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

__NEWSECTIONLINK__


 * Note to anybody wishing to ask questions: I can only give general answers to general questions and I have no problem doing so. If you seek a more specific answer please ask a more specific question. If the specific question is about a past or ongoing arbitration case, please do link to it. I will not attempt to second guess which case you are referring to. -- Cat chi? 16:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718
Thanks, east. 718 at 01:23, 11/2/2007
 * 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?
 * Hi,
 * Arbitration cases typically do take "too long". After all ArbCom pretty much only deals with the most complex disputes that require careful analysis. Now I would completely agree that the wait for a decision is among the most frustrating and stressful thing involved parties have to cope with. People who come to arbcom are often already sick and tired of waiting for a resolution - at least that was my experience. However rushed decisions will often make the matters worse. I feel during the "wait" arbcom should take measures to temporarily halt the alleged disruption. I am not alone with this kind of thinking. We see more and more "temporary injunctions" on cases. Should I be an arbitrator, I would propose more of these to alleviate the stress until a more permanent decision can be agreed up on.
 * I think it is often very easy to look back a few months or years to past cases and criticize them. These decisions are often based on the dynamics of the time. Arbitrators are people too. They may make mistakes - they have made mistakes in the past. An appeal mechanism is developed to deal with such issues. That particular process does not take a whole lot of attention at times which is frustrating. Should I been an arbitrator I would spend more time reviewing these. I would encourage existing arbitrators and prospective ones alike to spend more time with these.
 * -- Cat chi? 01:41, 2 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) 01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Edit wars by very nature is disruptive. There isn't an easy answer for this. It definitely must be discouraged on every opportunity. If a user isn't able to self willingly quit revert waring heavy sanctions should be imposed. It takes a minimum of two to revert war. So it is also very important to consider other involved parties' involvement.
 * Incivility and WP:NPA vios are entirely out of line. They should not be tolerated at all. Granted sometimes people do "stupid" things when they get adequately frustrated, but such nonsense must be discouraged on every opportunity even for such cases.
 * I really feel the point of arbcom is not to punish, certainly not to punish our administrators. Desysoping in my view should only be used to prevent damage. Sysop tools aren't all that great. You get a few buttons and if you do not use them properly you may loose them. Same basic rule applies to the edit button or the move button. Of course admins are people too. They may get frustrated and do "stupid things". I am not saying these should be overlooked but the point should really be damage prevention. If a temporary or permanent block to a user prevents damage (such as vandalism), then thats the correct choice. If a temporary or permanent suspension of admin tools prevents damage, then that is the correct choice. This is a general statement not aimed at that particular arbcom case you quoted.
 * Contradicting a community ban is fundamentally a bad idea. Any such appeal would only cause problems. It would defacto arbcom sanction the users disruptive edits no matter what arbcom's appeal statement turns out to be. A community ban can be appealed to the community first. If the community rules that case should be seen by arbcom, then it would make more sense. That's what I would do.
 * If the point of the case is void, then there is no longer any reason to drag on with it. Arbcom is not the wikipedia justice department. Also, I do not think decisions on arbitration cases depends on one single arbitrator. Therefore if arbitrators aren't able to agree on something it probably is too close to call. No decision is better than wrong decision at times although this isn't a general rule.
 * -- Cat chi? 02:06, 2 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 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume this is about the RFC aimed at me and I'll answer as such, feel free to respond if I am at error. I was being a complete dick towards someone as nice, polite, and intellectual as AKMask based strictly and only on my sense of paranoia. This was a very serious error in judgment on my part. I think the remarks against me were probably too light at the dickishness of my behaviour. It is nothing I am proud of and it is a mistake I do not intend to repeat ever again. -- Cat chi? 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Followup note: My question was absolutely not aimed at you. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for your frankness.

