Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/BillMasen/Questions for the candidate

Questions from Wikipedia Signpost
As I entered the election very close to the deadline, many users will not have read my answers in the edition of the signpost. I therefore publish them here for your perusal.

===1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
 * I currently hold no authority over wikipedia.

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
 * I am glad to say that I've never been sufficiently impugned or sufficiently injured to come before the ArbCom. However, I have succeeded in resolving an informal dispute: I managed to resolve a troubling edit war over the death of Robin Cook. I would like to build on this type of experience in a larger capacity.

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee? 6. Why do you think users should vote for you? (I answer both together)
 * '''I'm running 'cause I believe that Wikipedia is losing sight of the 'pedia and is focused only on the wiki.
 * '''User:Franamax has provided an excellent summary of the candidates' contributions. I played around with them on Excel, and noticed something striking.
 * 'Most of the candidates are well and truly sunk into Wikipedia's introspective policy arguments. Many of the candidates have edited WP space (policy etc.) more'' than they've edited actual articles. Over half of them have edited it 30% as much as they've edited mainspace. The only ones who have edited less policy than me as a percentage are two editors with a handful of contributions, and Charles Matthews. Whatever his merits might be, this is an artefact of his prolific editing all round and he is as clearly part of the wiki-village as anyone.
 * Why do I mention this? Because it is the articles which are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Yet the Economist recently reported that 25% of all Wikipedia's text is given over to policy and policy discussion. Policies are eminently necessary, but we need arbitration which is focused on content, and not personalities. If I am elected, I will decide cases by setting as little precedent as possible, having the least impact on policy, and avoid the personal bickering which has come to epitomise Wikipedia's top institutions.

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
 * '''One particularly good case was Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. I think it is vitally important that partisan editors, representing the peculiar professional interests and beliefs that they do, must be shown the door if they persistently push POV. Ultimately, this is far more harmful to our project than mere incivility, or even trolling.
 * '''As for poor handling, this does not lie in any specific case but in the fact that the committee has become a buzzing hive of controversy, rather than the faintly boring and arcane thing which it ought to be. I promise that my tenure will be as boring as reasonably possible :).

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
 * If confidential information is being used to block or punish an editor, the assumption must be that the 'defendant' is able to respond to this in some way. The only exception I would make to this is if the defendant has been guilty of stalking or physically threatening behaviour towards another, which is thankfully relatively rare.

Thank you very much for taking the time to speak to me, and I hope your readers will consider supporting me in this election.

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

Question from Ultraexactzz
Good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?
 * ..."scrupulous"

Questions from Giggy
Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.
 * 1) a/s/l?
 * 20s, male, England.
 * 1) What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.
 * The mainspace is the point of the encyclopedia. If there are conflicts it is, within reason, incumbent on the project people to explain their application of policy and why it is a good idea.
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * Bad edits make a bad editor, not the other way around. Powerful tools like that need to be used with extreme care, although I'm not competent to comment on how they could be technically improved.
 * 1) Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.
 * I won't pick a specific one as I don't want to open old wounds, but present me with any hypothetical case you like. I have commented on several below.
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * I won't bore you with a list of five, but my creation and edits of articles relating to South Africa are the ones which I feel, as it were, filled the biggest hole.
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * No. One vote will not influence the outcome, and will only serve to annoy other candidates.

Questions from Sarcasticidealist
I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.
 * 1) To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
 * Arbitrators should follow policy as strictly as possible, but be forgiving if their interpretation is not exactly the same as editors'.
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * I see no reason to object to it.'
 * 1) At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?
 * I think it is a bad idea, as it opens the possibility of arbitrators being impeached if someone makes a decision someone else doesn't like. However, if the majority of the committee made this undertaking, I would follow in the spirit of fairness.

Questions from Celarnor

 * 1) What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
 * Like a good judge, I think ArbCom should resist the temptation to settle beyond what is necessary to settle the case.
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * I think arbitrators should continue to edit articles, so that they can remember how the contributor thinks.

