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

=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?
 * Hope? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Thanks for asking, but speaking only for myself, I don't think this has much to do with the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * One of the things that makes Wikipedia so winsome is the way editors take on so many and sundry tasks, following what each is stirred up to do and, more than likely, handy about. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * Given the lack of trust, some of those edits might not be so helpful as they seem at first blush. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 understand why you asked this question and I thank you for it, but since arbcom isn't wholly transparent, I can't be anything other than neutral on decisions about which I might wonder. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Hopefully, my five latest edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * Likely so, being aware of many candidates whom I trust, I might show it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it more, I very likely will not vote, so as to skirt giving anyone the feeling I'm hoping they might vote back for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * If the community doesn't want it to be binding, it shouldn't be called policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * Experience has lots of worth and is needed in a sweepingly big project like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 I've hinted elsewhere, the community always has last sway here (trumped only by the WmF): An RfC put together in good faith and endorsed by community consensus is overhwelmingly likely to nudge any arbcom member into resigning. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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")?
 * Arbcom isn't a court in English common law, it's the last resort for settling behavioural worries on a private website, so the notion of precedence would be rather out of bounds. I'd think arbcom would need either the support of the site's owner (WmF) or community consensus to put forth broad remedies. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * Do unto others? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * If the harm being done (and breach of trust) is enough to call for desysopping, it can be handled on the AN boards, or even through a community-wide RfC. I don't think arbcom is needed for "desysopping hearings." Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * It'll come from the time I already have to give as a Wikipedia volunteer. When the shreds are taken altogether, I'd say at least 20 hours a month, sometimes more. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from WilyD
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:
 * 1) 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?
 * Yes, it is. There are no special considerations for admins. Arbitrators shouldn't put forth sanctions on their own, but only as arbcom (although I believe admins can make unblocks somewhat restrictive, if consensus supports it). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Only if dire harm is pending in the next few minutes. Otherwise, there should be consensus on an AN board. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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 can say I'd never have anything to do with an RfAR having to do with User:Onefortyone :) Otherwise, it would most likely depend on what was happening at the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Calling another editor "racist" is a personal attack. Personal attacks aren't allowed. Editors making racist edits can be blocked for disruption and such edits speak loudly for themselves. Name-calling can become a very wide brush and is almost always harmful. I see the words troll, racist and vandal abused almost every day on en:Wikipedia and find this wholly unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Sounds like a helpful call, the admin got the hint. BLP vandalism would be most harmful. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * Nope. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (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.
 * Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (c) Write your own answer.
 * No need. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * The committee hasn't been transparent and has let the community down. This is not at all the same thing as an individual arbitrator quietly watching the Smythe account, knowing who it is but saying nothing to anyone about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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 more than ok. Gridlock can be a helpful outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * I'm already aware, if I were to wind up on arbcom, I might not have much time for editing articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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 would disclose my identity only to the Wikimedia Foundation and/or Jimbo Wales. In doing so, I would not authorize its disclosure to anyone else, including arbcom members. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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).


 * Having never been on arbcom, I haven't a clue. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * There is hope! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * A very good thing. Sounds like arbcom is slowly finding itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Haha, no more GUI spoofs, please, keep them for joke day, 1 April :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Arbcom should not write or amend policy, that's up to the community, trumped only by WmF. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)
 * IRC is ok as an aid for those who like/need/want it so long as it is kept wholly and forever apart from en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Politicians are mostly thieves and liars, these are two of the biggest qualifications for the job. My agreement to run for arbcom is not political, I only want to help the project in the most meaningful way I can. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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't reveiw RFaRs because I can't see the undisclosed information on them. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * WikiProjects have sway only by the consensus support they have at any given time. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * See above. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * It can. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
 * The bright line is whether harm was the most likely intended outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * I've always indef blocked this kind of editor and have always had consensus support for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Ask them to stop editing with lots of kind nudging and love before blocking. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * Ongoing edits outside the bounds of policy, whatever the intent. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) (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?
 * Given that, from what I see on my watchlist and on the boards, at least 9 out of ten of registered, active editors are overwhelmingly helpful (and most of those wonderful each in their own way), nationalistic/religious/racial squabbles are the pits, followed by WikiProjects which "patrol" or "guard" mainspace for their own narrow PoV. The vandalism is nettlesome and costly but it's only noise and moreover, the fight against it draws in new users, some of whom get stirred up into writing articles so in that twisted way, even the vandals have their helpful sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Always harmful, never helpful, it's even worse than content edit warring. I'd be quick to bring up and talk about the de-sysopping of a wheel warring admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * Only by overwhelming consensus in an RfC. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)?
 * They're likely more helpful than they seem. Unapproved, unbabysat adminbots should be blocked on sight. I don't use any high speed tools, but I think it's helpful that some admins use them, they're handy and more or less needed for cleaning up automated/high speed vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 27 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?
 * I don't like bundling, it's almost always unfair. As I read that one, it starts out handily enough but my eyes began glazing over about halfway through. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Nobody is impartial but we do what we can. Mind, editors who have done lots of helpful content building can still stray in their behaviour. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Yep, end of tale. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * en.Wikipedia is the core and the oldest of them, English is the world's second language at this time, so en.Wikipedia carries some relics of its early bygone days on the bleeding edge of wikis. This said, I'm truly neutral on that question. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * WmF can do as they please, it's their website. Likewise, volunteer editors can leave in droves as they please. Hence, if someone is put on arbcom without a sparkling bright consensus, I would hope they'd be a sparkling bright member of arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Thank you. No GUI spoofs, please, other than on 1 April, joke day. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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:


