Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/George The Dragon/Questions for the candidate

=General questions=

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?
 * Balanced

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?
 * 26/m/Kent, UK (and I've never worked as a statistician!)
 * 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.
 * If we are to assume the project is all about article creation, then there is an argument to remove a lot of the non-mainspace areas. However, by definition a collaborative encyclopedia is always going to have disputed areas, and these disputes need to be resolved. Whether we ever manage to achieve a balanced article as opposed to on with a POV is debatable. I would suggest there needs to be more mainspace contribution, but there appear to be a number of decent editors more interested in the politics. Though, is that a bad thing? small>This is a deliberately open ended answer.
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * Except in the case of banned meaning "really, really, really banned," it seems we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces. The goal is to improve the encyclopedia, after all. However, in the few cases when banned editors are a real life threat (and we all know at least one example), anything should be done to make them realise they are persona non grata.
 * 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.
 * The obvious one would be the Mantanmoreland. As the saying goes, if the Devil tells you your zipper is undone, you would still check. Just because the evidence came from editors banned, and was discussed at length on Wikipedia Review, it appeared the Arbs were scared of actually stating the obvious - that abuse was going on.
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * I'd rather leave that for others to judge. What I may consider "best" others may not, as it is each to their own in terms of what is "good" and "not".
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * If I can find a candidate I wish to support, yes.

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. I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.
 * 1) To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
 * Policy needs to be fluid. As Edmund Burke said "A nation without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation" and the same goes for Wikipedia.
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * I'm not entirely in favour of former Arbs being on the list on a regular basis. In certain circumstances, when a wider input is needed, I can see a benefit, but always? Not for me. However, at least they have had their identity confirmed (not that confirming ID for checkuser, for instance, stops abuse in every case!
 * 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?
 * As with admins, if the community agree to remove a member of arbcom, they should be allowed to. "Open to recall" seems to be a default basic rule of Wikipedia, anyway.

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")?
 * I would prefer for the community to adopt wider remedies if recommended by Arbcom, as the final decision in such a situation has to lie with the community.
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * To improve the credibility of Wikipedia at all times and to reduce the amount of real-life damage the project can cause at all times.

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)
 * The community gives the flag, so I would rather the community takes the flag back - otherwise the split between Arbcom and the Community will only widen. I'd rather the community were more proactive in removal.

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * However many are needed! I wouldn't want to set an arbitrary limit.

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?
 * Admins are not a "higher class" of editor than non-admins, so they should be treated equally. Admins are expected to protect the project, therefore, they should be free to take actions to do that, no matter who against.
 * 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?
 * A clear misuse, then yes. I'd also like to see more community-led blocks of admins who abuse or misuse their tools.

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)
 * I do not think there are any situations I would recuse myself from. Boring, eh?


 * 1) 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?
 * Pushing viewpoints is never a good thing. The "another editors" should have described them as pushing a viewpoint, not for being what the viewpoint is. There is a difference. The uninvolved admin should be asked to undo their block, however, if the second editor corrects his remarks about the first editor.

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?
 * The unannounced hiatus would look a bit suspicious, wouldn't it? Then again, we all know what making assumptions does! The problem with checkuser is that it's not a magic tool, though, and it can't see "through the screen". For all the user agents at a workplace to be the same is not especially surprising. Would need to be closely monitored.

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 would have to go for (c) here. There is no way the checkuser could conduct the check due to the COI. Nor would the second option, actually carrying out the checkuser, be enough - being transparent is not enough, people in such positions have to be seen to be transparent. The belief in the new user being a previously banned user should be handed to a third-party with a hands-off from the involved editor.

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?
 * This, in my view, depends on what definitions of harassment is being used. Attacks upon an anonymous username or attacks upon the person behind the name? Threats of real world violence or complains about the person's Wikipedia behaviour. There is a clear difference, and the cry of "harassment" is one of the most disruptive things facing Wikipedia today.

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?
 * Public disagreement is never good, but a lack of clear action (as with the Mantanmoreland debacle) also embarrasses the ArbCom and lessens their future ability to have the respect of the community. A united front with sanctions of some sort, with a clear next step if breaches occur, would be the option any decent negotiator would hopefully go for.