Question from LessHeard vanU
This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction. Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.
 * 1) Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will consider the actions of any admin to be no different from the actions of a non-admin.

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * I don't know. I will work to the job.

Question from WilyD

 * 1) During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally).  While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations?  If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?

1) Yes, but someone who is an admin is likely to have a productive career behind them. Anyone should think twice before blocking productive editors, admin or not. You know what? I've changed my mind. I'm amazed by the number of people who are voting solely based on whether the person is an admin. Admins do valuable work, but they're ordinary mortals like us.'''
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when?  If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?

2) No, I don't think so. If necessary, the admin should have the tools removed.

Questions from PhilKnight

 * 1) In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?

'''1) In any dispute I was involved in as an editor, or where the subject matter was very close to my heart.

'''2) No, just calling someone a racist does not merit a ban. On the other hand, persistent POV-pushing, in the face of warnings, does.

Questions from Thatcher
1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?
 * Assuming the vandalism did not continue after the hiatus, it was the right decision, since it is not known that the admin was the vandal.

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?
 * (a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.
 * (b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.
 * (c) Write your own answer.
 * I vote B

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?
 * Unless Smythe refuses to desist in his off-wiki campaign, he should be banned.

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?
 * If neither mild or severe gets a majority, the committee must work to find a majority solution. However, it is acceptable for the committee to disagree in public, so that people can see it is not a cabal.

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Wikipedia they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?
 * If I have opted out of something from the beginning, I cannot come back after the decision and overturn it. Up until then, I would come in at any time with my input.

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?
 * I will disclose them if elected.

Questions from Newyorkbrad
1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
 * (A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * (B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
 * (C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;
 * (E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).
 * reviewing cases and drafting would be my main activities.

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?
 * I don't think it is particularly helpful for me to try and re-write policy now. If elected, my main responsibility will be to judge the law, not write it.

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.
 *  Why this might be I'm not sure. However, I don't see how it can be a bad thing.

Questions from Mailer Diablo
1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?
 * If there were no legal ramifications, I would say we abolish copyvio restrictions. Many articles have sub-par or no images because of these restrictions, when in most cases there would be no harm to anyone in including copyrighted material.

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?
 * No. ArbCom should only judge policy, not write it.

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)
 * To tell you the truth, I have no idea. Other editors involved with IRC might give you a better answer.

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?
 * There are no more sureties in wiki elections than in governmental elections. I can't offer more surety than my word. If I attempted to reform ArbCom, it would be in my capacity as an editor not an arbitrator.

Questions from Rschen7754
Arbcom questions 2008 - these will be asked at the December 2008 elections and scored on a hidden rubric, which will determine my level of support.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support.

1 What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * I can only speculate that the excessive number of propositions put to vote unnecessarily dragged out the case.

2 a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * A project is for bringing disparate editors into a community. Rules on layout should be kept to a reasonable minimum.

3 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)
 * Well, not without sanction from above, as was sought in this case.

4 Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * Why not both?

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?
 * If an editor just ignores help after repeated warnings, it is time to block him from the topics he is damaging.

6 An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * If they repeatedly disrupt topics, they need to be blocked from editing them. However, I don't think a ban is in order.

7 An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * Again, if an editor just ignores help after repeated warnings, it is time to block him from the topics he is damaging. However, in most cases I think such an editor would listen to reason.

8 a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * to answer (b) first, no, not unless the behaviour escalates in some way. Bans should be reserved for persistent bad faith at the least.

9 (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * Insufficient experts, lack of co-ordination between languages, admins reluctant to get involved in content disputes they are not already engaged in.

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Maxim

 * 1) What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
 * I would suspend admins who continue to use their powers once it is clear the case cannot be resolved without arbitration.