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? Wanderer57 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User RfC's in general can go both ways. Sometimes the end result has very little to do with reality especially for those cases involving forum shopping. It is important to watch out for those. There are people who work in groups to push a particular political point of view at the expense of sane wikipedians. -- Cat chi? 15:58, 2 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 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)
 * Hi,
 * This question is probably the one I feel most uncomfortable to answer. I think neither tool are toys to play with.
 * Checkuser: I certainly value my anonymity and I would only hope checkusers do too. We have excellent existing checkusers. My technical knowledge is rather limited so I would probably let others handle it. As for new checkusers, I really feel this needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. I know this is somewhat a generic answer to a generic question but any other answer wouldn't be right.
 * Oversight: I really think this is a no-issue fundamentally. We very rarely need oversight involvement and we are not low on our people with oversight access. It is an area I would let others handle. This really is something arbitrators shouldn't get involved with. RfAr is already cluttered and there are other people who can oversight just as easily to my knowledge.
 * -- Cat chi? 02:20, 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?
 * b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it?
 * c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?

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

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?

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?

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?
 * Hi,
 * IRC evidence
 * a) No, for several reasons. It is very easy to forge fake IRC evidence. We do need an unofficial median of discussion where people can discuss things in a bold manner without the fear of remedies, rfcs, rfars and etc.
 * b) IRC is irc, Wikipedia is wikipedia. If someone is being disruptive on wikipedia he/she/it can be levied sanctions based on that without the use of IRC related material.
 * c) Logging of IRC channels like that would be problematic as per reasons I mentioned on the last sentence of part "a".
 * Email and IRC logs should not be published on wikipedia. This will be a repeat of the statement I made earlier, both email and IRC are an unofficial median of discussion where people can discuss things in a bold manner without the fear of remedies, rfcs, rfars and etc. I strongly feel private communication via e-mail or IRC should be kept private.
 * Let's consider the opposite for the sake of argument.
 * Should a user banned from en.wikipedia by the arbitration committee be banned in say commons right away? The official jurisdiction of en.wikipeida arbcom ends with en.wikipedia. Commons and other projects are welcome to take the en arbcoms decisions with a grain of salt. In the case of vandal bot writing users in late 2005's both commons and numerous wikis agreed with the en arbcom decision rather promptly. On other cases someone banned from en.wiki was allowed to contribute to commons.
 * The conduct of users off en.wiki can be considered as a pattern of behaviour (call it unofficial evidence if you will) and not official evidence. If someone is following a disruptive pattern of behaviour off.wiki chances are they are being disruptive here as well in which case sanctions should be levied.
 * As for the specific examples in question, I am not familiar with all of the details. Such attack sites will probably always exist but administrators and non-administrator alike should not be helping them. Most certainly common sense dictates that it is only sane to prevent someone from using admin tools to attack our community. As for the WP:RFA/Gracenotes case, Arbcom should never interfere with RfA's directly. If a successful RfA leads to a disruptive admin, that can be dealt with by arbcom but Arbcom can't act purely out of suspicion or paranoia. My statement itself demonstrates how wrong decisions and actions based on paranoia can get. This is a pit hole to be avoided.
 * OTRS based actions should be treated like the law and should not be contradicted by anybody aside from people with WP:OFFICE or WP:OTRS access. This does not mean you can't question the decision. There are more than one person with OFFICE or OTRS access. They can be consulted instead. Only users with OTRS access can see OTRS discussions. I was consulted for my assistance with a number of cases on the OTRS and sometimes the discussion there can be mind blowing. People who work in the OFFICE or OTRS work behind the scenes to protect wikimedia projects from harms way. Quite a lot of people do not realize that both OFFICE and OTRS are rather open medians. The discussion may take behind closed doors but you can very easily ask someone to verify any decision. If an OTRS member is indeed lying, he/she/it would loose that access rather fast. As for your scenario it really is a case by case decision. In such a scenario I'd consider the restoration of the material of non-OTRS people to be the problem. I would warn others not to revert war. The scenario is a very messy one and does not really have an easy answer.
