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

=General questions=
 * Questions that an editor would like a majority of the—or all—candidates to answer should be asked as general questions. General questions are asked here, and copied over and answered by the candidate as s/he sees fit. Editors should ask general questions at that link, and not here; only the candidate should place questions here. (See top of page for guidance.)

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?
 * Smart. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * No thanks. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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.
 * I would always keep in mind that this is first and foremost an encyclopedia. The project space exists solely for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, and is a secondary concern. It should never take priority of the writing and maintenance of articles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * Unnecessary. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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 would have preferred a speedier resolution to the SlimVirgin-Lar case, and I feel that one of the editors deserved more than a stern rebuke in terms of that editor's behavior. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Bringing Sinestro Corps War to FA, clean up of North American Union, clean up of Accession of Turkey to the European Union, my work diffusing categories and my work categorizing articles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * No. People might vote against me for doing so. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * Not de jure, no. We shouldn't have strict rules saying, "An article should be X size and have Y number of categories and Z number of sources." But through the common law-like consensus system we've developed, the precedents should allow the community to make de facto binding decisions. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see here for my explanation. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * The Supreme Court doesn't invite former Justices over for tea when discussing cases. Congress doesn't allow former Senators or Representatives to debate legislation on the floor, in theory. If they're not sitting, they shouldn't be there. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * Administrators are more accountable for their actions whereas Arbitrators, like judges, need to be able to make decisions independent of what our notoriously tempestuous and reactionary community may feel is right. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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")?
 * Please clarify. Are you referring to precedent, where ArbCom would make a decision in one case that would guide all other cases? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * They have to hold themselves to the highest standard possible. A

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)
 * ArbCom is about dispute resolution, not mob justice. That said, if a group of editors wanted to try a sort of class action lawsuit where they all allege consistent low-level abuse over a lengthy period of time, I'd certainly love to hear the case. But I'd only vote to hear it if they've exhausted literally every other means of removing the Administrator from his position. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * No idea. I could offer a fluff answer like "Whatever it takes to get the job done", or a specific one that I couldn't possibly guarantee like "Ten hours every week", but I'd rather just say "I don't know." --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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 Admin A to block another admin Admin B 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?
 * I added names for reading ease. Administrators should be treated like any other editor. If they're doing something wrong, they should be punished just like any other editor. Whether or not they are an administrator should not come into play unless they abused or misused the tools in said debate. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate for an admin Admin C to block another admin Admin D over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when?  If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * Not without warning and discussion, no. Such issues should be raised on the administrator's noticeboard and/or brought to ArbCom first. The exception being clear and present danger; i.e., if Admin D is deleting the Main Page and blocking Jimbo, then yeah, block first. But discussion should always precede blocks, not the other way around. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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)
 * In cases in which I was connected to an editor, had a prior involvement in the dispute, or was requested by a community member or other arbitrator to do so. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * If the racist editor was pushing against policy, then he's the one who should be dealt with. The other editor should be admonished to use more constructive language, but unless they put RACIST in big bold font on the racist editor's userpage it's not a blockable offense at the first instance. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * It would depend on a variety of factors. How established is the administrator? Did we appoint him last week or was he editing Wikipedia before Jimbo? Was the vandalism connected to articles the administrator edits? And yes, the type of vandalism does matter in this case. If the IPs are running around typing "poop" on random articles, then it's a safe bet it's not the admin who brought multiple articles of FA status. If the IPs are vandalizing the pages of editors with whom the admin has had a dispute, then yes, I'd be a little suspicious. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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.
 * (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.
 * A. If someone sees a suspected Grawp sock I don't want them hanging around waiting for confirmation and quibbling over conflict of interest, I want them to block and block hard. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * Yay! You used names! I'd allow the editor back if the edits were good enough; i.e., Smythe wasn't just categorizing uncategorized articles for two weeks. If Smythe was writing DYKs for a month, then yeah, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and allow Smith to return - but with the caveat that he stay away from Jones. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * Disagreements should be kept private; you don't see Antonin Scalia going on The O'Reilly Factor and calling David Souter a ignoramus. I would urge a middle of the road decision first, but if no consensus can be reached then it should be brought up for a vote. That's why we vote on things, after all. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * Fortunately my regular wikiwork is categorizing articles and patrolling new pages - hardly time-consuming or distracting. I may opt out of more complex cases depending on my real-life workload, because it would be unfair to both myself and the case participants if I was distracted and thus unable to give them a fair hearing. I do not, however, expect that to be a common occurrence. I would take this very seriously and treat it as such. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * The actions of some individuals have led me to err on the side of not revealing my name or location. While I wouldn't resign from ArbCom or quit Wikipedia if it happened, I'd still prefer it to remain a secret. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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).
 * Other editors have a more comprehensive memory of previous cases, so I would likely opt out of appeals. I would also likely not plunge into to some of the more independent things like checkuser on my first day on the job, but after a small period of learning the ropes I see no problem in my carrying-out of the responsibilities. Other than appeals, I'm willing and able to perform any of the services. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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?
 * I'm amazed at how comprehensively FT2's proposal fits my own views of possible ArbCom reform. I do differ on the role of precedent; I think ArbCom should definitely take into account prior cases, and such cases should be cited by editors petitioning the Committee. I would like to see us build a more substantial precedent-based case law, but I also don't want us to be bound to it so we can be flexible and adaptable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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.
 * I am sure that this is just a temporary lull. Given that August featured the Olympics, the start of the 2008 U.S. general election, and the beginning of the school year, I think this was just a matter of people paying more attention off-wiki than on. Whether it is a good or bad thing is hard to judge; if we see a glut of cases towards the end of this year and beginning of the next, we'll know it was just a lull. If not, it may indicate the resolution of underlying issues. However, I have no doubt the community will continue to provide good case fodder in the months to come. :) --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * Whichever one says we can't form a Parliament to write policies. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * Not in the sense of a Parliament or Congress, no. Our three branches consist of an executive (Jimbo as the head of state/the admins as head of govt.), a legislature (a committee of the whole consisting of all editors, with "consensus" instead of actual votes) and a judiciary (ArbCom). ArbCom could interpret policy, sure, but should never be its originator. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)
 * No. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * I've listed some of the reforms I'd be supporting and pushing for in Newyorkbrad's answer. I think it's also important to note that almost as important as the tangible reforms is the freshness of perspective that I would bring to ArbCom. I'm not one of these partisans who's been fighting the BLP Wars or Civility Conflicts since time immemorial. We need new blood to help break the stagnation and weakness of the current ArbCom and help maneuver it back to meaningfulness. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:48, 16 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?
