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

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 03:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, there is a difference. However, it's all dependent on who's involved and the article. I've seen articles such as September 11, 2001 attacks and Iraq War have this problem; someone puts something into these types of articles which they insist is NPOV, but often the community thinks otherwise. In my view (this may or may not be anyone else's), something that is NPOV is reliably sourced, and, most critically, the community, or whomever is reading the article, sees it as neutral. If there is not an agreement on that, then it is probably SPOV. Certainly, it can be very difficult to distinguish between the two, but if one just looks at what's being said, who is saying it, and have others opine on it, the distinction becomes a little more clearer. No consensus = probably SPOV. - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Soleil

 * 1) What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committe? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? &mdash; Soleil (formerly I )  03:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I have outlined mine and others' issues in my candidacy statement. Most of the other candidates are spot on when they point out the issue of inactivity, first and foremost. There is also the issue of arbitrators not looking closely enough at cases; instead just slapping some principles and remedies on, and then moving on. Certainly I am NOT here to bash anyone on the committee, and will not do so. I would like to see the committee work more closely than they do with those involved, not just solely in the arbitration area but possibly through other means of communication. I myself intend to do this, as I have outlined in my candidacy statement. - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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 03:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think many are on the same page in these two areas. In terms of personnel numbers, we seem to have enough people on the job concerning oversight, so it seems unlikely for me to jump in to that area. I am aware of there being constant backlogs in the checkuser area, and would gladly help out in this area as needed.

There have been reports of abuse in these two areas, sadly. Some things must be done that will not have community support. It is just the way things are. However, using these two powerful functions inappropriately is disrespectful to the entire community. I can only promise you that should I volunteer in one of these two areas, I will use them only as outlined, and only by request through the appropriate methods (i.e. via RFCU or the oversight mailing list, definitely NOT IRC for checkuser requests). Hopefully others will do this too.

The bottom line is I do not plan to ask for these two tools unless I feel there is a need for assistance, and if I do, I will use them in a fair and conservative manner. - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718
Thanks, east. 718 at 03:35, 11/5/2007
 * 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?
 * 2) 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?

As I have outlined in my statement and on this page, I absolutely say yes to both questions in your first question. Activity is likely to increase after these elections, and so I feel this new committee, whomever that might be, will be able to carefully examine any cases brought, and reach a fair, impartial decision. I know Arbitration requires vast amounts of reading; I would not be here today, answering your question without this in mind. As long as we can grasp an understanding of what the problem is, we will be able to make better decisions in the end. As for your second question, I will say that I have seen arbitration cases which have left a bad taste in the community's mouth. While I won't point out anything specific, I will say that we ought to work more directly with any involved parties and the community, to insure such a situation does not occur. - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:29, 5 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 04:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC is a mixed bag. Some will say by having uninvolved parties comment on a situation, it will enable involved parties to learn from their mistakes, if any, and give them a good outside view on the situation. Others say that RFC is pointless and a waste of time. I say it depends on who is involved. Without naming names, it is beneficial to some, and less so for others. If any disputes still are not resolved after an RFC, I invite them to visit ArbCom and have them take a look at it. - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Can you be more specific about whether the process is fair to the accused, based on RfC's you have closely followed?    Wanderer57 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(I did see your E-mail, by the way, sorry I have not answered it.) Again, it depends on the candidate. Overall however, the process does seem to be fair to the accused. It gives the accused the chance to review what someone, who is completely uninvolved in his or her situation, thinks of whatever they did, and how many people agree with said person. By doing this, hopefully the accused can reach an agreement as to whether or not what they did was wrong. But again, it works for most people, not for all. - P ilotguy  contact tower  02:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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?
 * 2) Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?

Thanks for your time.  Majorly  (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not one for revealing personal information as I sure you understand, however, I feel I have abided by the necessary policies in terms of attitude (i.e. AGF, CIVIL, etc). I've found that I have also had a neutral position on many recent "events" lately, though I'll admit the same was not true for events before that (such as userboxes). I feel, however, that those events are now long in the past. - P ilotguy  contact tower  00:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc
Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as subject areas, I would say no. I try to broaden my edits out to get a better understanding of the whole encyclopedia. I feel I do not necessarily participate heavily in a certain area of the encyclopedia, thus this scenario would be unlikely. Certainly, if someone I knew was involved in an arbitration case, it would only be appropriate for me to recuse myself from it. - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:35, 5 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 14:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think experience is indeed important. High edit counts, however, often do not equal experience. The quality of those edits do. I have outlined other points that I feel are important for an arbitrator, and I invite you to review my candidacy and answers to other questions for this. - P ilotguy  contact tower  00:17, 6 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?