 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * If this is to happen, it must happen over a considerable period of time, say one month, to prevent insurgents from knocking down admins who they are unhappy with.


 * 1) What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?
 * I've no objection to the current policy. Bots are as reliable or more than human admins.

Questions from FT2
These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged. (Arbitrators need to be 'on the ball' and able to pick up impressions fairly accurately.)


 * 1) (Questions removed. I have decided, on reflection, to ask them individually to candidates, this year at least. I'll see how it goes in deciding if that has worked better than asking them centrally. Also may help with follow-up. To see the questions, look at a candidates' Q&A page where I've asked them.)

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 (Talk 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from rootology
Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?
 * No, I don't think it was. In any case there's potentially a large quantity of evidence to be heard, and lumping cases together encourages skimming over parts of it to reach a decision.

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?
 * Well, I will err on the side of recusing if there is a conflict of any kind involving me.

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?
 * That is how it should be, in my opinion. If we can't trust the agenda of a hundred people, how are we supposed to trust one absolutely?

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.
 * Again, that's how it should be. Mr Wales has contributed much to wikipedia, but it is bigger than him.

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?
 * No. These elections are sufficiently divisive already. If we insist on ignoring results, they'll only become more so.

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?
 * Each Arbitrator is excused for 1 week each, in turn, so they can edit mainspace.

7. Please rank these in order of whom the Arbcom serves and answers to, in order from first to last (the party who should have the most power over the AC goes first, the one who should have the least power over the AC goes last:

2:a) The Community 4:b) Jimbo Wales 3:c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee 1:d) The Wikimedia Foundation


 * Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.

The foundation is democratically controlled, so goes first.

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology ( C )( T ) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Davewild

 * 1) Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?
 * '''Yes. Wikipedia is becoming the main source of general knowledge for the world.


 * Consequently, Wikipedia arbitrator is probably the most powerful elective position in the world for someone without a career in business or party politcs. A high turnover is desirable, lest it go to their heads.'''

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from roux
This question is to gauge your general thoughts on how civility applies as a general principle across WP. Please read the proposals here first.

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?
 * I support a2. If incivility really is 'low-level' enough to be ignored, the standing of the contributor doesn't matter.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?


 * 2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?
 * I disagree with formalising last chances. Telling an editor they are on official probation is liable to cause resentment. I recommend that editors be warned without specific reference to banning at first.

Thank you for answering, and best of luck with the election. [ roux  » x ] 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)
'' This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. –  iride scent  01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ''
 * 1) Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?


 * No.

Questions from Lar
Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.

1)Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * '''I think that BLP articles on not-very-famous-people should be restricted to the information which caused them to be reported in a Reliable Source. If that only amounts to a stub, the article should be redirected to a bigger article.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * I agree with this, given the tendency to add too many biographical articles.

2) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions: 3) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? 4) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? 5)Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish. 6) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy? Content.
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?I'm not aware of any aspects of BLP which are egregious enough to get upset about.
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.I would probably not bother to involve myself in changing policy. If I did, it would be as an ordinary contributor whose proposals were subject to discussion, not judicial fiat.
 * Yes, I think that with this many editors, "consensus" only happens when most are apathetic. This is fine for more specific policies. But for community-wide ones, a vote of some kind is necessary.
 * Arbcom should have no role in deciding this policy. For what it's worth, I think it's a good idea as proposed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * Yes. Editing certain topics might arouse resentment in the associates of editors if their identity was known. Moreover, we don't want edit wars to become physical wars with real people.
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * moot
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * I think permanent deletion should be used if possible.
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * Yes, it is contributing to exposure.
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
 * I will disclose if elected.
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * We should punish outers where appropriate.
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
 * We should punish outers where appropriate.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * Yes, that is reasonable.
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * I'm not sure. As you say, it doesn't come under ArbCom's remit.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * As above.
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * Well, obviously the stalker should be banned permanently. What more can I say?
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * Contributions are a matter of public record, and no amount of review is stalking.

7) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant? 8) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism: 9Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)? 10) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) To answer both questions...
 * No-one should revert edits just because they are made by someone problematic.
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * Anything acrimonious must remain onwiki.
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * I have no such vehicle.
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * '''Once more, I have no opinion on this subject which is not salient to the ArbCom.
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * I think that an arbitrator should keep it onwiki, or resign.
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * I have no such account, and believe that other arbitrators should disclose it if elected.
 * In any legal case, the history of the offender is relevant to sentencing; so it should be in wikipedia.

Questions from Heimstern

 * 1) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
 * I think part of the problem is that most native Anglophones (the vast majority of editors) know and care next to nothing about Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes and the like, whereas they do care deeply about topics like the 2008 US election, which are relatively well policed. Beyond the obvious remedies you've enumerated, I'd suggest that we all make an effort to educate ourselves about such topics, preferably using sources which are non-wiki.


 * 1) Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?
 * I think one option is to ban offenders from editing talk and user pages for a period, while letting them continue editing the wiki mainspace. I consider civility to be of secondary importance to NPOV, OR, RS, etc.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * '''I would have to be in the top 7. I consider myself to be standing for election, not a job interview, and would not bump an editor with more votes.


 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * I think any putative recall would have to be limited to abuse of powers specifically granted to arbitrators, not because someone disagrees with a decision.

Questions from UninvitedCompany
1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * Almost entirely mainspace. Mostly history, with a few more "popular" things that are close to my heart.

2) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * I am a history graduate of no fixed profession.

3 Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * Wikpedia is my sole outlet for online community binge.

4 Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
 * '''I was involved in a rather silly dispute at Glorious Revolution, and at RESPECT: the unity coalition.

5 Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
 * No, I am my own person.

6 Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * I was once featured in a newsletter after an accident, as an example of the maxim 'if it bleeds, it leads'. Other than that, no.

7 Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
 * I will disclose if elected.

8 Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia? What are their user names and their relationships to you?
 * I don't know of anyone who edits wikipedia.

9 Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * Nowhere probably. Wikipedia itself is damaging my eyesight enough as it is.

10 What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
 * Well, I would be intending to serve the whole community and no other. Wikipedia shouldn't be divided into political parties.

11 What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
 * Reject cases which can or will be sorted out by consensus between admins.

12 How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * I think civility should be practised everywhere, and breaches be punished accordingly.

13 What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * I think that usually, specific topics and articles are the problem for specific editors. Whole-site bans should not be any more common than they are.

14 Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
 * As I have said repeatedly, I will not legislate from the bench. I don't plan to mess with policy any more than I have done as an editor.

15 Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
 * The ones I've never heard of. If this job makes you famous, you're doing it wrong.

16 To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * The vast majority of our business is carried out in public, so I think it is unnecessary to accept less than clear proof in almost all cases.

17 What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * So long as they don't try to influence ArbCom's decisions, I feel good about them.

18 To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * Do you have any specific case in mind?

19 Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * No. I'll be considering the cases put before us after I am elected, not past ones.

Questions from TomasBat

 * 1) In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)
 * In general, producing high-quality content is what is important. However, I don't believe that's served by being rude to well-intentioned newcomers, even if they are poor contributors. If they persistently add material that is sub-par in the face of advice, that is when I would consider them more trouble than they were worth.

Question from MBisanz

 * 1) In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond?  If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.
 * I will disclose if elected.

Questions from Pixelface

 * 1) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
 * 2) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
 * 3) Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).

Questions from Badger Drink

 * 1) It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
 * '''If you look at my contributions, I don't think I could be accused of sparing others' feelings unduly in the course of contributing. However, see above what I said about old wounds. If you want to bring up a specific case, I'll answer.


 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * '''If OrangeMarlin did indeed do what was alleged, then I'd say the penalty is insufficiently severe. See my previous reply about restricting access to all talk spaces.