 * Wheel war in my view is the "re-revert" of any admin decision without discussion. Any admin reverting another admins decision must initiate a discussion. There should only be one and only one revert at max. The revert is to "restore" the alleged problem so people can see and analyze it, and not to overrule the decision by an admin. Non-obvious problems should be discussed first before an admin action is taken. Panic admin actions are as problematic as wheel-wars. Of course an admin should not be contradicting a blunt vandalism or WP:BLP violation related decision either. Discussion is the right course of action. There is no reason to rush things and there really is no alternative to a fine discussion.
 * -- Cat chi? 14:53, 2 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) 08:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I dislike to brag about my "good qualities" so I will talk about what I would expect from a good arbitrator instead. I think a critical quality in an arbitrator is honesty. An arbitrator should be just as well. An arbitrator should be able to make judgmental calls while staying diplomatic while expressing that. An arbitrators' decisions should not be intended to make others 'happy' and instead intend to take measures against disruption. Weather I have all/some/any of these qualities is something I won't comment on.
 * I am quite a traveler. I have been to many countries and experienced many different cultures. I may be able to more easily put my self in the shoes of the people in dispute than others due to this. It is important to understand why people are in dispute from different perspectives. In an average dispute no one is completely right or wrong and it is important to wear different shoes.
 * -- Cat chi? 15:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc
Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recuse myself from any issue that my involvement would not improve the situation. This includes but is not limited to issues where I would not be a neutral party. I do not really wish to post any specific areas since I have an interest in everything. -- Cat chi? 14:58, 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 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Honesty. -- Cat chi? 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Bloodpack
How would you described the present condition/status of the Wikipedia community in general from your own POV? †B lo o d p ac k† 21:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Overall the environment on wikipedia is a bit too hostile. I want to leave it at that for now. -- Cat chi? 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question 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) 23:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Under the assumption that I get elected to an arbitrators post, I cannot force any other arbitrator to do anything as all arbitrators are equals. I can only speak for myself in any arbitration hearing. I am not certain what the question intends to address... -- Cat chi? 01:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you how you as an arbitrator and individual would solve the problem of the large backlog and caseload of arbitrations which results in inefficient arbitrations possibly due to arbitrators not reading all relevant material or just skimming it over briefly, etc.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I would be reading them completely and encouraging my colleagues to review it just as I have by making good use of the workshop and proposed decisions. -- Cat chi? 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Dihydrogen Monoxide
What's your opinion on Jimbo's desysop of Zscout370? &mdash; H 2O &mdash;  00:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbos decisions are absolute. My opinion does not matter. Jimbo can even abolish arbcom completely whenever he feels like it. -- Cat chi? 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do want to further add that I really admire the fine work by Zscout370. For example, he was of great help during the FOTW crisis on commons for example even though few people credit him for this. Few people were even aware of the crisis involving practically every flag image on wikipedia as his superb work kept it quite isolated. -- Cat chi? 20:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * People have been commenting about this... Let me clarify: Arbcomers lack the access to contradict Jimbo. Jimbos or boards actions will stick regardless of the Arbcoms or communities approval. This is a harsh reality for the moment and I hope every one accepts it as such. If you desire to change that, I can safely say that your median is NOT the "Arbitration Committee Elections" -- Cat chi? 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from I