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

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?

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

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?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Edit warriors are a unique case. Often someone who edit wars isn't thinking about what others want, obviously. Instead, they are simply trying to insert what they think is best for the encyclopedia. Of course, it is always difficult to reach an agreement on that. If I see a first-time edit warrior, perhaps it is someone who is in the aforementioned situation. So, I would probably want nothing more than paroles and editing restrictions. If the edit warrior is clearly editing in bad faith, or if he or she is someone whom I have dealt with before, then a harsher punishment will arise, as probably expected.

2. I may or may not have addressed this elsewhere on this page, but the same goes for those who are uncivil as those who edit war. It must be dealt with on a case by case basis. I would ask myself, "Is this person just having a bad day, and taking their anger out on others without thinking?", or "Is this person just really being disrespectful to others?", Certainly, if the former is true, then that person should be taught to just walk away, get some tea, and come back refreshed (i.e. a lesser punishment). Certainly, the latter do not belong on Wikipedia, and the punishment would be more harsh, but remember, it would be on a case by case basis.

3. Desysopping is always a tough time for someone. A number of factors should, and must, come into place before removal of the tools. In Jeff's case, those factors did not come together. It would be things such as if the admin chronically abused his or her tools, AND if the admin has not shown proper respect and decorum towards the community. Certainly then I would not be as hesitant to desysop. Anything less should warrant a harsh warning (a la suspension).

4. One of the most difficult decisions has to be appealing community bans. This is because it is impossible to tell whether the "appealer" really wants to come back, in a good faith effort, and participate in our encyclopedia in a positive manner, or if he or she just wants to go back to his or her own ways. Obivously, such a decision requires a vast amount of support, and if the support is there, then the community ban should be appealed. Someone who is under this umbrella needs to be monitored closely, possibly through probation but certainly through other methods, and if he or she screws up, it's back to being banned, period. I'm all for second chances, but it all depends on the user's history.

5. It would certainly be unfortunate if such a situation was to occur, but sadly, it cannot be ruled out. I feel, however, that after the elections ArbCom will be such a size that there will be an agreement made, one way or another. It would be my hope that ArbCom would call on other arbitrators, both current and former, for advice. ArbCom cannot just give up and walk away- people are looking at them to fix things, not screw them up any further. As long as a genuine effort has been made to at least come to an agreement, that is satisfactory enough to me. But again, we all hope said situation does not occur. - P ilotguy  contact tower  02:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Veesicle
How did you feel about the AMA being shut down? User:Veesicle 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I was glad to see it go away. The process, and the community's perception of it, both were negative. I would attempt to advocate cases all on my own; I repeatedly asked for help, but never got it. The way it was set up made it very difficult for me to maintain a neutral stance. I could go on and on here. It was a bad idea from the beginning, and it only got worse as it went on. - P ilotguy  contact tower  02:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Wikidudeman
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) 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question 2 from Wikidudeman
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) 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can take these two questions in at once. First of all, would-be arbitrators MUST understand that there is substantial reading required when it comes to being an arbitrator. It is not a badge, it is hard work, requiring time and patience. I would not have created this page without knowing that. Arbitrators must view all content of a case, no matter how long it may be. Otherwise, a fair decision will not be made, and people will be left out to dry. /Workshop exists for a reason... to give arbitrators an idea of what the community wants to occur. Arbitrators should look over that page, rather than, as you mention, slapping on their own principles. That goes against the community and against fairness. - P ilotguy  contact tower  02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
Have you successfully nominated any articles that you've edited for Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 08:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There were a few articles that I did very minor work on that made those statuses, however because they were so early on they have slipped my memory. Recently, however, I have begun volunteering to veropedia, which has allowed me to further improve articles that are, or were, FAs or GAs. Most recently I have worked extensively on the UNCP article; in fact, I think it has improved substantially, and consider it to be GA at this point in time. Although my focus has, until recently, not been on improving articles, I have nonetheless devoted a lot of time towards assistance in doing so. - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:53, 9 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. Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) 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?

