dragging and allow us to quickly and effectively resolve cases. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * These trends have merged to result in more cases being accepted, and more cases open for longer.
 * Are you aware that the Committee is on pace to handle 23% less cases this year than 2006, and that the average case is closing about 5.7% faster (about 2.6 days faster) than last year? Ral315 » 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh, I wasn't aware of that. I guess it just felt like there were more arbitration cases, but I see now that I was mistaken. I've struck-through the incorrect portions of my answer so as to avoid future confusion. Thank you very much for pointing it out! I would still like to note that I view arbitrator inactivity as a very serious detriment to the arbitration process, and I vow to be as active and participatory as much as I could be. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That I don't dispute, of course. Thanks for your response.  Ral315 » 13:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate
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 12:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to get more and more into article writing as of late, which is a shift for me since the vast majority of my contributions have been to our categorization structure. Among my mainspace efforts are Accession of Turkey to the European Union, in which I lent a machete to the POV thicket that had run rampant across the article; Sinestro Corps War, an ongoing work of mine; John Cartier, an article I wrote from PD biography dictionaries and managed to get a DYK out of; and Time Crash, a Doctor Who mini-episode I've been trying to improve. Other than a few small articles from the same source as John Cartier, I tend to work on categorizing uncategorized articles and diffusing overly-large categories into subcategories. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
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) 00:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, nor am I a member of the list. (Now that I think about it, wasn't there a Heroes meme "Are you on the list?") I opposed Durova's use of secret evidence wholeheartedly during both the Alkivar case and the !! case. The past few days have shown "sleuthing" investigations to be filled with bad faith and unreliability. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

 * 1) What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
 * Move wars are unproductive and disruptive and should be treated as such. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * a) To bring editors together under a common umbrella of interest so they can collaborate on improving relevant articles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * b) No. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * c) Since they lack central authority, a Wikiproject cannot enforce much of anything. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * See 2c above. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * a) Asking other people to vote on something. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * b) Yes. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * One should try to help the editor understand what we're looking for in an article first, with links to superior versions and relevant policies BEFORE reverting. Absolutely no blocks of good faith editors. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker
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)
 * Sounds like a good enough idea to me. I don't see anything wrong with it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie
1. Can Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?
 * The community has not granted ArbCom either of those powers, so the answer would be not to both. --Hemlock Martinis 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member?--Blue Tie 13:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom doesn't create or propose Wikipedia policy, so no. --Hemlock Martinis 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork
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 an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing".  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom election issues are in the hands of Jimbo and the stewards, not ArbCom itself. That principle would likely never be proposed, unless you have a more detailed scenario in mind. --Hemlock Martinis 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen
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


 * Internal arbitrator communications should be kept secret. None of it should not be disclosed to non-arbitrators and certainly not to parties in an ongoing case. I do admit that there are a few individuals currently on the mailing list whom I personally believe should not be there, but I'm not going to name names in the interest of maintaining a collegial attitude among arbitrators. If the community requested that the mailing list have restrictions as to the membership, I would consider it carefully. As for people who are involved in cases and not sitting ArbCom members, I would like them to be temporarily removed from the mailing list for the duration of the case. I have no personal problems with the current membership of the Arbitration Committee's mailing list and would prefer to extend good faith to all subscribers unless shown otherwise. However, if an arbitrator did disclose internal communications I would push for him or her to be removed from the committee and seek sanctions against them. If anyone else on the list did so, I would get them removed from the mailing list and seek sanctions against them as well. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:24, 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


 * Privacy reasons should be the only exemption. Nobody's sleuthing methods are so important as to deny other parties the ability to respond or comment on evidence against them. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:24, 5 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'm hesitant with regulating off-wiki communications because of the precedent it would set. Also, since there are often multiple cases open at the same time, it'd be awkward to remove an arbitrator temporarily from the mailing list. Instead, let me just say that I consider a recused arbitrator to be just like any other user during a case with which they are involved. And as I stated above, passing along internal communications to outside parties is a breach of community trust and I would push for removing an arbitrator who did so from the committee. This is an issue I would prefer we deal with on a case-by-case basis, since some arbitrators can be involved in a case in varying degrees and it would be unfair to make a blanket statement. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:24, 5 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


 * The majority of the policy should not need revision in the first place. I do agree with ArbCom for adding a level of oversight to their own policy so as to maintain some stasis and not subject it to continual changes. As an arbitrator I would pay close attention to any proposal backed by consensus, but the consensus would have to be pretty substantial. Also, don't forget that arbitrators are members of the community as well; if anything needed amending, I'd propose it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Mrs.EasterBunny
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 NuclearUmpf, but no discussion on what got NuclearUmpf banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=NuclearUmpf, 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?

The above may not be the best example but it's one that I recently saw because I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases. On occasion, I have seen an editing admin block someone because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing and the block seemed questionable because there is no overt POV. The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first crime excuse the second? Or is the second one crime much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy question because excusing the first crime by the admin would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to do a lot with less oversight. However, excusing the second crime might seem to encourage socks). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, the Arbitration Committee does not deal with simple content disputes. For example, if there was a dispute about, I dunno, renaming United States to United States of America, then that's outside ArbCom's jurisdiction to rule on (something I'm very thankful for).
 * Second, the great thing about ArbCom is that it's not a winner-take-all system in which one person wins and one person loses. We could sanction the administrator for an improper block if it was warranted AND sanction the editor for sockpuppetry as well if that was warranted. We're flexible like that. But I would like to note that a case like your hypothetical one would not stay that simple or clear cut as you've described it; the unfolding of the Durova/!! case is an example of how these things can go in unexpected directions. That's why I'm hesitant to make blanket statement on hypothetical cases, because real ones have a lot more complexity and a greater number of variables involved than that. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from wbfergus
What is your position on the following?
 * 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.
 * 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?
 * Personally, I would apply Potter Stewart's brilliant I know it when I see it policy to determining policy consensus, since consensus is very intangible, fluid and indefinable. However, I would not even begin to consider something consensus unless it had at least above 60%, preferably above 75%.
 * 1) 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?
 * Administrators should never use their tools in such a way that would benefit them in a discussion in which they are an active participant. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * No, that would constitute an abuse of the tools and would have to be addressed as such. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * As long as the tag itself was not in dispute, that would be absolutely appropriate. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Could you please clarify this question? I don't quite understand what you mean by "defining Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance? wbfergus undefinedTalk 15:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not outright, no; your statement is overly simplistic and ill-suited to the nuances of policy-guideline interactions. I don't see policy and guidelines as two completely separate spheres. For example, civility is a policy, yet things such as etiquette and the assumption of good faith are guidelines. We can't enforce assumption of good faith or etiquette in a fair and judicious manner, but we can enforce civility. They're intrinsically tied, and to distill and boil down such nuances into such a simple phrase glosses over our ability to interpret them as the situation demands. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:16, 13 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 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Pinkville
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) 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're wrong in your first sentence. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The community exists purely to write, maintain, update and expand that encyclopedia. That is our primary goal. Concerns about the "social and political structures" of the community are, in my view, minor and unimportant unless those structures impede Wikipedia's development, either by disrupting content outright or by driving valuable editors from the project. Everything we build, policy or guidelines or what-have-you, must exist to enhance the project. ArbCom's role is to make sure that nothing is impeding the community from within in building the encyclopedia. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Pinkville (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)