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?
 * A place on the ArbCom is a clear responsibility and actions or non-actions can have a seriously positive, or detrimental effect on the encyclopedia - and more than any one editor can have doing "usual" work on the project, so the ArbCom role has to come first.

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?
 * Not disclosed but would be prepared to. Being self-employed has its benefits!

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).

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?

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.

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?
 * It's not a policy, but WP:JIMBO wouldl go. Causes far too much drama and I believe the project has now reached the level of cutting the apron strings tying us to Jimbo. If I could implement any policy, it would be full disclosure of real world identities and credentials of all editors. After all, I would love the respectability of Wikipedia to improve, and I can't see it happening when random names of random people can edit with fake backgrounds and credentials.

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. The ArbCom should be able to make recommendations to the community, but the community has to decide.

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)
 * IRC should be abolished for use in relation to Wikipedia. All but issues of genuine privacy should be conducted in public, on Wiki.

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?
 * The ability of Jimbo to override the vote should be abolished and ArbCom should be moved to a subservient position below the community. It is there to serve, not govern.

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?
 * 2) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) 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 child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * 4) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) 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?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 8) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * 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?

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?
 * 2) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * 3) 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)?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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:


 * a) The Community
 * b) Jimbo Wales
 * c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee
 * d) The Wikimedia Foundation


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

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?

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?

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?

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)?