 * Done:


 * d) The Wikimedia Foundation (who should likely keep quiet for the most part)
 * a) The Community
 * b) Jimbo Wales Not (but we listen anyway and often heed).
 * c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee Not. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * I think 3 years is ok, however I wouldn't care if the community shortened it. I don't think arbcom members should try to sway that too much, COI and all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Very helpfully meant, but too fuzzy for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?
 * Too overbearing for me. I've never done it, but I think any admin should be able to make civility restrictions part of an unblock. Arbcom shouldn't be wasting its time on civility stuff which could easily be dealt with on the boards or on talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

3) 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?
 * It's a worry, see above. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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)?
 * If he flew here and bought me dinner at the Grand Hotel Kempinski, throwing in gobs of clever and thrilling flattery, I might be swayed. I would spot on do it for cash, I think. I'm not cheap when I'm not free :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * 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.
 * "Opt out" for truly borderline BLPs, they're not worth the flurry. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 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.
 * a: policy. b: BLP is not easy, this is about the only area where I've been ok with arbcom writing policy, but only because I think WmF was behind it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Straight voting is the road to chavel, tyranny. Consensus spins it for me, even when I don't agree at the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Flagged revisions would mean the end of Wikipedia as we know it and meantime stir up more ugly project wars than you can think of. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Yes, I don't think Wikipedia would have ever gotten close to being what it is without anonymity and pseudonymity. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)?
 * 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?
 * If someone asks, oversight the PI, unless they've wantonly spewed it over hundreds of scattered talk and project pages or whatever, then I'd say they're out of luck (other than getting a new username). Things change, help should be given where it can be given but without disrupting the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * It can be because it highlights the PI here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * No, no, for many, it's not worth the worries. No. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Oversight on-site outings, otherwise see below. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Block the outer. If it was done offsite a bit more slack can be given and much care must be taken in linking the username to the offsite outing but even so. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * The Internet is awash with help along these lines. Don't we have a help page about this somewhere? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Block stalkers. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * None. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Block stalkers. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Neutrality, lit by helpfulness to the project. If there has been a content dispute with that editor, a one-time overview of their contribs is one thing, following them about and being nettlesome should be and more or less is blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I know who you're talking about (someone emailed me and told me, heh!) and as it happens, happily, I do agree with you. Less worrisome editors should be given more slack, so far as being allowed back goes. However, when they sock helpfully, one editor/admin/arbcom member quietly watching and saying nothing to anyone is one thing, arbcom knowingly allowing it without telling the community is a failure of arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Wherever. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Nope. Everything I need's on this website. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)?
 * Can't happen, hence, I run that "ideal" site in me own noggin. I get thrashed sometimes but hey, it's fun to follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 don't care, but will say, to forbid it would be a big docking marketing mistake. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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? )
 * No. As for the rest, I don't care. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)?
 * We're all canny vested, one way or another, but we do what we can. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Many blues, ruddy orange, woodsy green, lemon/sunshine yellow, light pink, grey, deep dark blue-black, I guess but shade, saturation and relative brightness do have their sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care, but will say, to forbid it would be a big docking marketing mistake. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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? )
 * No. As for the rest, I don't care. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)?
 * We're all canny vested, one way or another, but we do what we can. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Many blues, ruddy orange, woodsy green, lemon/sunshine yellow, light pink, grey, deep dark blue-black, I guess but shade, saturation and relative brightness do have their sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Many blues, ruddy orange, woodsy green, lemon/sunshine yellow, light pink, grey, deep dark blue-black, I guess but shade, saturation and relative brightness do have their sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Block, ban, forget. Hear me hiss at the thought of this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * As I said elsewhere, I think it's more often than not a waste of arbcom's time to deal with civility restrictions. Most of these can be easily handled on the boards and on talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * I haven't a clue. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * I'm neutral on that. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * Much more to do with content than the project skeleton (so many thanks to those who do the latter). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * No. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * No. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