 * What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process? This includes anything related to the Committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i (talk)  05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe there is anything outright wrong but there are fields that need significant improvement. One such field is the process of WP:HA related cases.
 * I feel there is a serious gap in dispute resolution in dealing with people who edit wikipedia with the primary intent to harass others for their amusement. Contributions of such users do not always scream "troll" and often they disguise themselves pretty well. In my view such was the case with the issue regarding Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir. It had taken me and the community about 2 years to sort.
 * The process in dealing with problem user had always been slow for a good reason. In general people learn from their mistakes and become better users but this should not be allowed at the expense of other good users stress. I feel there needs to be tighter remedies for those users who are not here to help write a better free encyclopedia - even misguided attempts are better than malicious intent. What I am suggesting is not "guns 'n glory" and instead more attention to this problem.
 * Should I be nominated an arbitrator I hope to make improvements to this area. Of course I am one user and can't change things at my whim but my perspective and experience in dealing with harassment should come in handy.
 * -- Cat chi? 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from MaxSem
Hi Cat. I must say I really liked your answer to Xaosflux's question about checkuser privileges, but here's one question from me:
 * You have quite a serious history of blocks, care to explain at least some of them? Do you feel requesting to be blocked is right? Max S em 12:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no rational argument to "justify" getting blocked. Per your request I will try to explain some but this is intended to neither justify nor excuse them. You had forgotten to mention my other two block logs so I will include them: Coolcat, White Cat
 * 5 September 2005, and 6 March 2006 blocks were me testing vandalism detection tools. Although I do not continue developing the tools, the code used by various IRC feed based bots today (some of the code was used in tawkerbot for example). It is important to process the block feed in a vandalism detection bot. For example blocked IP's and usernames are given closer attention than non-blocked ones.
 * 1 September 2005, 11 September 2005, 22 January 2006, and 7 December 2006 blocks seems to be per my request though I do not recall the exact details. I recall the 7 December block being strange. As for others, wikipedia is quite addictive and forced breaks weren't frowned upon much back then (some 2 yeas ago). I no longer seek this as it had proved to be an ineffective "cure". :)
 * 11 April 2005, 23 April 2005, 21 May 2005, 14 September 2005, 26 November 2005 blocks were 3rr vios. In all cases actors from Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek were involved (IIRC). Now this of course does not excuse my behaviour but harassment does take its toll after some time. Falling into the trap definitely is not the better side of valor. Good users should be able to shrug off even the most severe provocations. I failed to do that on my earlier days.
 * 2 December 2005 block was over a complaint by Karl Meier (aka Stereotek). The complaint thread and arbcom remedy are there for you to review. Pay close attention to other complaints on that page as all of them are from same user(s).
 * The 8 May 2006 block by Lethe was over a complaint at this ani thread filed by a "User:Moby Dick". What is significant here is that the ani thread lead to an arbcom case which treated Moby Dick like a sockpuppet of Davenbelle. The actual block was removed by MacGyverMagic on 9 May 2006 but MacGyverMagic accidentally unblocked my then former account "Coolcat" instead of "Cool Cat" (hey I just noticed this).
 * I do want to point out that the nonsense regarding Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir did not end until the indef block of Moby Dick on 2 May 2007 as per a checkuser case. Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Diyarbakir never had much of a block log: Davenbelle, Moby Dick, Diyarbakir.
 * I feel my dealing with Davenbelle later Moby Dick and later Diyarbakir should be seen as how much I had grown. I do want to point out that I have not been blocked for about a year (throughout year 2007 - 11 months as of this post) unless you count the 15 minute block by Wangi.
 * I hope I did not miss anything. Feel free to ask if you need clarification with anything I posted or have further question on anything I did not mention.
 * -- Cat chi? 20:06, 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 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Wikipedia Review? This is a Secret account 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternative accounts are not forbidden. Alternative accounts are recommended not required to be self-admitted. The use of alternative accounts in a malicious way... now thats forbidden for obvious reasons. What constitutes as malicious use is determined on a case by case basis.
 * Wikipedia Review? I am not certain what to make out of that site. It certainly isn't the kind of a site I would frequently visit. I have better things to do - walls to stare at aimlessly ;). I am fully aware that some problems on Wikipedia had been attributed to the content at that site. Beyond that I am uncertain what specifically you are trying to get at.
 * -- Cat chi? 03:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Corvus cornix
How has your view of copyright changed since the drama which caused User:RickK to be blocked and to eventually leave Wikipedia? Corvus cornix 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was never an active participant on that particular issue. I feel my time on commons had help me develop a better understanding on copyrights. I am unsure how this relates to the function of Arbitration Committee though. -- Cat chi? 16:03, 5 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 03:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This really had been a serious controversy from time and time again. SPOV is SPOV, a failed proposal. NPOV is NPOV an official non-negotiable policy. Comparing the two is problematic. -- Cat chi? 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Veesicle
Have you resolved your dispute with Ned Scott yet? User:Veesicle 13:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That remains to be seen. This is not something at my control at all: . It isn't like I follow him around. -- Cat chi? 06:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What are your opinions of secret evidence being given privately to ArbCom? To what extent is this acceptable? User:Veesicle 00:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sensitive information can be presented to arbcom privately for various reasons such as privacy. Any other info can also be presented in such a way but I do not see any reason why evidence derived from public information cannot be presented to arbcom publicly. I can give a more specific answer if you point me to the specific thread. -- Cat chi? 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Alkivar ArbCom case is what I'm thinking of in particular. User:Veesicle 20:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am looking at Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence and I see a lot of "public evidence". Who specifically passed the "secret evidence"? -- Cat chi? 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop. User:Veesicle 12:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had sort of answered that: -- Cat chi? 17:09, 4 December 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 23:33, 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?
 * Decisions by arbcom is based on a majority vote so I do not see a serious threat. Should one of them go insane for whatever the reason we can deal with it then. I suppose existing other arbitrators may be able to deal with the issue. A lot of the discussion by arbcom takes place behind closed doors by private means such as a private mailing list so arbitrators have more information about a spesific issue then "outsiders".
 * I think "sufficient use" is a bit of a loaded approach. Someone with checkuser or oversight privileges should be using these. Putting a quota for it may be counter productive. We do not have such a quota for admin actions so I do not see why we should for checkusers or overshights.
 * Arbcom is a part of dispute resolution. It is not the wiki-equivalent of a wiki-court. Arbcom should not be consulted over mere disagreements. Arbcom typically deals with disruption of various kinds. If the people can discuss a matter in a civil tone, arbcom involvement isn't necesary. If both sides of the dispute are well-meaning and policy abiding people, they can sort out their differences without arbcom. On the other hand if one or more users are being disruptive (ranging from revert warring to trolling as well as anything else) in the discussion, arbcom can step in and take measures to end the disruption. After that the discussion can continue.
 * -- Cat chi? 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