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.
 * Opt out makes perfect sense, although it is hard to define "marginally notable individuals" and all the drama will revolve around the definition. I would rather opt for "No Original Biographies" - namely, if an individual has not been the subject of an entry in a print encyclopedia, they can opt out on request and have their name protected against creation, where applicable.
 * 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.
 * BLPs are the most potentially dangerous area of the project in terms of defamation and real world harm to the subject of the article. Unless there is clear consensus, the default has to be delete.
 * 1) 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:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * It's a question of policy and the most important one facing the community - and the community must tackle it. The longer the community takes to act, the more likely a real world situation will arise where the decision is taken out of the community's hands.
 * 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?
 * Given the seriousness of enforcing BLP policy, if the community fail to act strongly, I have no real problem with ArbCom stepping in for both the good of the project and, far more importantly, the subject of the BLP.
 * 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.
 * As mentioned above - No Original Biographies.
 * 1) 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?
 * EN has outgrown itself, yes. Given the number of members and numbers of edits, changes are needed. Sighted revisions and expert control by named, identifiable, credential-verified editors.
 * 1) 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?
 * Not down to ArbCom but I am in favour. I would also default to the sighted version, not the latest version, or all users and non-registered users, with the option of switching (with disclaimer that the latest version may be woefully inaccurate) attached.
 * 1) 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.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * I would rather every editor was named, identified and proved their credentials, then we would be taken far more seriously. At the very least, I'd like a BLP class of editors who have to identify themselves.
 * 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)?
 * Probably too late to go the whole way, so I would start with the BLP class of identified and verified editors.
 * 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?
 * The project is not meant to be here to harm people, be they BLP subjects or editors, so oversighting would be fair. However, once the genie is out of the bottle...
 * 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?
 * No. Anything that can be obtained via publicly-obtainable information is not outing.
 * 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)
 * If elected, I will change my username to my real name. As I've already said, I'd prefer all editors to be identified, be they Arbs or not.
 * 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?
 * It is down to the user not to give out information, anywhere, publicly, that links their account with their real name. ArbCom should, of course, act strongly against anyone who uses non-public information.
 * 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)
 * Depends on how you define outing. If it's by using information publicly available, it's not outing - although perhaps bad etiquette. Anyone who uses Wikipedia-gained information not publicly available should be banned and any relevant legal action considered.
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * 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?
 * What sort of stalking? Editors claiming they are "stalked" is far more of a disruption to the project that those who really, real-world, are. I have the utmost of sympathy for those who really are, but those who throw the word around make it harder for those who really are suffering to be taken seriously.
 * 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.
 * Too big an issue for the WMF, who are in no position to deal with real stalking.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * I would assume they would make their own provisions if they have suffered in the past.
 * 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.
 * If proven and genuine stalking, then immediate ban and contacting the authorities.
 * 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?
 * A bit like the line between what is a donkey and what is a hydrogen bond. The two are totally different and editors claiming "stalk" and "harass" when the only thing happening is an editor is being watched is highly disruptive.
 * 1) 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?
 * In that particular case, yes. There has to be a "very, very, very banned" category for editors who have posed a real world danger to other editors. But for the likes of some "banned" editors, why reverse edits that improve the project? We are cutting off our noses to spite our faces!
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * Discussion is fine. Some "banned" and "blocked" editors have good ideas. NewYorkBrad, for instance, seems to have taken a lot of BLP and NOINDEX ideas from Wikipedia Review where, shock horror, he is an active member.
 * 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 post on Wikipedia Review but would not be so vain as to share my thoughts with the world in a blog!
 * 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)?
 * Wikipedia Review has some great criticism - take the study that showed how senior US politicians' articles were basically defaming them for periods - here. Surely that shows how positive outside criticism can raise serious concerns? And let's not forget, every Wikipedia editor is different, and every Wikipedia Reviewer is different.
 * 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?
 * Yes, I do myself and NewYorkBrad, who seems to be the most respected Arbitrator, does. The man has great judgement, that's good enough for me! Seriously, without outside consideration we are in danger of disappearing up our own backsides here.
 * 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? )
 * Yes, I do. And my Wikipedia account links from that account and it is listed in the history of my talk page. Oh, and it is "The Wales Hunter" - because I hunt the dream of one day creating such a great project as our beloved God King...Best to have the same names, for action should not be taken against Wikipedia editors just because they post elsewhere. Unless banning the likes of NewYorkBrad, Alison and yourself, etc, etc, is the way forward.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * The longer an editor has been here, the less leeway they should be given. They know what is and isn't expected, new editors don't.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Orange. It reminds me of the halcyon days when I drove through Runcorn with my friend, who worked in the UK Civil Service, while we listed poets in order to consider their statistics. Oh, he was some guy...
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * Discussion is fine. Some "banned" and "blocked" editors have good ideas. NewYorkBrad, for instance, seems to have taken a lot of BLP and NOINDEX ideas from Wikipedia Review where, shock horror, he is an active member.
 * 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 post on Wikipedia Review but would not be so vain as to share my thoughts with the world in a blog!
 * 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)?
 * Wikipedia Review has some great criticism - take the study that showed how senior US politicians' articles were basically defaming them for periods - here. Surely that shows how positive outside criticism can raise serious concerns? And let's not forget, every Wikipedia editor is different, and every Wikipedia Reviewer is different.
 * 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?
 * Yes, I do myself and NewYorkBrad, who seems to be the most respected Arbitrator, does. The man has great judgement, that's good enough for me! Seriously, without outside consideration we are in danger of disappearing up our own backsides here.
 * 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? )
 * Yes, I do. And my Wikipedia account links from that account and it is listed in the history of my talk page. Oh, and it is "The Wales Hunter" - because I hunt the dream of one day creating such a great project as our beloved God King...Best to have the same names, for action should not be taken against Wikipedia editors just because they post elsewhere. Unless banning the likes of NewYorkBrad, Alison and yourself, etc, etc, is the way forward.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * The longer an editor has been here, the less leeway they should be given. They know what is and isn't expected, new editors don't.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Orange. It reminds me of the halcyon days when I drove through Runcorn with my friend, who worked in the UK Civil Service, while we listed poets in order to consider their statistics. Oh, he was some guy...
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Orange. It reminds me of the halcyon days when I drove through Runcorn with my friend, who worked in the UK Civil Service, while we listed poets in order to consider their statistics. Oh, he was some guy...
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Orange. It reminds me of the halcyon days when I drove through Runcorn with my friend, who worked in the UK Civil Service, while we listed poets in order to consider their statistics. Oh, he was some guy...

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?
 * 2) 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?

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * 2) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * 2) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * 3) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 6) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 9) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * 10) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * 11) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * 12) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * 13) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * 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?
 * 15) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * 16) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * 17) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * 18) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * 19) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?

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?)

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.

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?
 * 2) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * 3) 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?

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * 4) How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?