 * Four months is way too long. I'd like to streamline the process for cases by having fixed dates by which you have to post evidence, you have to post proposed decisions, and by which the arbitrators have to vote. That would help encourage the speedy resolution of cases. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:15, 16 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?
 * A WikiProject's purpose is to coordinate efforts within a specific topic or subtopic. They can lay out standards through consensus. A WikiProject's members can enforce standards such as layout through consensus, but the WikiProject itself cannot do so. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:15, 16 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)
 * No, but the editors who work with both the parent and child WikiProjects should be able to find common ground. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * Project newsletters, not necessarily. If the project newsletter goes, "You should all go vote on Article X in FA", then yeah that's canvassing. But if it just NOTIFIES, i.e., "The following articles of our project are in FA, are in GA, are in AfD, etc.", then that's okay. IRC is only canvassing if the editor asks those on IRC to vote a specific way on something, like an RfA or AfD. Example: if I go to #wikipedia-en-admins and announce my candidacy, that's just a general notification that it exists, and I'm not telling or asking anyone to vote for me or even to participate. But if I go on that channel and spam "VOTE FOR ME VOTE FOR ME", that'd be canvassing. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:15, 16 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?
 * If the good faith but horrible edits go against consensus, notify the editor and undo the edits appropriately, citing relevant discussions. If they keep happening after due notification and warning, then it becomes vandalism and should be treated as such.. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:15, 16 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?
 * The community should be able to step up and say, "Look, this guy's not helping us build an encyclopedia. He's making it harder for the rest of us to do so. Let's kick him to the curb." If the community agrees, then that's what should happen. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:15, 16 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?
 * I don't like this question's interpretation that some people aren't smart enough to edit Wikipedia. Not understanding English is different than not being smart enough, and those editors should be directed towards the relevant language Wikipedia. If an editor doesn't get how to edit, then we have a responsibility to explain and educate that editor until our good faith is expended. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * Questions 5 and 6, yes. I'm way too uneasy with 7's tone to support community bans in that instance. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:15, 16 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?
 * The lack of structure is what I perceive as the biggest problem within the community. The whole undirected anarchy thing was fantastic in the early days, when the amount of uncovered topics was so vast editors could do their own thing without bumping into one another. But now that energy is feeding in on itself as we get drawn into bigger disputes about content and stupid disputes about the community and checkuser and things that have no relevance to actually writing an encyclopedia. I think a ton of editors have lost their way and should either have a reality check or retire.
 * I would solve this by more institutions. The "not a bureaucracy" maxim is outdated, cliched and, truth be told, juvenile. The youthful rebelliousness of our infancy and adolescence needs to give way to the responsibilities we have towards our readers in this new phase we're entering. We're big, we're powerful, and we're influential. We've been cited in court cases, plagiarized by journalists, and read by millions. We can't afford the vanity and the conflicts anymore. I would love to see us finally draft a legislature or parliament to write and enforce policy, a Editorial Council to maintain content standards and resolve content disputes, and anything else we need. We have to take responsibility for what we do, and we have to grow up.
 * Unfortunately, another one of Wikipedia's problems often prevents this from happening. The old guard of editors and administrators who have been here forever are too resistant to change, and even worse, often openly hostile to necessary change. For example, we have persistent vandalism and yet they shoot down any attempt to require editors to register. Only by breaking free of the old cadres and their stranglehold on the administration of the encyclopedia can we help guide us back on a more responsible path.
 * Most of this is completely irrelevant to ArbCom's elections or my candidacy, but you did ask. And I don't care if I lose some votes for this, but it's the absolute honest to God truth. We need to change. And that's not just some slogan I stole from Barack Obama this time. We actually need it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:15, 16 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?
 * Edit wars have two patterns: they are either short and brutal like the Anglo-Zanzibar War or long and drawn-out like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In both cases, they are often isolated to a certain portion of the encyclopedia. Wheel wars, on the other hand, are the wiki equivalent of the war to end all wars. They are incredibly destructive and if more editors enter into it through people having agreements with other people, it can seriously disrupt the encyclopedia. As such, I take a very aggressive stance on wheel warriors. I'd support temporary desysops and full desysops on participants in most cases, depending on the level of escalation. They cannot be tolerated. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * I'm hesistantly supportive of it. While sometimes the community can be a better judge of character than ArbCom can, I worry about 1) a mob mentality desysopping an admin for a minor offense or 2) a cadre of editors preventing an abusive admin from giving up the tools. If it were to happen, we'd need a better structure and procedure in place so as to prevent either flaw. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:00, 16 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)?
 * It depends on the bot's tasks. Deletions should only be done by bots if they've been manually reviewed by a living person. Blocks should never be done by bots. If the proper safeguards and guidelines are in place, I'd be in favor of them but it'd be on a case-by-case basis. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:00, 16 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 think it was helpful in theory, because some of the issues were intertwined and should have been addressed collectively. The stalling and the stagnation and the eventual sweeping under the rug of the issues, however, was inexcusable and is one of the reasons I'm running in this election.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 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?
 * We're human beings. All of us candidates have opinions on things, and we've all dealt with other editors on here either for good or for bad. The difference is, Arbitrators should be able to set aside their preconceived emotions and feelings and focus solely on the case before them or at least recuse themselves if that proves impossible. If they can't, they shouldn't be on there in the first place. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 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?
 * I think it's essential and important for the community to set policy for ArbCom's powers and jurisdiction, but it's equally important that Arbitrators have a voice since they're going to be the ones using the policy. When the U.S. Congress debated allowing Supreme Court cases to be broadcast on TV, the entire membership of the Supreme Court at the time went before Congress and told them it was a bad idea. Philosophical polar opposites like Scalia and Steven Breyer joined together to oppose the idea (Breyer even said that "the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body". Newyorkbrad and FT2, as noted in NYB's question block, have some excellent ideas for ArbCom reform. I would hope that as Arbitrators the community would take into account our opinions primus inter pares before considering any reform. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 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.
 * I think we more or less have that now. Jimbo's really no different than Her Majesty in that he knows it would be suicide to countermand a community mandate. Institutionalizing it would just be a waste of everyone's time and energy that could go towards improving the encyclopedia. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 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?
 * This is a plurality system, so the top seven people should get the seven slots currently open. Simple as that. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 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?
 * The needs of the encyclopedia outweigh the whims of the community. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 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.