 * 1) This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
 * A number of editors voiced the opinion that ArbCom unfairly favours admins in its decisions. I'd suggest that electing someone who is not an admin (me) might help to remedy this problem.

Question from BirgitteSB
Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases. Which follow slightly clarified:


 * Have at least two arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence in isolation.
 * Allow all parties concerned to review at least the portions of the evidence presentations regarding their owns actions before any decision is reached.

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. So I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?-- Birgitte SB  19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of the idea. A narrative of events would be very helpful to non-arbitrators who wished to see the findings and reasoning of ArbCom's findings.

Questions from Kristen Eriksen
1. In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community? As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy", which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.
 * '''Probably the most thought-provoking question I've been asked so far.


 * '''In the book the Selfish Gene the biologist Richard Dawkins notes that in the first world war, there were many unofficial truces besides the Christmas truce where both sides stopped firing at certain hours of the day. Unfortunately, he provided no source. I visited wikipedia's articles on WW1 to gain clarification, and found that this claim was related and Dawkins' book was cited as the source. Before long, the claim was removed.


 * I bring this up because, although the Selfish Gene was definitely a reliable source, it is not a source at all for historical questions. Healing and medicine are within the purview of science. While Homeopathy would be a reliable source for the principles of that belief system, Homeopathy is not considered scientific by anyone else who has any grounding in any other area which is called 'science': physicists don't believe it, and neither do biologists. Therefore, the journal cannot be used as a source to call homeopathy scientific.

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?
 * While it may cause problems in, for example, schools' access to wikipedia, I believe it is the right policy. It ought to be possible, somewhere in the world, to have a serious discussion of the meaning and derivation of the word 'fuck'. An internet search for this word won't produce useful results, so it is up to us to provide it.

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.
 * I favour the format Popular Belief X, but scientific opinion Y. There is no need for a value judgment about which is right, but readers are free to decide which they should believe.

Questions From Ϣere Spiel  Chequers
For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.
 * 1) How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
 * 2) In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
 * 3) In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
 * I don't think throwing out percentages is particularly helpful. Feel free to ask me about some specific cases.


 * 1) How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
 * Poorly, probably. If the evidence is particularly startling, the case should be reopened. 

 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question(s) from LtPowers

 * There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment?  If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust?  (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with.  My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.)  Powers T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * '''A number of editors have suggested that ArbCom unfairly finds in favour of admins against ordinary editors. I think this undermines trust in ArbCom.
 * '''In researching user guides to this election, I'm struck by the number of people who oppose anyone who is not an admin, regardless of what their merits, or otherwise, might be.
 * Self-serving though it may be, I suggest that electing someone from outside the bubble would help to allieviate the impression of cabalism which is hurting the Committee and Wikipedia.

Question from Marlith
What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years?  Marlith  (Talk)   02:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * '''I would like to see Wikipedia find a way to grow its more academic articles, not based on the news or on pop culture.

=Individual questions=
 * Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Questions from Al tally

 * 1) Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
 * I think that the community ought to appoint CheckUsers. The problem with this is that we could be faced with sockpuppet armies taking over the nominations. So I would suggest two provisos: any candidate for CU (or Oversight) must disclose their real identity; anyone voting to support or oppose them must declare their real identity.


 * 1) See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
 * The community can indeed ban users without resorting to ArbCom. I don't think it could overturn bans that ArbCom has handed out, though.


 * 1) Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
 * If it was going to be a big issue, I would surrender those privs. However, I see no reason why the opinions of former arbitrators shouldn't be sought: it's the current ones who do the voting.


 * 1) Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).
 * If there is an accusation that anyone has abused powers which they have by virtue of being Arbitrator, that would be an acceptable grounds for recall. However, it wouldn't be acceptable simply because someone disagreed with their decision.