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)

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

Question from Phil Sandifer
If you win election and are seated by Jimbo, what do you intend to do?
 * Depends on the circumstances, though if any of the candidates with the most votes are not seated by Jimbo, I would refuse to serve. If the appointments follow the actual vote, I would serve.

Highly important question
Do the tears you cry turn into jelly beans? --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always preferred jelly babies, to be honest! GTD 01:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from David Fuchs
You make it clear that your primary reason for candidacy is a contrary opinion to current appointment standards. Aside from a 'protest vote' impetus, what other qualifications do you have that would serve as an asset to ArbCom? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am an editor, not an admin, and am not in conflict with anyone else, don't have any strong POVs and have never been accused of being in a clique. I would suggest those are quite useful qualifications.

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor
These are questions I am putting to all candidates - apologies if they have already been asked you before.


 * 1) Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself.  On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki.  On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days.  Which definition do you prefer?
 * I'm not a fan of such a phrase. Or long-term contributor, as everybody is meant to be equal. If a "vested contributor" flips and damages the project, they should be treated in the same was as a new editor doing the same. Having editors with forthright views is no bad thing, and they are sometimes criticised too much for their views, but there are limits.
 * 1) Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
 * Reasonable has to be defined by whatever the community define it as, outside views are not relevant, in my view.
 * 1) Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
 * It comes down to net profit. If an editor is causing more damage than they are causing a benefit, they should be reprimanded in some way. However, we do have a problem with a lack of real experts, who feel contributing to an open-edit project is pointless.
 * 1) Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right.  It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly.  But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back.  Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented.  In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
 * It depends on "how banned" they are. Some are banned but come back and all of their edits are reverted on sight, often leaving the encyclopedia in a worth state. I do not see the point in this, unless they are banned for reasons relating to posing a genuine real-life threat to other editors, and we all know of at least one case like this.
 * 1) Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR.  All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests.  Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use?  If so, what should those be?
 * A quick change would be that if a case is not accepted or refused within a set time frame, it is defaulted to "refused". However, there would be a risk of Arbs deliberately not responding so that they couldn't be accused of directly refusing. I wouldn't want to make things completely set in stone, though, as we need to remain flexible if we are to progress.

I wish you the very best with your candidacy, I hope it goes the way you would like, but also that it goes the way that is ultimately of benefit to the community and the project. The Land Surveyor (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Stifle
All (or almost all, I'm not 100% sure) previous electees to ArbCom have been administrators. How will you manage ArbCom duties without admin tools? Stifle (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By definition the ArbCom is a committee, so if I have to request another member undertake administrator actions, then that shouldn't be a problem. However, there appears to be a clear dismay with the way the ArbCom is working - perhaps it's time for a change in what bits members have and haven't got?

Questions from Will Beback
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?


 * 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?


 * 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?

Question from harej
Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to enact the will of the community," would fit my viewpoint far more! GTD 01:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Al tally
Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Clearly the current system is crazy. There is, as you say, a super-secret group and discussions cannot be seen. That goes against what the project is meant to stand for. The community should have the final say on a lot more matters than it does now (in practice, if not in theory) and creating a Requests for Checkusership/Oversighter in the same manner as RFA and RFB would appear to make sense.
 * 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).
 * In the West we cherish the right to be tried by a jury of our peers. Sure, Magistrates' Court involves up to three individual passing sentences, but they can only give out limited sentences on certain crimes. Perhaps we should introduce a system of being allowed to opt for "trial by ArbCom" or "trial by community"?
 * 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?
 * As I've mentioned above, there may be reason to include former Arbs for specific cases when a wider opinion is needed, but I see that as the exception rather than the rule. I wouldn't keep the privs.
 * 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).
 * Recall seems fair, but I think it should be the default anyway. Motions of Confidence should be able to be made in relation to arbitrators. A system of election without any way of removal before the end of term is not really right, in my view, especially given the term length.

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) 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * 2) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * 3) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * 4) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * 5) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * 6) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * 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"?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 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?

Question from Marlith
What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years?  Marlith  (Talk)   03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * An accountable and reliable encyclopedia which is available for all to view, but requires editors to verify they do actually exist GTD 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)