 * DACB. WMF needs to cover its ass legally, so they go first or else there would be no Wikipedia. If I don't put the community next, people will say I'm an elitist or whatever. And ArbCom should have the next most important voice in ArbCom's affairs. Jimbo's just a figurehead, from my perspective. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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 have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, increased turnover might lead to quicker reform and fresher, less entrenched perspectives. On the other hand, I would be hesitant to reduce them too much for fear of having Arbitrators be subject to popular whim or external pressure moreso than they already are. A balance would have to be struck, since the implications ultimately stretch beyond simple term limits. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * I support the proposals for both A1 and A2, although I'd quibble over the rationales. Both proposals mesh well with my "House test" philosophy of incivility. A1 is my preferred approach, since it's not ArbCom's job to police and patrol every little bit of snark between editors. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?
 * I don't view low-level civility as a "concern", insofar as it shouldn't be given the same level of attention as edit warring or other forms of tangible disruption. I oppose the proposed restrictions listed in section B, but I don't view incivility as enough of a concern to warrant alternate proposals. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * See above. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 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)?
 * I'm torn on this one, and I'm going to be pretty frank about why. Let's be honest here: I'm running for a position. I want to reform and bring a new voice to ArbCom, and I genuinely think I'm the best person for that. I'm tired of seeing cases stagnate, underlying issues go unresolved, and habitual offenders let off scot free. But if Jimbo appointed me despite not being in the lead, I hope he would have some damn good reasons for doing so. I wouldn't just jump on board if it wasn't fair to the other guy. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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.
 * Note to readers: Upon reviewing my answers to this set of questions, I was displeased with the overall tone that they projected and became concerned it could mislead voters. As such, I have rewritten my answers. In most cases the views are the same as originally stated, only better articulated. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * Opting out, if implemented, shouldn't be an automatic process. The way I'd ideally set it up would be thus: an article subject contacts Wikipedia, perhaps through a specially set up board or committee. The subject requests that their article be removed. Now perhaps either the committee or the community debates it, but there would need to be that element of editorial review. This would help us distinguish between politicians who got embroiled in a scandal and want it whitewashed and the good-natured average joe who is "notable" for a mistake he or she made when they were younger. I'd prefer that the committee in charge of this process set up a series of tipping points for inclusion or removal. Those tipping points would be vital in securing my support or opposition for such a group. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * No. I'm an inclusionist, which means I believe that the burden of proof for an article's deletion rests with the editor who nominates it for deletion. If they cannot give sufficient reason for its deletion, and/or they can't sway enough of the community to support them, then the article should remain. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * God I hate BLP cases. Nobody's ever satisfied. The "Opt Out" thing sounds pretty, but without clear boundaries on where to draw the line it's unreasonable. We'd spend half our time arguing who "deserves" to be in and who doesn't and the articles would never get around to being written. Since I'm an inclusionist, "Default to delete" puts a bad taste in my mouth. This is something that is best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, because big overarching buzzwords and catchphrases are only going to come back to kick us in the pants later. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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?
 * It's a question of content, but it occasionally and unfortunately wanders over into the area of policy sometimes. We must always remember that the community exists to write content not policies, and all other concerns are secondary. The entire purpose of the BLP rules is to establish some level of editorial standard among our articles and to protect unwary public figures from possible libel and slander. I view BLP primarily through the goggles of content, mainly because the policy issues come from the editors who bicker over the policy instead of the policy itself. This is not to say that there aren't policy aspects; rather, I tend to focus on the editorial and the real-world impact before so. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * In some cases, ArbCom needs to mandate policy. Some situations, such as BLP, are a tad too important to allow the community to argue endlessly about. When the community has exhausted the discussion, it is perfectly reasonable for ArbCom to step in and decide. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave this answer a week or two ago with the following reasoning within my own mind: When cliques of vested contributors dominate discussions or hordes of POV warriors make reasoned debate and compromise impossible, and when the community is unable to break past these powerful groups, it is not unreasonable for a fair-minded, neutral and elected body like ArbCom to assist in guiding the discussion. Somewhere between my brain and my keyboard, the answer got all screwy and now misrepresents my beliefs. I've attempted to clarify this answer on the talk pages of editors who've cited it, but to little avail. Thus, I've decided to strike at the root of the problem.
 * In no way did I intend for ArbCom to supplant or create or destroy consensus, nor did I see it as a precursor to a parliament, nor as a replacement for the community. I'm just tired of seeing the community squeezed out by the marquee contributors or overwhelmed by legions of biased foot soldiers in discussions about serious matters like BLP. That's all. I'm not an elitist or a cabalist or an arbitrator hungry for more power. I just want things to work the way they should. If that's naivete, then so be it.
 * I hesitated to strike, adjust or even change this answer even despite the trouble it's caused me with voters. I corrected my answers to lar's questions in response to confusion and concerns once before and I didn't want to be perceived as a flip-flopper if I did it again. Instead, I've tried to address voter concerns on a case-by-case basis by contacting them on their talk pages. Given the response, it's clearly not working. Hopefully by eliminating the troublesome answer itself and explaining what was wrong with it and how I actually feel about the issues, things will get better. Even if this doesn't change the minds of existing opposition, I hope that it at least prevents new ones. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * I see two problems with our current BLP approach (not necessarily the policy, but the way in which we carry it out). First, it's ignorant. There's a growing portion of the community that's begun to realize Wikipedia's role in the real world and take account of the fact that what we write here is read by thousands, hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people. We have a duty and a responsibility to make sure that what we're writing is fair, neutral and not unrepresentative of living individuals who have to live with what we write.
 * Second, our resolution of BLP matters is incoherent and haphazard. The community has previously decided that some things are better left to more qualified individuals rather than the mob of the editors themselves. We give Checkuser to trusted individuals rather than the general public. We elect Arbitrators who have incredibly discretionary powers to hear cases instead of letting those cases be endlessly debated by entrenched editors. And we empower only certain individuals delete articles, protect pages and block editors. I know Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy, but this may be one area where a little bureaucracy could save us a lot of trouble. An independent editorial board with the ability to review BLP cases and make firm rulings on the content issues within, as well as adjudicate their possible deletion if so requested by the subject, would go a long way towards resolving the issues. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a question of both content and policy, which is why it sucks so much. We have to be a little loose with our rules there out of practicality because ArbCom's the only body capable of resolving those issues, and we have to tread carefully so as to not infringe upon the "no content disputes" maxim. Again, I cannot stress enough how I deal with BLPs on a case-by-case basis and thus refrain from making catchall arguments that are Ackbarian-level traps. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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?