 * 1) To what degree should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators?
 * 2) Are you 15? 25? 55? Do you have an occupation that lends itself to allowing you time to be involved in ArbCom? Are you a student? Jd2718 23:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Each user has a record of behavior, arbcom should of course put this into consideration when reaching a decision. However admins are just regular users with greater access. Unless the dispute involves the use of admin tools (an alleged abuse of these tools) admins should be treated no differently from regular users. All users must of course be treated with the same dignity and respect by arbcom. I do not believe arbcom has ever violated this.
 * 4) I can always find time for wikipedia. At worst on the weekends. I'd rather not reveal personal information such as age or occupation.
 * -- Cat chi? 00:09, 11 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  16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I really like this question.
 * Laws that apply to wikipedia can be simplified as the laws that the servers are under the jurisdiction of. Servers happen to be in Florida. Laws the servers are under the jurisdiction of are local Floridan state laws, federal laws of the United States and all international laws that US agreed on such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
 * A few obvious examples:
 * As per US federal laws even freely licensed child pornography is not allowed on wikimedia servers. Not even for illustration or personal use. This is because the servers are inside the jurisdiction of the US Federal laws without going into subjective arguments such as morality and etc.
 * As per Berne Convention works copyrighted in foreign countries are also copyrighted in the US therefore are only allowed on wikimedia servers legally with a fair-use license. So something copyrighted in any country that signed the Berne Convention goes through the copyright restrictions as if the servers were in that country.
 * Laws that do not apply in Florida directly (direct jurisdiction through local laws) or indirectly (indirect jurisdiction through international laws) are of no concern to us legally. Countries like (random choosing) Myanmar/Burma, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Peoples Republic of China, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Bolivia and etc are known to have more restrictive local laws on certain issues. We cannot uphold every local law as it is impractical and virtually impossible. Wikipedia is not censored.
 * This of course does NOT mean we intentionally violate these laws in a soapboxy and dicky manner for the sake of violating them. If nothing else, that would violate out own neutral point of view which must be observed regardless.
 * -- Cat chi? 17:35, 11 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?
 * Hi,
 * Ideally yes. In reality thats not always a possibility.
 * Not every arbitrator should be very active on the workshop but I feel if an arbitrator is reviewing a case he or she should at least be keeping a close eye to the workshop and other pages. Commenting on the discussions at least gives the message that you care which is why I would support this idea to the core...
 * When an arbitrator considers a verdict he or she bases this decision on the entire record of the involved parties. If there is no past good record thats for most cases not a good sign. This has nothing to do with being more equal, instead it is about dispute resolution. Bad behaviour regardless should be discouraged on every opportunity.
 * All official policies and behaviour guidelines should be enforced in the spirit. You cannot enforce WP:CIV in an uncivil manner. There is no reason to have official policies or behavioral guidelines if they are to be merely ignored.
 * -- Cat chi? 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
Have you successfully nominated any articles that you've heavily edited for Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Well, a featured list: List of Oh My Goddess episodes. -- Cat chi? 18:29, 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  18:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe neutrality is negotiable. When people inquire, I like to describe neutrality as a distant target with multiple different paths leading to it. There are lots and lots of shortcuts to bias through out each of these paths. So long as the content is neutral and well referenced, how it is presented is merely a style issue. I do find the recent trend of breaking an article into pieces based on political views concerning.
 * I'll give a spesific example. Actual content of the articles in question aside, see these two titles: Climate change denial, Scientific opinion on climate change. As their titles imply the articles are concerned of spesific perspectives on the issue of Global warming. This alone isn't really a problem but never the less concerning. Neutrality of a perspective spesific article by very nature will be very difficult.
 * -- Cat chi? 20:30, 17 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 12:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to be 'proud of' all edits I make but two articles come to my mind where I have a lot of edits.
 * Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari: The article is incomplete, then again it is a current event.
 * İş Bank commercial featuring Atatürk: the commercial article was translated to three languages (Spanish, Japanese and Turkish) already.
 * -- Cat chi? 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional 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) 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not an en.wikipedia admin so I do not receive such emails. No I have not received any such email therefore it would not be right for me to comment on something I have not seen. -- Cat chi? 15:38, 28 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).
 * 2) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 3) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on sibling WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * 4) a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * 5) a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?