 * That's about a third of what I do here, all the time. Sometimes it spins out happily, sometimes it gets stuck, for sundry reasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Yes. We all have conflicts of interest, but we do what we can to abide a healthy, wide outlook and help others who don't share our own. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * No. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * No and no, WP:BEANS. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 and wouldn't tell if I did. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * Seldom and warily. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * I don't know, I don't think so. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * Behavioural only, however, this can take a deep knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * Taken altogether, only if privacy or safety worries come up. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * Editing and topic bans, mostly. Probations are ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * No plans at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * I'd rather not say. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * Diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * I think they've done ok! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * Never have done any OTRS myself, I'm thankful for what they do. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * Nope. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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?)
 * There's a middle way to be taken here. Sticking within the metaphor, at first we try hard not to bite, but later we may need to. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * WP:BEANS. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Please see this answer, below. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * If there have been any it was a long time ago. If so, I may not have thought it was worthwhile, which could be why I don't recall. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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).
 * None. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * I can't review RFaRs because I can't go over the undisclosed aspects. This said, yes, arbcom clearly gets it wrong too often. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * Wary, not trusting in the means or the outcome but unable to review how they got there. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * It does hint at an elephant in the sitting room. I think arbcom has gotten rather unwieldy and could use some guidance from the community along with some thoughtful streamlining from within. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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'd agree that in private RFaRs at least two members of arbcom should, independently of each other, gather and build evidence. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 29 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.
 * Whenever I hear either the term peer review or homeopathy, I raise an eyebrow. Both kinds of sources should be allowed following WP:V but very heedfully dealth with as to weight. This said, I don't think arbcom should be getting into sourcing disputes, only any untowards behaviour stirred up by sourcing disputes. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * I think helpfulness (utility) is the key here. Aside from not startling readers with strong images and language where it has no encyclopedic bearing, I think any notable topic written up with reliably sourced content is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * All verifiable PoVs should be laid out and sourced and while WP:WEIGHT does have meaningful bearing on the depth/length of treatment, the outcome should never be that a PoV is removed from the encyclopedia: At most the sourced content should be handled in a sub article, wlinked from the main one. This said, I don't think arbcom should be getting into content disputes, it should only take on RFaRs which have been stirred up by worrisome behaviour having to do with content disputes. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * I can't review RFaR's because I can't go over their undisclosed aspects. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Only going by what I've seen, slowly, sometimes not too happily. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 29 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)


 * I think it's helpful to always keep in mind, arbcom is a thankless task and they see the worst of this website, without end. Given this, I think they take on far too many RFaRs and as folks are wont to do (if not nudged otherwise), tend to try furthering their reach into making policy in sundry ways, to make things easier, which is a mistake, because it only makes things harder. Lastly, there is a lack of transparency. I think this has come about through long habit, ingrained ways of doing things, some PI and other stuff has to be kept under wraps but in my humble thinking, they've taken it too far sometimes, for years. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

=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 can understand how this happened. I think it's more or less a relic from en.Wikipedia's early years on the very bleeding edge of wiki growth. If it were up to me, I'd let the community have sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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).
 * Whether editors know it or not, the community already has sway on any ban, trumped only by WmF, the site's owner. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * They have so much experience, it would be a waste to keep them out of the loop, likewise with their rights. If I resigned, I'd go along with whatever community consensus had to say about it at the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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).
 * The answer here would be much like Q2 above: In truth, the community can over-ride anything, so long as the WmF goes along with it (they mostly only balk over off-wiki legal stuff, which is how it should be). I'd suggest an RfC as the means of bringing up community unhappiness with any member of arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from RMHED