 * Haha, oh boy. I would love nothing more than a little more structure in Wikipedia. I'm tired of the haphazard anarchy we use to get through the day. It was beneficial when we were just starting out and the undirected energy was a positive force, but now it's feeding upon itself and we're devoting our energy to excesses and frivolities rather than increasing the quality of the encyclopedia. I would love a Parliament, and an Editorial Council, and all sorts of other organs to bring a modicum of discipline to this place...but it's unrealistic. The community and the entrenched long-time editing cabals are almost universally against it. I've given up on trying to bring it about and now I'm focusing on the small stuff. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your assessment. If you think of it in stages, we're somewhere in our adolescence right now as a community, as an encyclopedia and as a website. In our infancy and childhood, the lack of boundaries and walls allowed us to expand rapidly, and for a time that was a good thing. But now we're a top ten website, we're almost always the first hit on Google, and we have to realize that when making decisions.
 * I've been a big proponent of more hierarchy and discipline within the community. We're often too busy feuding over the later drama spat to actually write an encyclopedia, and I want to bring us back on the proper path of expanding knowledge. First, I would like to see a Parliament in which members are elected to represent the community and empowered to draft and write policy. The exact nature and layout and details of this I do not know, nor will I attempt to outline here, but the rough gist is something I would like to see. I would also like to see an Editorial Council similar to the one I proposed a few months ago to handle strictly content-related disputes. I believe this would help resolve underlying content issues that fester over into the user disputes we all know and love, as well as create an environment conducive to article writing.
 * Unfortunately, I doubt any of that will happen. There is a sizable chunk of the community, consisting mostly of the entrenched editors who have been here forever, that resists almost any changes made to the status quo. Even worse, there is an even larger portion of the community that blindly follows the orthodox portion and makes it even harder to actually debate the issues. The best I can hope for is that ArbCom can step up and fill in the gaps in which some order is so desperately needed. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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?
 * I'm not a big fan of flagged revisions. There are two million articles on this encyclopedia, and we have a hard enough time keeping our articles at at least a steady level of quality, much less improving them. Flagging new pages is fine, but expansion past it is a waste of energy. ArbCom doesn't have a role in this; it's for the community to decide. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I discussed this the other day on IRC with a few people after answering, and they gave me a better depiction of what such a system would look like. I'd be willing to support it for a trial period of, say, a month. If it doesn't work then we can scrap it; if it does work, then full speed ahead. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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 support anonymity. End of story. I like the freedom I have to remain a private person. I don't believe I should have to tell you all who I am to be an Arbitrator. I've found that the external world only complicates Wikipedia, and who we are on the other side of the monitor should not be an issue.
 * 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)?
 * n/a.
 * 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?
 * It's a Pandora's Box situation. If someone's disclosed their identity, they can't put that cat back into that bag. We can try to minimize the likelihood of someone finding that information through oversight and deletion, but given the increased awareness of our critics it might not be enough. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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 depends on the intent. If I post it by accident, then no, not really. It'd be just an honest mistake. But if I post it specifically to out that person, then yes it's outing. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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)
 * In the past I would have said yes and been more than willing to reveal my identity. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has detractors who would use such information against us for personal, petty and vindictive reasons. What happened to one of the editors I respect the most earlier this year is proof enough of these individuals' disgusting malice. I will not reveal my identity under any circumstances except to the Foundation should I be elected. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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?
 * I think it's fairly clear, yes. If the loss was brought on by the editor, then deletions and oversights can be used. If the loss was brought about by another, then in addition to oversights the outer would also be banned for disruption. ArbCom and the WMF are empowered to enforce such decisions, and should do so with all due haste. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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)
 * An indefinite ban would be appropriate. Outing not only disrupts the encyclopedia but also drives away good contributors and scares new ones from participating. It's the digital equivalent of invading our villages and salting our farms, and it cannot be tolerated. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I support anonymity. End of story. I like the freedom I have to remain a private person. I don't believe I should have to tell you all who I am to be an Arbitrator. I've found that the external world only complicates Wikipedia, and who we are on the other side of the monitor should not be an issue. Unmasking one's identity is serious and should be dealt with as harassment and punished accordingly; I would do the Wiki equivalent of "throwing the book" at anyone who did so maliciously, whether they did so onwiki or offwiki because it's just as disruptive no matter the location it occurs. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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?
 * I don't know how we'd realistically go about doing this. Are we to place banners saying, "Editing here may lead to stalking"? While it's a realistic fear, it's not one we should be cautioning against per se. Rather, we as a community should stress anonymity's benefits. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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.
 * Stalking is a problem, but it's one we're really hard pressed to fix or correct from a realistic standpoint. We can ban offenders on Wikipedia, but we can't stop them from using other methods to harass editors. Doing so is simply outside our control as a community. It's unrealistic to have the WMF chase down stalkers, although cooperating with the authorities is reasonable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * I don't know. I don't understand what kind of allowances or special provisions we could be making. Could you please be a little more specific as to specific allowances/special provisions? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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.
 * It's no different than a BLP violation and a regular case of harassment, except that the added factor of clear and present malice would cause me to bring the banhammer down even harder. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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?
 * There's a fairly clear line actually, and that's malice. If someone reviews my contributions to establish, say, a pattern of abusive editing on certain topics, then that's fair so long as the pattern actually exists and makes sense. If, however, one reviews an editor's contributions to find out what that person's name is or where they live, then that's malicious and should be smacked down as such. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting banners up that say "EDITING HERE MAY LEAD TO STALKING" is foolish. Banks don't put "PEOPLE MIGHT STEAL YOUR MONEY FROM US" signs on their front doors. Schools don't put "YOU MIGHT FAIL THIS TEST" disclaimers atop the SAT. Stalking is a problem, but it's one we're really hard pressed to fix or correct from a realistic standpoint. We can ban offenders on Wikipedia, but we can't stop them from using other methods to harass editors. Doing so is simply outside our control as a community. It's unrealistic to have the WMF chase down stalkers, although cooperating with the authorities is reasonable. I don't understand the "allowances or special provisions" for prior victims of stalking offline - what exactly would we be doing in treating them differently? It's a complicated topic but let me try to sum up: while I would love to see stalking and harassment end, there's realistically only so much we can do about it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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?
 * Removing good contributions does nothing but remove good contributions. We're not Chinese emperors, we can't just erase someone from the Imperial Histories. I think it's overkill and a waste of time and effort. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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?