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

I did make a mistake on question 3 - it should read as follows.
 * 1) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)

Apologies. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your question.
 * WP:SRNC was a mistake. A group of 'elite' users (no matter how democratically chosen) should never decide on policy matters. Only WP:OFFICE is entitled to that right and OFFICE only uses that on critical and urgent issues with legal implications. WP:OFFICE's are the only exception because of the real world legal issues which are beyond our own community decisions.
 * I think...
 * Wikiprojects are unofficial lists of articles where interested wikipedians work collaboratively work in improving all articles on a spesific topic.
 * Wikiprojects do not own articles. No one owns articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia 'anyone can edit' than includes articles appearing on wikiproject lists.
 * No wikiproject can 'enforce' anything. Consensus reached on Wikiproject namespaces however may lead to a general stylesheet which can be applied t some articles but that is purely optional.
 * No wikiproject can 'impose' anything. Wikipedia is not a military organization. There is no hierarchal structure between wikiprojects. Wikiprojects are merely sorted by topic for the convenience of the people browsing them. If two different consensus is reached by two different wikiprojects users are entitled to choose whichever style they feel is better. Users can also pick their own style seperate from the ones from the two wikiprojects as their decision isn't binding at all...
 * I think...
 * Canvasing is the partisan advertisement of any discussion. The guideline portrays a general idea. There is no spesific definition as this guideline is more about the intention of the user rather than the methods the user employs.
 * The method of canvassing does not matter. If a user is advertising a discussion to a mass number of people the user know will react a certain way, the user is fundamentally not acting in good faith. If the user is really right, the user can simply convince the rest of us, the wikipedia community. For example, it is perfectly fine to notify Wikiproject History/US/Mexico if a US-Mexico war related issue needs discussion. It wouldn't be OK to notify say Wikiproject China (random example) for the US-Mexico war as thats just shopping for people to vote...
 * I think...
 * You do not draw a line. Disruptive people love to dance around and on these lines just enough to be annoying yet not enough to receive sanctions. If a user is acting in good faith the issue can be very simply resolved through discussion.
 * Blocks, protects, and rollbacks only exist to prevent further disruption. These are of course not the only way to deal with problematic edits. Discussion is always an option. Even when users are blocked they can still edit their talk page. This isn't a software bug and this is allowed for a very good reason.
 * -- Cat chi? 14:11, 30 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)
 * There are lots of non-controversial improvements any policy or guideline can receive such as spelling and grammar corrections. All content changes to policies and guidelines should be per consensus. You can be bold in updating a guideline and policy but that change can be reverted. After that no one should even think to revert it again. The talk page is there for a reason. If people are revert waring they can be blocked for it. Revert wars should not be tolerated. Protecting the policy will not solve such a problem in question either. There is no reason to 'punish' everyone else not revert waring on these pages. -- Cat chi? 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie
1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote? 2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you for your question
 * Arbcom is a part of dispute resolution and not a part of policy development. Arbitrators can participate in policy constructing discussions but they do not get any more say than the next user. Arbitrators or former arbitrators typically have a good deal of policy experience so they may come up with more agreeable arguments but thats per experience and not per the position as an Arbcommer. Arbcom is there to resolve disputes, not to create policies. Arbcom decisions can be used to construct policies or policy arguments but thats pretty much it.
 * I most certainly do not intend to.
 * -- Cat chi? 14:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * thanx.--Blue Tie 14:40, 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 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some activity such as arbcom or afd voting should be handled by logged in users. Imagine a person on a dynamic ip voting on an afd repeatedly. Where is this principle proposed? -- Cat chi? 06:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an imagined principle. Thanks for your answer.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 21:06, 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
 * I tend to think such things from a personal perspective. I ask myself "had I am mailed something to arbcom, who would I want to see it?" My answer to that would be current arbitrators and the foundation board and noone else. Things can be forwarded to other parties if absolutely necessary but only board and arbitrators should be able to access this info by default. -- Cat chi? 18:34, 3 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
 * Had I been an arbitrator, I would discourage private evidence. The point of DR is to resolve disputes. It would be very difficult to resolve anything if the "accused" does not have the slightest idea on what edit he/she/it made is problematic. Evidence really should be public as it is derived from public information. -- Cat chi? 18:34, 3 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 think arbitrators would not use arbcom-l and etc to "gain advantage" in a dispute. While this may be naive sounding, we ought to trust arbitrators that much... -- Cat chi? 18:34, 3 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
 * No. Because often arbcom has to deal with users who are here on wikipedia just to cause disruption and take no part in helping us create a better free encyclopedia. Such people have a way of dancing around policy without ever clearly violating it. I really think there are more pressing issues than oversight on arbcom. We do not need a defacto appeals court reviewing Arbcom decisions. The process is complicated enough as is. -- Cat chi? 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from MacGyverMagic
I have no idea if this has been asked before, so please let me know if that is the case. In your initial statement, you mentioned your missteps, but I'm rather more interested in any contributions you've made to the project to offset that.
 * 1) Have you done any sort of mediation work?
 * 2) Have you made any contributions to the project that are less than common (extensive bot work, particular large body of work).
 * 3) Can you point to specific contributions that show we can trust you despite the history you've mentioned?