Questions from Will Beback
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
 * No, I haven't, this year or any other.
 * 2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?
 * '''If someone desperately needs multiple accounts (it seems completely frivolous to me) they should be fully disclosed from the beginning. Full stop.
 * 3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?
 * Replacing the content of a page with expletives is far less damaging to the project than POV-pushing. I suggest that anyone who violates the 3rr rule on a regular basis over a period of time should be subjected to the checks which you mentioned, as well as sanctions already in place.

Question from Rspeer
In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is the scientific consensus (if it exists) a point of view, or is science a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  08:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, science is an evidence-based process, and is thus the corollary of our own policy regarding Verifiability and Reliable sources. The scientific point of view should always be rendered. However, I see no need to make explicit value judgments placing science above everything else. When presented with "the scientific view" and "the non-scientific view", the vast majority of readers will do that for themselves.

Question from Ling.Nut

 * I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
 * Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
 * Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * '''I suppose I'm wondering what "harm another editor" means. Is it harming an editor if you block them? Even if they've done something wrong? You say it comes before rules about neutrality and verifiablility.
 * '''Ultimately, Wikipedia is not about us, the editors. It's about the content. Producing quality articles is an imperative that seems to be missing from your essay.

Question from DrKiernan
Your statement "no harm to anyone in including copyrighted material" concerns me. Could you please elaborate? Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Well, the question I was asked was "what policy would you add/repeal if there were no consequences". Obviously, there would be legal consequences if the copyvio restrictions were abolished, even if it were in my power to abolish them (which it wouldn't be).
 * '''Bearing that in mind, I was simply pointing out that the purpose of copyright is to allow the creator to profit from their creation. I do not believe that the authors of the majority of images on Google search are profiting from their creation, or would profit any less if their images were on Wikipedia.
 * '''It's academic in any case. If I were elected, it's not as if I could abolish it anyway.

Question from the wub
Hi, thanks for running for ArbCom. I have a few questions if you don't mind:


 * 1) The Arbitration policy states that "The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes". Also there is a history of the ArbCom rejecting cases they see as content disputes. Why do you think this is? Do you think it should change, and what are your views on the various proposals for content dispute resolution reform presented in the ongoing (as of writing) Piotrus 2 case?
 * '''As I've already noted, the possibility of consensus is out the window once a certain number of people are involved. This applies to content disputes as much as policy disputes and behaviour issues (witness controversies in articles surrounding the 2008 presidential election). Sometimes, consensus is not even possible when there are relatively few people involved. See the dispute over the article Charles Coughlin, in which I was involved. One of the editors was telling us that Coughlin couldn't possibly be an antisemite because he only hated religious Jews, not ethnic Jews who had converted to Christianity.
 * '''I am absolutely certain that he believed every word he was saying. He was acting in good faith, and so were we. However, there could be absolutely no common ground: either Coughlin was an antisemite, or he wasn't. I asked, but no admins were willing to step in: no-one had broken the three revert rule, you see. Sadly, admins will sometimes fail to act in content dispute that don't personally involve them.


 * '''Perhaps I'm missing something, but on that page I only see a suggestion to convene discussions about how to settle intractable content disputes. I would support a more formal structure. If ArbCom has too much work to do, a new body should be created for the purpose.

2. I have to admit to being worried by your attitude to copyright expressed in a couple of your answers. Could you tell me why Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia, and do you believe this is important?
 * 'As I have said repeatedly, I was asked a straightforward hypothetical question and I answered it. I'm starting to regret it though, because it seems I'll be judged for views of mine which have nothing to do with arbitration. On the other hand, no-one has asked me about my response to any of the other questions, where my views manifestly are'' relevant to the ArbCom. Perhaps I should have just dodged the question as some of my fellow candidates have done?


 * '''Why is wikipedia a free encyclopedia? Because you do not have to pay to access or edit it. I'm struggling to come up with alternative interpretations of "free encyclopedia". Perhaps one of them could be "composed of free things"? If so, I suggest that most of the things in Wikipedia were not "free" in any meaningful sense before Wikipedia existed.