 * Rather than look at this from an acceptable/unacceptable standpoint, we have to look at this from an evitable/inevitable standpoint. Humans are social creatures. We love to gossip; that's why they have all those magazines at the checkout stand. It is inevitable that discussions about Wikipedia take place outside of Wikipedia. Attempting to end such discussions is both 1) unenforceable since we have no powers outside the confines of the MediaWiki software and 2) futile since the discussion would likely just migrate to a different forum or go further underground. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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?
 * I have no external blogs or anything of that nature. I only discuss Wikipedia onwiki or in the IRC channels. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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)?
 * I have no qualms with WR's existence, as I've always believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I think it's important to have a dissenting voice to listen to when we make decisions, especially given our role as a top ten website. There are a few crazies there, whose names need not repeating, but when I read WR I occasionally find some valuable criticism there.
 * Wikback failed for a variety of reasons, but first and foremost because it wasn't filling a niche. If you like Wikipedia, you discuss Wikipedia on Wikipedia. If you dislike Wikipedia or have criticisms of it, you discuss it on WR. If you're somewhere in the middle, you go to both or you go to neither. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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 find it inherently inappropriate for anyone to participate in WR. As long as administrators aren't blocking or unblocking others at the behest of external forces, and as long as Arbitrators aren't sharing juicy case secrets, I see nothing wrong with it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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? )
 * I have no accounts on Wikipedia Review or any other site. I don't see anything wrong with having anonymous/pseudonymous accounts there, so long as they aren't doing what I described in Question 8d. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Outside criticism is a necessary evil. The reality is, we're a big thing on the Internets nowadays, and so we've attracted our fair share of critics. I do not participate in external sites with relation to my activities on Wikipedia, although I am a frequent reader of Wikipedia Review. I read Wikipedia Review because sometimes it can get a little too echo chamber-y on here, and we get so used to dealing with issues within our little bubble we forget to look at the larger picture. Although I frequently disagree with what I read on WR, I find them useful in stepping back and seeing what outsiders think looking in. There are plenty of bad apples there - Daniel Brandt, Don Murphy, etc. - but it's not that hard to discern valid criticism there from the potshots. Plus, I admit - there's a little ego in there on my part. I sometimes try to find if they've ever mentioned me but alas, no such luck. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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)?
 * Yes, I think there are "vested contributors" on Wikipedia. I like to compare them to the monopolies and trusts under Teddy Roosevelt, where rather than unequivocally busting all trusts, T.R. only busted the "bad" trusts who were working against the public good whilst allowing the "good" trusts to remain. So too must we look at vested contributors. For this, I once again refer to my House test: does an editor's positive contributions to the encyclopedia outweigh that editor's negative impact on the community? For some entrenched members of our community (and I'm not going to name names because that's 1) unfair and 2) could lose me votes), they do more harm than good so I'd be willing to let them slide for the time being provided their contributions outweigh their drawbacks. But others have become more interested in advancing personal agendas and descending into personal attacks, and they should go. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * I find the color white extremely soothing. If that doesn't count as a color, then I'd go with green. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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?
 * Yes, ArbCom needs to take harder stances on participants in these kinds of edit wars. Unlike edit wars over paragraph placement and punctuation, these ones won't go away. The extremists who are drawn to them aren't interested in compromise or NPOV, but only in pushing their own position. Carrots don't work here; it's time to break out the sticks. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:34, 15 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?
 * The problem lies with the administrators, not arbitrators. I would change it so that an administrator does not block automatically, but instead brings it before ArbCom. ArbCom has twenty-four hours to decide whether it merits a block, and if it does, the block is then carried out. This would prevent the wheel wars that so often occur in those situations. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:34, 15 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'd accept appointment so long as I'm in the top seven percentages. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * Nope. We have elections and Jimbo to ferret out bad arbitrators. Arbitrators shouldn't have to worry about the popularity of their votes, but the reasons behind them. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * Mostly categorization. I've written a few articles, which are listed on my user page. But the maintenance, creation and expansion of the categorization structure is my top priority. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * Unless we start ruling on content as well as conduct, they really aren't relevant. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * Wikipedia is the only online project/community I am involved with. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * I keep a pretty clean nose. Aside from blocking Giano once, I can't recall any major disputes I've been a key player in. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * This question's hilarious. Since ArbCom doesn't rule on content, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if I were Barack Obama or Pat Robertson or anyone else. What would you do if I said I were, say, an American (which I am) Republican (which I'm not) NRA member (also not) Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church (again, I'm not)? How would that impact my ability to resolve conduct disputes between editors? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * None. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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. Although in a perfect world I'd be willing to release such things, I kind of prefer avoiding the possibility of harassment towards myself, my family and my friends. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * None. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * IRC. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * Loaded question, this is an Arbitration Committee not the Senate Appropriations Committee. What am I going to do, divert funding to the West Virginia WikiProject? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * 2) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * Depends on the kind of problematic behavior. Some situations like IRC call for different approaches than public forums like Wikipedia review or private communiques such as emails. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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")?
 * It depends on the case. Each one calls for a specific remedy, and to cast one as the end-all, be-all "best" over all others is inaccurate. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * 2) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * Newyorkbrad's thoughtfulness and common sense approach to resolving disputes always impressed me. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * I'm afraid I'll need a little more explanation to this one. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * Blissful ignorance. I don't really pay attention to them, I'm focusing on the encyclopedia. But isn't that the goal? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * Passive support. I don't really involve myself in their inner workings. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * No. Then again if I was, why would I say so before being elected? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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 committing to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)
 * I'm willing to extend good faith, but not forever. The encyclopedia takes priority; it's ostensibly why we're all here in the first place. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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.
 * I wouldn't care. I'm not a head of state, CEO of a Fortune 500 company or other notable figure. I don't have a career riding on it. While I would prefer it remain secret, it wouldn't be crippling if it became public. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:51, 16 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?
 * None. I keep a clean nose. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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?
 * None. I've commented on cases in talk pages and on discussions both onwiki and on IRC, but never been an active participant by any means. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:54, 14 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. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 14 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 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?