- Mgm|(talk) 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your question.
 * I had made several mediation attempts on mid 2005. As you may recall (being my mentor), Arbcom has banned me from mediating in 2005 and I have not made a single attempt to that end ever since. I have not made an appeal of any kind regarding this either. If people do not want me do mediate, I can't force them.
 * I run my bot User:Computer which handles mindless tasks like double redirect fixing and etc. I do not have dedicated edits on any field or topic. I tend to taste everything... I tried to focus on copyright issues for a while. Most dedicated edits of mine were the removal of images deleted from commons, a task now handled by the commons delinker bot. I have a large body of work in any field in that sense...
 * I am uncertain how to respond to this. A similar question was asked before. I just do not know which edits of mine constitutes as more trustworthy.
 * -- Cat chi? 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from wbfergus
What is your position on the following? wbfergus undefinedTalk 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * 2) If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
 * 3) Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
 * 4) Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
 * 5) Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
 * 6) Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?
 * For the record, I feel that I need to close 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 an 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 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not answer in detail per your comment. I do think consensus is not always defined by numbers. It sometime is but not always. A lack of consensus is more noticeable typically. For example if a particular discussion is receiving lot's of delete votes from people who have very few edits along with more experienced users, it is generally more sane to close that as a no-consensus. Those new users will gain more experience in the time being to come up with a more useful discussion. Decisions reached on controversial topics should be intended to be resolved permanently. If the discussion isn't generating such a result, it is probably better to give the involved more time. -- Cat chi? 12:22, 14 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) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the question. Wikipolitics is often coined as the political structures on wikipedia. I consider wikipolitics to be disruptive. Editing a free encyclopedia shouldn't be a big deal. We do not need or want political campaigns. So I do not believe there are any official political structures. There may be non-official political structures which are frowned upon. Socially, I feel wikipedia overall is far too hostile - especially for those who have recently started editing wikipedia. There is lots of room for improvement but this isn't the job of arbcom. -- Cat chi? 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Pinkville (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)