 * 1) As user Wyss you were one of the people named in an Arbcom case. The resulting Arbcom sanctions were passed, is the sanction "Ted Wilkes and Wyss banned from making homosexuality/bisexuality edits" still in force, Or did it end when you became Gwen Gale?
 * Three and a half years ago as inexperienced but enthusiastic User:Wyss (my former username) I got caught in the middle of a very sad dispute between banned sockpuppeteer User:Ted Wilkes and User:Onefortyone. This went on for months and in the heat of an ad hominum, project space argument by User:Ted Wilkes which I should have stayed away from altogether, User:Redwolf24 (of all editors) added me to Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. User:Redwolf24 then looked at it more closely, quickly had second thoughts and tried to have me removed from the arbitration action but was ignored. I'd never even heard of arbcom and cluelessly thought they'd look at my contrib history and leave me be (not what happened). A year later, following some privacy worries, Fred Bauder suggested I change my username. When I asked if I could edit as I pleased from then on, he said (paraphrasing) yes, but "stay away from 141." So either way, by the time I began editing as Gwen Gale two years ago, the sanction/probation no longer had any bearing. There was a brief muddle in May 2007 when my former username was "outed" but Fred Bauder again straightened that out, within a few hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think you were treated fairly in the above Arbcom case, and has it coloured your opinion of Arbcom?
 * No, they didn't treat me fairly in that RfAR, they ignored User:Redwolf24's pleas to take me out of the RfAR after he'd rashly and mistakenly thrown me into it, they were heedless and wrong throughout. However, later, I was treated fairly, since my ongoing contributions rather much spoke for themselves. Having had that happen to me, yes, I've tended to be neutral when I've heard tales of arbcom botches. I've told other editors to do whatever they must to stay away from arbcom (which is as it should be anyway) and I've also told editors, many times, that I would have nothing whatsoever to do with any RfAR. Mind, arbcom members do a thankless job, dealing with the worst of Wikipedia and while I support them, it's clear they've made lots of mistakes along the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. RMHED (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Bishonen
I hope you don't think this sounds negative, but I'm interested to know. You state in response to RMHED that you've "told editors, many times, that I would have nothing whatsoever to do with any RfAR", sounding as if you may have shyed away from the RfAR procedure because of your nasty experience as an unfairly dragged-in party to Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone in 2005. I certainly wouldn't blame you for that. But whatever the reason, it seems a little paradoxical that you are now seeking a position where you have to do with RfARs all the wikiday long. Taken together with the fact that you registered your candidacy with only seconds to go to the deadline, it makes me wonder, to put it bluntly, if this is a job you really want to do. (Aware as I am of the snow job done on conceivable woman candidates to get them to stand.) Is it? And do you consider it a disadvantage at all, for a new arbitrator to have no hands-on experience of the RfAR procedure ? Bishonen | talk 08:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC).
 * I thought what I said might stir up a question like this (and it's a helpful question). No worries, I've read lots of 'em, which is another reason why I've told editors to stay away from arbcom if they could. Even if arbcom was running smoothly all the time, it can wield such a keen and canny scythe, I don't think telling editors to skirt its sweeps (but rather, quietly work out things on their own, which is the wiki-way to begin with) would ever be untowards. I'm running because experienced and good faith editors asked me to even after I said I wouldn't: I only want to help the project in the most meaningful way I can. If I wind up on arbcom I'll put my heart into it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Sarcasticidealist
I'm sort of surprised that no one's asked you this yet: what's changed? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A few editors kept nudging me even after I wrote that and truth be told, last night I thought the candidate list still looked a bit thin in terms of experience and knowledge of en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Will Beback
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
 * Nothing has changed since my RfA. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * What I think is, no and no, no, no, no and no, maybe. Wikipedia is swimming with far more undisclosed, very skillfully-editing PoV accounts than most editors understand. Some of these are more harmful than others (it might depend on one's own PoV). They're one reason for the "no fishing" outlook of CU. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * I agree a big share of disruption to the project comes from a rather small number of users. I think single or narrow purpose/subject/topic accounts should be under sterner revert and disruption policies. It could be there's a need for more CUs. CU requests are declined or languish too often, but any changes to CU policy should be tried slowly and with much heed. I don't think the way blocks are handled needs much of an overhaul. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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  08:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My own outlook is swayed by an upbringing and education awash in the highly useful ways of thinking brought to us by what we can call British Empiricism. So far it does look as though there is very likely only one truth, however both our grasp and experience are unable to reach about its bounds (and may never), hence many takes on what we've gleaned so far, mistakes, over-reaches and all, can and will crop up. PoV is brewed even more by the survival benefit of sticking steadfastly to ways of thinking and doing things which, however muddled, raise the likelihood of outcomes through which folks will have kids who grow up to have more kids and so on: These need not have a lot to do with truth and wontedly have much to do with our wide capacity for what could be called (in broadly put shorthand) happy self-delusion. Moreover, the PoVs taught to any population can be (have long been and today often are) knowingly wrong, swayed by the needs and wants of the few among us who have the predatory skills and background, among other things, to be drawn into "leadership" and its many traps. Hence most of what we learn in school is wrong, some of it meant to be so, some not so much and academic peer review is often (but not always) almost worthless, springing from and hopelessly swayed by our centralized and utterly overwhelming political systems, which fund themselves and their schools mostly through lies and sundry thefts which are at their roots backed by the threat of a wielded gun. Those notions of "scientific consensus" which filter out to most folks are yet more muddled, so-called "religious" pseudo-sciences are even less helpful and worse, they wontedly help prop up sets of fuzzy and utterly wrong choices. So long as folks think they can truly and wholly, even mostly grok anything, they're much more likely to be harmfully scammed. This is where the worth of faith comes in but meanwhile welcome to Wikipedia, which so cannily and successfully supports and echoes human behaviour in many traffic-driving ways.