 * Allegations of apartheid. Rather than deal with the issues, they ignored it for months and finally closed it all hush-hush. I was furious at this. I also felt stronger punishments should have been dealt to some players in the C68-FM-SV case, but I won't say who in case there is a future case involving the participants. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * I'm afraid I wasn't active on-wiki when that case occurred and thus lack some essential background information about it. I don't know enough about it to make any sort of intelligent judgment. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:30, 15 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. What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
 * I think the speediness and the openness are the two most common themes, and those are ones I fundamentally agree with. ArbCom needs to do more to be open, and if they can't because of privacy concerns, then they also need to explain that. But I think the most fundamental problem with ArbCom is the half-steps its been forced to take in how it carries itself due to contradictions in community consensus. The community screams that ArbCom's not a Supreme Court, and yet everybody's first reaction in a dispute of any type is to take it to RFAR. The community complains about how hard it is to reign in vested contributors, then refuses to give ArbCom the necessary tools to fight them. The community refuses to implement stare decisis, then explodes when they do something they haven't done before. More fundamental than ArbCom deciding what it should be is the community deciding what ArbCom should be. Is it a court or a panel or a board or a committee? A parliament or a judiciary? Or none of the above? And until they create an organ of governance like a parliament or legislature, they'll never be able to reign it in. We can take half-steps towards fixing ArbCom's problems, but until we have other comparable organizations within the community it's always going to be contentious. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:30, 15 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 like the idea of having a cohesive and coherent presentation of evidence. In addition to aiding ArbCom in making quick and effective decisions, it would also allow us all to be on the same page. However, the manner in which said evidence is bundled would have to be worked out carefully. There is a sizable faction within the community that opposes making ArbCom any more like a court of law, and having arbitrators develop presentations of evidence could eventually morph into an adversarial system of justice. In my ideal Wikiworld, we'd have clerks or other designated assistants to help us do this. The issue here is not so much whether or not the evidence is bundled (which I support), but how we go about proposing it so that the knee-jerk hardliners in the community do not shoot it down in its infancy. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 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.
 * Unfortunately, ArbCom has restricted itself from adjudicating content disputes. A few months ago, I proposed an Editorial Council to fill the void and help rule on content disputes. (The community shot it down.) I would like to see an ArbCom-like board be empowered to rule on content disputes, since it would help remove many of the underlying causes of edit wars and would make sense given our increased size, role and responsibilities. Alas, thanks to more conservative elements of the community, I don't see that happening in the near-future. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 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?
 * WP:NOTCENSORED's purpose, in my view, is to prevent outside editors from sanitizing the encyclopedia by removing "undesirable" content; i.e., removing a picture of breasts from breasts. I've become increasingly frustrated by abuse of this policy by members of the community to post pornographic images that serve no legitimate encyclopedic purpose, with the defense that removal of these images constitutes censorship and that anyone who argues otherwise is no better than a Conservapedia editor. The simple fact is, a lot of the pornographic images present in our sexology articles are unnecessary and I'd like to see them removed. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 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.
 * Our intent is verifiability not truth, which is a handy little "get out of jail free" card when it comes to actual substantial disputes. When we have a clash of sources, the issue can often stagnate and thus lead to greater conflicts and edit wars. This was one of the reasons I proposed an Editorial Council to adjudicate such disputes and resolve them equitably. The resolution of source and content disputes such as the one you mentioned would be a productive step forward for our development as an encyclopedia. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 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?
 * 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)
 * I definitely agree with the assessment. I think the problem lies with how ArbCom has carried itself in the past year. It's let cases like the Cla68-SV-FM-JZG-etc. case stagnate, it's held secret hearings and done a terrible job at giving a coherent explanation why for the community, and it's been hesitant or weak towards "valued contributors" who clearly needed to be reigned in. A stronger and re-invigorated ArbCom, of which I would help lead, would go a long way towards restoring the community's trust in the process. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Question from AGK

 * 1) Your platform seems to be based on running for a Committee that adjudicates complaints over editor conduct, but the Arbitration Committee of today fills a role that is much more complex than that: very rarely does a case boil down solely to a handful of problematic users. What, then, do you intend to specifically change in your role as Arbitrator, if Elected? Are there any "special areas" you intend to work on? AGK 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some cases - ethnic/nationalist conflicts, hot button issues, science disputes - in which the content dispute is difficult to separate from the rest of the case. In previous ArbCom cases, this has often led to none of the underlying issues being resolved, such as in the Allegations of apartheid case. I want to work on those cases and address the roots of the problem so they can finally be resolved. Another area, far more vague, is that of entrenched contributors. I've seen too many of them get away with too much. I want to help weed through them to determine which ones are still of use to the encyclopedia and which have "lived long enough to see themselves become the villain". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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 have addressed the vested contributor situation in my response to Lar's similar question above. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I'm not a lawyer, so I would need to see what "reasonable behavior" encompasses before answering this. Knowing the legal system, it could differ drastically from what I interpret as "reasonable". --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * We're here first and foremost to write an encyclopedia, and that's what I consider whenever I weigh civility vs. content with editors of this nature. The best example of this is Giano II, who writes fantastic articles but is frequently blocked for incivility. Since his incivility is almost always unrelated to his contributions, I am personally willing to stomach it in exchange for the necessary work he does. I also don't subscribe to the infinite pool theory: other editors may be able to fill in the gap in some areas like U.S. history or British football, but some areas would likely never get around to being improved were it not for some of our more specialized editors. I'm willing to trade a little snark for some excellent articles, so long as they don't fail the House test. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * If the banned editors return and are making good contributions and are avoiding the disputes that got them banned in the first place, I see no reason why we should go on witchhunts banning them again. Contributions are contributions, no matter where they come from. There is a hugely important caveat: should they return to the activities for which they were banned in the first place, then they should definitely be banned again and this time for good. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * While the slowness in this area is a problem, I'm hesitant to create clear criteria because it could tie our hands in accepting cases that may otherwise be important. In terms of case acceptance, it may be one area in which we do have to sacrifice speed for fairness, especially if we (as I would like us to do) speed up other areas of the process. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.


 * 1) There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
 * My impressions of ArbCom's failings over the last year and how to fix them can be found in my answers to the questions posed by Badger Drink, Newyorkbrad, LtPowers and Rschen7754.
 * 1) Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?
 * The ArbCom mailing list should be restricted to sitting members of ArbCom and Jimbo, especially seeing as how more than a few former Arbs from the early days are subjects of cases these days. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.
 * a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?
 * Communication with the community is essential. Even if I can't tell editors the nitty-gritty, I will strive to explain why things are the way they are. For example, while I won't be able to explain the details of a privacy breach cases, I will try to explain why I can't. Hopefully the establishment of a dialogue on both sides will placate the moderate members of the community. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?