I can answer those first two at once. There should almost certainly be some sort of a process for recalling arbitrators, checkusers, etc, should the community no longer feel a satisfaction towards them. I certainly would be unable and unwilling to be an arbitrator without community support. However, exactly what the procedure would be for recall is certainly a matter of debate. Whether it would be something like the Admins open to recall category or something more official is unlikely to be determined.

We should help the community develop polices for sure if the community is unable to do it. At the same time, however, if the community is unable to do it, then my immediate impression is we will not have a field day doing it either (the Attack Sites case comes into my mind here). We can, and should provide guidance as to how the community can develop a certain policy. That's certainly not a demanding job at all. The bottom line is this, yes, ArbCom has a role to play if the community cannot determine a policy. However, exactly what that role will be depends on a number of factors, such as the policy being developed and the effect it will have on the encyclopedia. - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:59, 9 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  16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine dealing with such an issue. I would hope, and expect, this issue to be remedied at the foundation level instead. - P ilotguy  contact tower  01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Jossi
What is your opinion on the use of multiple accounts in Wikipedia, as it relates to the recent discussions on the subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone has a legitimate reason to utilize multiple accounts, and maintains an absolutely positive reputation with them, I see no problem with them. In terms of "hiding," however, I would opine that that is not a feasible idea at all. Eventually, someone along the line will find out who it is, and the whole thing will become moot to say the least. While one who utilizes socks should state they are doing so (to avoid problems), I don't think there is an optimal solution as to how to go about doing that. Someone who creates abusives socks, well... we've been around enough to know what happens there. Out. - P ilotguy  contact tower  01:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 4) How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?

I'll answer the first two now. Arbcom is a volunteer job, and it is up to the arbitrator to determine what case(s) he or she wishes to be involved in. I would certainly hope that an arbitrator would devote a reasonable portion of his or her time towards working with all types of cases, not just ones that look delicious. :) In order to fully understand a case, the arbitrator ought to participate fully in those pages. It will be a tremendous benefit not just to the party but to the arbitrator as well. I'll get to your other two questions later on. - P ilotguy  contact tower  01:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the last two, question three depends. As I've addressed before, we should look at why said newcomer's so upset. If there appears to be a legitimate reason, then perhaps we can be more lenient in this regard. An experienced editor should be able to know what is civil and what is not; nonetheless, it's only fair that we attempt to establish some sort of equality. CIV can be enforced as always; if the person is deliberately acting out of line, then we impose possible sanctions. If the person's just having a bad day, then we ought to present a little more leniency. - P ilotguy  contact tower  04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Jehochman
What sort of evidence can establish a case of abusive sock puppetry? What do you think of Checkuser evidence versus behavioral evidence? - Jehochman Talk 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets are a mixed bag. Often it can be difficult to fully judge a sock puppet simply based on user contributions. Certainly, I would hope for this not to be the case, unless, of course, the user has stated "I'm so and so" in one of the edits. A checkuser should certainly be done before applying said sock puppet label. Innocent until proven guilty. - P ilotguy  contact tower  04:06, 17 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  18:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me to address an SPOV issue or an issue in regards to Notability? - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:21, 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 12:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll point you to Cla68's question above to answer this one. If there's anything else you need addressed just let me know. - P ilotguy  contact tower  04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718
ArbCom practice:
 * 1) To what degree should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators? Article writers from those "otherly" engaged?
 * Very little. There always needs to be some degree of fairness when dealing with editors, administrators, etc. Certainly, if there is reason to believe one side did something for a legitimate reason (i.e. BLP or OTRS), then perhaps we can establish some sort of leniency. But otherwise we need to be as fair as possible.