 * '''Do you think I could have found a list of | materials science journals for "free" before you created it on Wikipedia? It would have been "free" in the limited sense that it is legally permitted to own a list of their names without paying for it, whereas it would not be legally permitted to read them without paying for them.


 * '''However, if I wanted to find some of these journals, I would not find out "for free" unless I knew someone in materials science (and I don't). I would probably have to spend time and money finding and buying a catalogue of science publications. I might be able to find out by going to a university library, but that would have cost time and effort, even assuming I didn't have to pay any money. The likelihood is that I'd simply give up and not bother to find out at all. A "free encyclopedia" means that there is a near-zero opportunity cost for finding information, including the vast quanitity of information which was not copyrighted but could not previously be gained for "free". It doesn't mean a collection of information which is already "free".


 * I wouldn't like to misrepresent your own interpretation of "free encyclopedia. Please do reply and clarify if the interpretation I've outlined is something different to what you believe.

Thanks, and good luck. the wub "?!"  14:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from S. Dean Jameson
I'm asking this question of every candidate I'm considering supporting. I'm not sure if I've waited too long to ask it or not. If I have, please feel free to revert me, and I can ask it on your talk page. Here it is: do you feel the administrative actions of an arbitrator (either current or former) should be treated differently than those of a regular administrator? In particular, if an arbitrator blocks a user or protects a page in support of an arbitration enforcement, should a person overturning such an action be treated differently than a person who might overturn a similar action from a regular administrator?

Good luck with your run! S. D. D.J.Jameson 18:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * '''Thank you for asking me this. Since you are asking it, I feel as if you want people to say that all admin actions are equal. If this is the case, I must disappoint you: I don't think there's any point in having an arbcom if a single administrator can just overturn its decision. If admins could agree all the time, we probably wouldn't need the ArbCom.
 * 'If an admin reverses an arb-sanctioned block, then the penalty should be the same as inappropriately overturning another admin's block. While overturning a normal admin-block might be appropriate, if the ArbCom'' has already decided that a block is needed, then unilaterally overturning it is prima facie disruptive, because ArbCom is supposed to be 'the highest court in the land'.

Additional questions from Pixelface
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions: Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have? '''I don't think the biggest problem is the number of members. I suppose I'm not sure what you're getting at.
 * 2) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be? As I've noted before, this is a powerful position. The abysmal ratings of the incumbents in this election demonstrate clearly that we need shorter terms: about half what they are now.
 * 3) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions? '''If they have evidence, why can't they present it on the case page?
 * 4) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? '''I think anyone should be able to propose changes, yes. However, consensus is becoming impossible on the major policies: witness the vote over the Attribution proposal. I think it is time to move to a more formal voting system, where proposals are voted up or down on a single transferable vote basis.
 * 5) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? '''No. And I won't in the (increasingly unlikely) event that I get elected.
 * 6) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy? '''Definitely not, no. The last thing ArbCom needs is more powers.
 * 7) Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"? '''If a subject is noted by at least one reliable source, then it is worthy of inclusion into the appropriate article. However, it shouldn't have its own article unless there is sufficient reliable material to make the coverage broad.
 * 8) Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not? '''Well, knowledge and information are not exactly the same. I'd submit that what we think of as "subjects" (History, Science, Sport, Language) are worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia. Information which does not shed any light on to any of those "subjects", such as what toothpaste I use, shouldn't be included. I hope that makes sense :).
 * 9) Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * 10) Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case? '''The answer to both questions is a behavioural dispute. After it becomes repeatedly clear that the consensus is to keep, it simply becomes disruptive to repeat the actions over and over again.
 * 11) Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?'''I think the idea is unenforceable as long as we have anonymity on Wikipedia. I mean how is the ArbCom supposed to guess which editors might be connected with Wikia?