 * Again, communication is key. If we explain why we can't disclose certain things, hopefully the community (or at least the more reasonable elements of it) will understand. But the community has to meet us half-way: they have to understand that there are some cases such as privacy violations where we can't tell them everything. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?
 * It's not the cases that burn out Arbitrators, it's dealing with our restrictive and hobbled bureaucracy that makes us feel like we're ramming our heads against a wall. Real, tangible and substantial reform of ArbCom and its processes would go a long way towards fixing that, which is why it needs to be ArbCom's top priority next year. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
 * The community is too mercurial and shifty to make the determination when a request should become a need. That discretion should be ArbCom's purview, as Arbitrators ideally have the temperament and judgment to make that decision when the mob cannot. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
 * If I'm elected, I'll interpret my mandate as one for reform, speediness and a harder line towards some vested contributors with whom the community's patience has run out. That would be the guiding principle for all my actions over the next year (as by the next election we'll have a more accurate picture as to where the community and the committee stand towards achieving my goals). --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?
 * Full steam ahead on everything else. It's not like we get ArbCom cases about categorization structure. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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 14:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:MikeHobday
In your statement, you say, "Arbitration Committee often finds itself unwilling or unable to punish long-time entrenched editors due to the perceived status of those editors. This is baloney, and it needs to end." Can you give an example of when you would have voted differently? How, and why? Thank you. MikeHobday (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The most prominent example of this would be the Allegations of apartheid case. In this case, the "no content disputes" policy masked a number of significant underlying issues, and I believe the system was gamed by Jayjg and his allies. I was incredibly frustrated when no action was taken on that case, and it was one of the driving forces behind my candidacy last election. I refrain from mentioning more recent examples because they could still come before the Committee should I be elected. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:51, 15 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 ·:· 11:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
 * I have one other account, User:The Doctor, which I use when in a public or non-secure setting. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:40, 19 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?
 * No to joke accounts; we're here to write an encyclopedia. April Fool's Day is the only exception in which I'd accept accounts like that. Changed my mind. No harm, no foul. Socks should not be able to edit policies that the main account is also editing. If the sock has a distinct sphere from the main account - say, it's an established well-known user who wants to comment on ArbCom cases without distracting people by using their main account - and it's not used maliciously, I don't see a problem with it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Apparently I missed the whole Giano-David Gerard feud, which this question seems to have been about. In that situation, David Gerard unfairly blocked Giano without discussion or prior warning. While I do still think joke accounts should not be encouraged, this community also needs to lighten up. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:52, 19 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 think we have all the tools we need - checkuser, blocks and bans, ArbCom, etc. - we just need more consistent and reactive enforcement. There are some cases, like Grawp, where even our own tools are not enough. In those instances, we just need to be more vigilant. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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 01:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If by "promulgating good times", you mean "creating an environment conducive to building a better encyclopedia", then yes I'd agree with that sentiment. We're here to write an encyclopedia. All other concerns are secondary. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Rspeer
Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)'
 * SPOV is half of NPOV. In explaining the scientific point of view in an article like cold fusion, it's also important to explain why it's the scientific point of view. Explain the lack of verifiable cold fusion instances, the theoretical constructions, etc. Louis Brandeis said "Sunlight is the best disinfectant", and so the goal should not be to cover up pseudo-scientific theories but to expose them to the sunlight of hard science and academic rigor.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * To be honest, I don't think the community would want the ability to decide these things. We have enough trouble and politicking with simple tools for adminship. The drama generated by a Requests for checkuser/Requests for oversight "election" would scare away those who have good intentions. There doesn't seem to be riots in the streets whenever ArbCom appoints new CU/OS people, so I just assumed they didn't have a problem with it. If it ain't broke... --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:18, 26 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).
 * When the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that Georgia couldn't force out the Native American tribes living within its border. President Andrew Jackson, in response, said "John Marshall has made his ruling. Let him enforce it." As you can guess, the Native Americans didn't stay in Georgia very long. If ArbCom is Wikipedia's Supreme Court, then we as administrators and as the community are Andrew Jackson and the executive branch. If we don't want to enforce their decisions, we don't have to. We can even approve policy expressly stating the opposite. They answer to us, not the other way around.
 * However, I don't like community bans because I don't want them to devolve into mob justice and prevent administrators from making bold decisions. If the community wants someone to go, chances are the Arbitrators will pick up on that. I certainly would.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:18, 26 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?
 * We need to differentiate between arbitrators whose terms expire and arbitrators who actually resign. Actual resignations should give up all of it. Term expirations are a different matter. Without a doubt, anyone not on the Arbitration Committee should not be on the mailing list. I'm a little bit hesitant to strip retiring Arbs of their CU/OS privileges; while there are a few I don't want to have those tools, most former Arbs I do not have a problem with. If they're actively using their powers for good and there's no issues (I've had the help of a few former Arbs at one time or another with CU/OS stuff, especially when hunting Grawp), they should keep them. If they're not interested, they don't need them and shouldn't have them. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:18, 26 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).
 * Well, they can try talking to us first. Sometimes that works (it certainly would make me stop and think) but I can't vouch for all my colleagues. Since sunlight is the best disinfectant, I would call out the offending CU/OS wielder either on the administrators' noticeboard, their talk page, or Jimbo's talk page. If enough people agree, it'll catch on and lead to something. As for Arbitrators, it's important to note that they have very little individual power other than a vote. If they're not recusing themselves from a case, interfering with evidence or doing anything else unsavory, take it to the other arbitrators - they have no hesitation in smacking one another down, from my experience. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:39, 24 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?
 * The Giano one has not been successful, but this is due primarily to the nature of the case. Giano and events surrounding him have a powerful draw on many of Wikipedia's most long-term and vested contributors, so the events in that case recently should not be interpreted as indicative of the whole. I'm willing to give civility restrictions another shot, so long as what constitutes a violation of such is extraordinarily clearly spelled out by the Arbitration Committee. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:12, 29 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?
 * No. The Giano situation has proven that to be a deathtrap. Better to wait for ArbCom to sort it out than try and boldly blunder into a bigger mess. Admin A should be admonished at the least, and if it was clear and consistent wheel warring, some sort of sanctions would be justified. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:12, 29 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) 15:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I try to follow the "do no harm" philosophy in all my actions as an editor, a contributor and an administrator. Your essay meshes with my philosophy very well indeed. I like it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up questions from FT2
Thank you for your first answers, broadly on yourself and Arbcom.