 * 1) Why do so many nationalist conflicts reach ArbCom? Why so often involving lots of editors? Does ArbCom need to look at these topics, articles, or editors differently in some way? Is there a link between content and behavior?
 * There are a variety of reasons why that might be the case, I don't think there's really one specific reason for it. If said topics, etc need to be looked at differently, then by all means, it can be done. Otherwise, let's just try to resolve it in the best way possible. Certainly, there is a link between content and behavior, and more often than not, cases brought forward to ArbCom result from who put what in which article more than who said what.

Views/experience:
 * 1) If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, what would you choose? Why?
 * I don't think altering a specific page would have a drastic effect on the encyclopedia, in terms of improvement or hinderence.


 * 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?
 * I don't think so. Keep in mind that we all have different opinions, and one person's beliefs might not be the same as their neighbor's.


 * 1) Do you have experience with bots?
 * On IRC, I run a copy of pgkbot, which is an IRC reporting bot which flags likely vandalistic edits. Outside of that, no, I'm afraid my technical expertise is limited.

You:
 * 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? How do you consider your own editing?
 * Well sure, someone who's running for ArbCom should have, say, prior dispute resolution and leadership experience. They should know Wikipedia's policies inside and out, and remember what they're doing. Remember that there's a community in front of you who's watching what you do. Your impact as an arbitrator is unprecedented. Don't screw up, don't put yourself before others, and you'll do fine.


 * 1) How would the ArbCom be diminished if you were not elected?
 * It wouldn't be.

- P ilotguy  contact tower  20:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Thank you.

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) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. - P ilotguy  contact tower  04:01, 1 December 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).
 * Here you have a situation in which, as I've mentioned above, a certain individual simply wants what he or she thinks is best for the encyclopedia. That's all it is. Coming to a consensus in these cases is difficult, but certainly not impossible by any means.


 * 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?
 * Wikiprojects are great as "support tools" in their areas but should not be given such powers. I have seen related projects given said powers and the result has been drastically disappointing. Abuse of these powers has sadly become commonplace on such projects. Wikiprojects should be available as support, not to enforce superfluous policies.


 * 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)
 * If there is support for that sort of thing, sure. As long as reasonable, beneficial standards are being imposed, I see no such harm.


 * 1) a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * 2) 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?
 * Canvassing is massively posting on user talk: pages attempting to get said user to vote for or against a certain policy. If the "note" were to say, "come give your input on this" (such as this election), then I fail to see the harm. I've never known of that problem occurring on project newsletters, but IRC is another story... as for the other question, it is always difficult to draw such a line. And as such, we must review the situation carefully. Just because something requires cleaning up doesn't mean we take the person who did it out into the street and shoot them in the knees for it. If they don't know any better, then they don't. And vice versa. - P ilotguy  contact tower  22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I do not think following through with such a procedure is such a good idea. It most certainly goes against the philosophy of this being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I don't know that POV pushing in terms of policies is that much of an issue. and if it is, it is typically reversed. We should be entitled to let anyone speak their minds, at least to a certain extent. Nonetheless, policy pages should be open to editing by all to allow everyone, not just certain individuals, to opine. - P ilotguy  contact tower  05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Outriggr
I am asking nominees who have indicated an affiliation with the for-profit encyclopedia Veropedia the following. Your indication is on your user page (text only, no userbox).
 * 1) Can you explain how a Wikipedia editor like me (one who is not that familiar with the detailed workings of ArbCom) can trust that the positions you take on the ArbCom, if elected, would be free of conflict with your activities on Veropedia and your interests stemming from that organization? Thank you. – Outriggr  § 08:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you contact me privately about this? I don't quite understand why you have such a thought or why you think Veropedia somehow interferes with ArbCom. Thanks. - P ilotguy  contact tower  05:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie
1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?
 * I don't think this is such a good idea. Unless the community is completely lost on developing policy (BADSITES does come to mind here slightly), I see no reason for ArbCom to put themselves before the community. It is not up to us to decide what is good for the encyclopedia (in terms of policies), it is simply up to you.

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member?
 * If necessary, sure. - P ilotguy  contact tower  20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

--Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 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 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is good overall. Someone who's voting for ArbCom should have at least some working knowledge of it (be "in the know"). More importantly, such a rule deters if not eliminates the need to be worrying about canvassing. - P ilotguy  contact tower  20:57, 2 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

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

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

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