 * From the outlook of a Wikipedia wonk, editors should always try to be aware that a given article can be, both helpfully and unhelpfully, either about a topic, or about a PoV on a topic. I might have chosen wlinks which could raise the hackles of many editors, given Wikipedia's woesome systemic bias on some topics, but it's enough to let readers think of their own, through their own means. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit
Two questions related to the balance of power between ArbCom and admins. Pcap ping  16:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you think that the special civility restrictions enacted by ArbCom in several cases have been successful? If not, what would you do propose instead?
 * Kind of, but if arbcom has handed out a civility restriction it's more often than not a sign things could have been dealt with more handily before it ever got to an RFaR. In other words, I think arbcom may be needlessly taking on too many RFaRs to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of an ArbCom case (WP:AE)? If the answer is no, what should be done about admin A?
 * Yes. B shouldn't revert back, that would be wheel warring, which is always harmful. Rather, B should ask about it on A's talk page. If they can't agree and B still has worries, AN would be a helpful next step. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * Hey! While your essay is fun, the thing is, admins aren't robots :) I don't think "hivethinking" happens very much on Wikipedia, though "pile on" is seen now and then. You shouldn't redirect your talk page to your user page, since your user talk page is needed for open communication with you if need be. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from BusterD
Thank you for offering yourself for service. All the best to someone I admire and respect. BusterD (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As an involved party, I feel responsibility to ask this of an arbcom candidate. In the moment, I made a strong case against "incomplete application" on your first admin process (specifically raising User:Wyss), and previously "manicuring" your talk page to misrepresent events (both my phrases). Given the distance of much time and the balm of a successful RfA, what lessons did you learn from your first unsuccessful RfA process?
 * How do you see the pedia differently through the eyes of User:Gwen Gale contrasted with through the eyes of User:Wyss several years ago?
 * How has experience varied over time shaped your current views on Wikipedia processes and the way users are entrusted with responsible office?


 * Thanks for the kind words, BusterD :) I strongly disagree that I ever misrepresented anything about you on my talk pages. I don't think the Wikipedia learning curve I went through 3-5 years ago has much to do with anything today and if it does, everything was covered at length in my RfAs. Thanks for asking though, please feel free to vote against me and all the best to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:01, 29 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?
 * Maybe 24, unless the number of RFaRs taken is cut way down. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * 2 or 3 years is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * I think the each arbcom member can handle that as they please. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * It's ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * It can be worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * I think the community should decide this question and moreover, it's linked with what the community wants arbcom policy to be. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 this is an encyclopedia, WP:N more or less fits. If Wikipedia is more like a "metapedia," notability becomes less the pith. So far, it seems to me the community wants an encyclopedia, not a metapedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * I've thought about this before. It comes down to what Wales meant by "the sum of" and moreover, if the community agrees with Wales' statement. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Reject, it's behavioural but should have been handled on a board. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * Behavioural, but this is so unlikely to happen. The first editor would have been blocked for disruption and it would have ended there. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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?
 * No, no and no. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)