These are some questions about your skill at Wikipedia dispute resolution:

(Note:- in a lot of cases, a remedy may potentially be "multi stage"; that is, take a step, see what effect it has, return to it if needed. This may include watching or warning first times, taking a tougher line later, or deciding it's an acceptable risk if they act up again, since action could be taken in future if needed. Although mild, it's a valid approach. I'd be fine if you use it, and what you do when it fails. Like the previous questions, they are intended to be searching. Feedback will also be provided. Thank you. FT2 (Talk 04:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Flexibility:
 * a) What experience do you have at a range of Wikipedia dispute resolution "styles", and in estimating how users may react to a given response? (This is a fairly essential skill in deciding whether to play hard or soft, direct or mediated, give another chance, discuss further, draw a line, or "try something new" in a case.)
 * I've never mediated a dispute nor been party to one. As such, my responses will be from outside Wikipedia's formal dispute resolution structures. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * b) Please outline your track record at choosing remedies that are effective, but not overly-excessive, in a sample of difficult cases.
 * As never having participated in a dispute resolution case as a mediator or participant, I have no such examples to cite. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * c) Please show some cases you gave a seemingly difficult user a chance to reform (when others were skeptical), and where you drew a very hard but fair line on a problematic user.
 * Again, as far as I know I have no examples to cite for this. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * d) Please highlight a project space matter where there was much divisive opinion but where other administrators (on both "sides") listened to you, and you helped focus or resolve it.
 * I had helped craft and cut down Vital articles to 1000 articles earlier this year, in tandem with other editors. We affectionately referred to this as the "First Great Revision". My work done, I went merrily on my way and more or less left WP:VITAL alone for a few months. I happened to see it in my watchlist one day, and found on the talk page that a substantial dispute was brewing over the dominance of the social sciences and philosophy articles as part of the larger list. Other editors were unable to propose suggestions to change it, and the discussion mostly deadlocked.
 * At this point, I came in and proposed an omnibus Second Great Revision, which aimed to fairly and effectively tackle the issues and resolve them in one fell swoop. It succeeded beyond my expectations as all but one holdout editor signed on to support it (and the holdout eventually consented following some negotiations on my part). Since it passed in May 2008, we've had no endemic problems in maintaining the philosophy/social sciences area of the list. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Conduct under pressure:
 * a) Please point out a case you took a stand that was not universally popular, knowing you could face retaliation or rebuke.
 * Oh boy. Between my foolish retitling of positions proposal, my controversial Editorial Council proposal and even my hints at favoring a parliament in these candidate questions, I've been pretty active in proposing things that the community quickly shot down. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * b) Please point out a matter where you were badly attacked, accused, or heavily provoked, but remained in line with "best practice" conduct, yourself.
 * A few months ago, I ran into an editor who was particularly vociferous in his concerns about my edits to Europe, specifically the History section. After things got heated, he and I reached a detente and were able to work productively on the article. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * c) Please point out a dispute where you faced people trying to redirect the matter to a side-issue (soapbox, hobby horse, etc) and your response was to avoid the "invitation" of distraction, and to keep the focus on the main target.
 * In my first few months as an administrator, I came across a posting on AN/I by a banned user. Another admin, one more experienced and well-known than me, had blocked the complaining user as a sockpuppet without due evidence or process, even replying multiple times to queries by the banned user "No comment." I decided that the block was unjust, so I unblocked the banned user. The administrator was extremely displeased. He accused me of wheel warring, called for me to be desysopped, and focused his attentions on my actions instead of his casus belli. I managed to keep my cool and focus on his refusal to present the evidence against the banned user, to which he continued to say "No comment". Eventually many other senior admins came to the defense of this pup admin and my action stood. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * d) Please point out a serious dispute which occupied your attention for between 2 weeks and several months, and which shows your sticking power and handling in the context of protracted disputes.
 * I participated in hunting Grawp socks over the summer (check my block logs, I'm hesitant to link to any of the puppets) and would've been more active in that had an unfortunate personal issue not come up and subsequently sap much of my energy and attention away from Wikipedia. I was also, perhaps more relevantly to your question, persistently bothered by a sockpuppeteer throughout July 2007. I believe I handled that situation appropriately and eventually managed to resolve the issue. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Pixelface
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * The current number is sufficient. The problem is inactivity, and frankly more Arbitrators would just mean more people we have to keep track of. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * Three years is good. I like the way the tranche system is set up. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * Not on their talkpages, no. If editors wish to make their views known, they can make statements before case is accepted, comment on the talk pages or participate in gathering evidence or drafting proposed remedies. We have a variety of channels by which the community can participate in ArbCom cases. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * Yes. That's part of the wiki process after all! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * Yes, it's appropriate. If their edits become part of an ArbCom case, however, I do expect them to recuse themselves. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * Nope, but their voices should carry some weight in constructing ArbCom policy. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 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"?
 * Yes, subjects must demonstrate notability to have an article. We have notability criterion for this, where we look at how frequently a subject is mentioned in either the mainstream media or in academic and scholarly works, the importance and impact of the subject, the encyclopedic value of the subject ("does this subject help us build a better encyclopedia?"), and other factors. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 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 don't see a conflict because I differentiate knowledge from information. To me, knowledge represents a good scholarly book or a theory derived from a set of scientifically proven experiments. Information is much more mundane, and can be anything from census data to a phone book. We're here to gather, collate and distribute knowledge, not make phone books. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 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?
 * No, it's not a content dispute. The editor's disruptive behavior is what would be at issue, not the things being deleted. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 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?
 * I'd accept it without a doubt. It could be about asteroids or cupcakes or puppies for all I care because that constitutes serious disruption. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 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?
 * I've never been aware of it being a problem. Jimbo and ArbCom have absolutely no power to force people to disclose personal offwiki information. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from William M. Connolley (talk)
Thanks for the note on my page. Please provide a few diffs demonstrating your recent interest in arbcomm related matters, dispute resolution, blocking in non-bland circumstances, or similar William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a statement recently on the Ireland naming dispute case urging for it to be accepted (it looks like it will be). I posted a comment urging ArbCom to reject Kirill's proposal to deprecate #wikipedia-en-admins in the recent Piotrus 2 case. (Shortly after I did, Newyorkbrad posted some compromise proposals that led to the deprecation's defeat.) I commented on two issues in the Cold fusion case, once about ScienceApologist's submission of all evidence through e-mail and a second time to support a topic ban of Pcarbonn and oppose a full ban of him. These comprise my most recent dispute resolution related activities, and when combined with the older examples I listed in my answer to FT2's follow-up question, should give you a better picture of the kind of arbitrator I'd be. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)