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

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?
 * Arbitrator :-)

Questions from Giggy

 * 1) a/s/l?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * 30s; male; Australia.
 * 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.
 * Wikipedia is big enough for everyone who is focused on building an encyclopedia.
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Mass reversion is not ideal, especially when it involves useful mainspace edits. If careful inspection of a few edits indicates that the remainder are highly probably problematic as well, then it is simpler to not waste time on the banned user - valued contributors do not need to be spending hours cross checking every edit. There have been times where a new contributor has made many good edits intermingled with many bad edits. Even if they are banned in the process (and this is what happened in the case I thinking of), it is worthwhile going through each edit carefully.  This is because it is "our" Wiki, and if the user has left the building, we need to be sure that the matter has been resolved.
 * OTOH, if all edits by a sock of a banned users edits are good, and there is not some ulterior motive which is a major concern, then there is a good chance that the sock should not have been blocked. The rule of thumb is that good edits come from good contributors, and questions should be asked when good contributors are banned.
 * 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.
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * There are many final decision that I dont agree with; there will always be many that any person can disagree with. Most cases wont be respected by all, and almost all will make a sizable section of the community unhappy.  So I am going to pick one I know a bit about, and think is interesting from a case management point of view:
 * As a bit of background, I was brought into this case as an innocent bystander very late in the piece by the parties who are all fully informed of my involvement - one party was not initially aware, but I sought permission to tell them so that they were not blindsided when/if they found out later.
 * As I was not on arbcom during this private case, I'm almost certain that I dont have the full story, and I am not sure how much of this is still private anyway - details have been slipping out of late. To avoid having to read a million talk pages, I'm assuming it is all still confidential.
 * At the outset, there was an obvious need for a large chunk of this case to be private, so that is how it started. There have been two rather predictable outcomes of this:
 * Everyone has deniability - all arbs and the parties can say they didn't receive or read an email, or that it was inadequate.
 * No accountability - activity/responsiveness levels between parties and the arbs is not visible to the community which would mean it is kept in check. Consider that with the Omnibus case the community was quite vocal about the problems it saw in the way the case was being managed by the committee.
 * As a result the community has no idea what went on, and therefore cant evaluate the ongoing discussion about the case and the issues that sparked it. i.e. events from a year ago are still not resolved.
 * I think that a good half of this case could have been a normal open case, with a very tight scope to avoid undesirable disclosure. Most of it required sensitive treatment, and carefully phrasing, but not complete and utter privacy.  Much of the evidence relates to actions on the wiki and the mailing list.  At the close of the case, the dissatisfied parties were asking for all of the evidence to be put into the public arena despite their initial desire to keep it private.
 * Irrespective of whether the case should have been kept private for its duration, there are plenty of very important facts and figures that should have been publicly disclosed as they had no reason to be kept private. Having many of these facts on an Evidence page would have reduced the deniability, giving the community a much better idea of what happened and why.  There might be cases where the community doesn't need to know any details, however this case was largely about the public acts rather than private ones - the community has a hazy idea of what happened, and it is being left to the parties to fill in the blanks - not surprisingly different people are putting more faith in one party or the other, and very few in the community are of the opinion that the committees findings are sufficient.  This is one case where a more detailed findings of fact section would have gone a long way to closing the matter with a bit of finality.
 * While I wont comment on the remedies (I am disinterested in that form of suicide), and cant suggest some findings of fact that I would have put forward due to privacy, here is an exact excerpt from my own email sent to arbcom-l on October 26, where I suggested findings of facts that should be added for the sake of clarity:
 * ''It would be helpful to add a finding of fact that says exactly when the Arbcom was first aware of this, and when the Ombudsman commission was first aware of this. And who raised it, where that doesnt breach privacy.  If there was a resolution of sorts to this issue _prior_ to the July ANI spectacle, it would be nice to know when that landed as well, and who was informed.  The "Lack of statement" finding of fact is a bit weird if this matter had been already given to Arbcom and the ombudsman commission.  I hope that arbcom sees itself as a mechanism of untwisting the "truths" and presenting as full and complete an account of incidents as is possible or necessary to resolve matter in a way that all reasonable parties know in their heart that it was a good outcome.  This case is falling short of that by a long way.
 * And the case was closed four days later without any improvement, and the underlying problem lingers, and will likely need to be either reopened* or squashed.
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Answering quickly as I am running out of time ....
 * WikiProject Academic Journals - project I and a few others launched; it is very slow moving, especially as I have spent most of my time this last year on Wikisource
 * Backing Australia's Ability, Research Quality Framework, Systemic Infrastructure Initiative - articles about an Australian government policy initiative.
 * Venetian literature - translated from it.wp in order to help people assess whether there is sufficient literature to support a Venetian Wikisource project
 * Factory Records catalogue - list; I love lists
 * People's Press - disambiguation page - most of the pages listed there also created by me. Did I mention I love lists?
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Yes; I will be casting my votes for every candidate on day 1. If I am not elected, I want to feel satisfied that I did my bit to pick the right people for the job, as I will have to live with the results.
 * As a follow up that I should have said before the booths opened, I commented at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008 that I prefer a voting system where voters only endorse good candidates (no opposes), and voters only vote as many times as there are seats available. Sadly in order for my votes to be most effective, I need to oppose the rest.  If I end up elected with someone I have opposed, which is highly likely, it will only show that I am not good at picking "the best bunch" of people for the job, but at least I played my part in the collaborative decision process.
 * Note that in my country, voting is compulsory and for the most part, we like it like that.
 * I have added a little more info at User:Jayvdb/AC votes
 * I have added a little more info at User:Jayvdb/AC votes

Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.

Questions from Sarcasticidealist
I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.
 * 1) To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Policies that implement Wikimedia Foundation resolutions should be binding, and usually are strongly enforced. However policies on Wikipedia are a best-effort attempt at recording what is expected of the community, but at any time the wording within the policy is not explicitly endorsed by the community. Users should take care to follow policy closely, and if it doesnt make sense in a situation, or if they find it conflicts with what others are suggesting, they should seek clarification before boldly disregarding it.  Only if someone is absolutely sure it does not apply should they ignore the rules, in which case they accept the consequences if it is shown that their edits where not in line with community expectations.
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * My instinct tells me the main Arb Comm mailing list should be restricted to sitting arbs only. The ex-arbs can submit RFAR statements, evidence, and do workshopping just like everyone else does. They can also inform the committee privately of any specific historical arbcom-l private discussions that the committee should review. The committee should make good use of the historical discussions that have occurred on the Arbcom mailing list, and seek clarification from ex-arbs when needed, however the committee needs to focus on the future rather than the past. Update: Apparently, there is an arb only mailing list, and it isnt hosted by WMF.  How curious. Stay tuned; I'll let you know what I find..
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * I cant evaluate the wisdom without seeing the commitment that was made; please link me up! My view of recall in general is that it is messy - I would prefer that we create a "policy" of sorts that provides some clear approach for handling situations where any arbitrator should stand down.
 * I have given my commitment at
 * I have thought a little about the power to depose at

I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.

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")?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * The committee should stay within the policy, and the Arbitration policy should be improved by the community as required.
 * There have often been remedies that rule over a class of articles, effecting any editor that strays there, intended to broaden the net to also cover editors who only arrive after the case closes. This helps address situations when the parties are known to create sockpuppets, and where the nature of the dispute is firmly rooted in the real world and is not going to go away, like international disputes where it is highly likely that a new user will be of one persuasion or the other, and will edit war just like most of the others of either persuasion.  One benefit of including editors who have yet to edit is that it results in less attempts to frame a new user as a sock.  If the editing restrictions apply to new users as well, the "duck" test doesnt need to be invoked so often - it was often being used to bite new users.  Restrictions of this kind are a necessary evil, however the community needs to develop a mechanism for dealing with disputes of this kind.  Alternatively, the arbitration policy needs to be brought into line with practise if the community wants the committee to keep tackling these disputes.
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Keep their nose clean.
 * Make sure it is clear which hat they have on.
 * Avoid throwing their weight around.

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.
 * 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)
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * If a requested case involves concerns relating to the use of sysop tools, I would be more inclined than normal to carefully review the situation before rejecting it. Other means of dispute resolution tend to not work when an admin and non-admin are on opposite sides of the table, and the committee can help ensure the matter is properly heard.  Administrators need to be held to a higher standard, and part of this is that admins should be accepting of constructive criticism, and know how to manage it.  If this doesnt happen, and the matter ends up at RFAR, that is already a bad sign.
 * It is important to note that the current policy says that only in "severe or acute abuse of administrator privileges" should the admin be desysoped. I think the policy should probably be expanded to include "repeated" abuse, as the bar should be lower each time an admin abuses their tool.
 * In summary, I will accept these cases quite readily, but I will not be encouraging desysop for first offences where the result didnt break the wiki or bring it into disrepute.

Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * As many as it takes. At least 40 hours per week in the first year.  Whenever possible, I will be trying to devolve time consuming tasks back to the community, or giving more responsibility to new functionaries.  We need more people taking the load, so arbcom can focus on the disputes.
 * While I have not been as active here on Wikipedia over the last year, this has been because I have spent a lot of time over on Wikisource, building the community there. Over the last year I have put in at leat 40 hours per week into Wikisource, and I now feel comfortable that I can pull back from that, and allocate that time to Wikipedia.
 * I have also touched on this at

Question from WilyD

 * 1) During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally).  While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations?  If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * Reply:
 * It is permitted, but it is a really bad idea unless there is credible problems being caused (e.g. disenfranchising users) and other approaches are not working. An administrator should follow the same processes as if they were blocking another user - warnings, ANI, RFC, etc.  Sanctions for blocking an admin without community support might depend on the stated or obvious motives for the block, whether there was community involvement at all, and whether the blocking admin listened to any feedback and possibly undid the block.  If it seemed to be an overly enthusiastic first abuse of tools, a warning should suffice.  If it seemed to be vindictive, without remorse, without heeding community sentiment, or accompanied with unacceptable comments, a temporary desysop would be appropriate sanction if it was the first actionable abuse of the tools.  If repeated, a permanent desysop should be the default course of action.
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when?  If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * Reply:
 * I havent closely checked the current policy, but I think it is permitted, and I think it should always be permitted, under Ignore all rules and cross your fingers you are right if no other policy applies. Administrators shouldn't even consider blocking an administrator for the tool usage unless they are prepared to explain in length at WP:RFAR why they thought it was appropriate, and they had better hope that their action reduces drama rather than encourages.  If an admin is absolutely sure that their block is going to de-escalate the situation, they shouldnt dont do it, as it is unlikely to help - it raises the stakes very high very quickly.
 * Acceptable reasons would include "compromised account", "deleting the main page", "gross and ongoing abuse of tools", "repeatedly outing a user", and any clear breaking of the law; in all these cases there would need to be a real and present problem or overwhelming consensus that it was the right thing to do -- the committee will not accept a case if the community has already decided that the action was appropriate (unless there is some foundation policy or law that was broken, etc).
 * This is a situation where the action should be judged based on its effect rather than excessive consideration of the motivations or the justification. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:26, 30 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)
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * I am not seeking to be on Arbcom to tackle any specific type of content problem, so being recused from specific sets of cases where I have a lot of involvement in the content does not affect my mission. The pseudo-science problems bother me; the nationalistic editing bothers me; the civility problems bother me a bit too - all those outstanding problems, and more, do bother me, but the reason I wish to be elected to Arbcom is because I believe that my skills will be an asset to the committee, and so that I can achieve the changes outlined in my midnight ramblings that became my candidacy statement.  See
 * For the purposes of this answer, I consider "recuse" to mean any usage of tools, not just "recuse" from arbcom cases.
 * Speaking broadly, these are the situations that I can think of where I would be very inclined to recuse. In these cases, I would not recuse if it was clear that all parties involved were desiring my involvement.
 * Any case related to Armenia-Azerbaijan.
 * Any case that involves members of Wikimedia Australia chapter.
 * Any case that involves admins of English Wikisource.
 * Any case that involves the principle members of the Academic Journals project who I have interacted with quite a lot.(currently it is these and David Eppstein)
 * Any case where I have been involved in the arbitration with the parties prior to being appointed to the committee.
 * So .. if you dont like me, pay your dues to WM-AU, do truckloads of work on English Wikisource, or create lots of stubs on the missing journals list. :-)
 * While this seems like a long list, it is probably only about 100 editors, and I'd hope that most of them are unlikely to end up at arbitration anyway. Part of the reason I would be recusing is that I am likely be wanting to work with them as a mediator rather than an arbitrator.
 * Middle East and Caucasus
 * This is a topical area which interests me a lot, and I would rather be an editor in these topical areas rather than an arbitrator.
 * It is necessary that I also provide a clear description of when I would recuse from arbitration in the broader regions of Middle East and Caucasus-related topics and articles.
 * To be clear, I have no history, real-life association, conflict of interest, or undue relations with anybody from these regions. However I do accept that I have done a lot of editing and a little administration in this controversial topical area of the project, and understand that there are concerns by some editors that I am biased.  I will roundly reject any attempt to suggest that I have a conflict of interest.  I do not.  It is that simple.  I have zero conflict of interest with anything to do with that region of the world.  The only regions that I have any association with is Australia and the Netherlands.  This can be confirmed by many respected community members, including current Arbitrators.
 * However I have long known that the Armenians have grown to especially distrust me, and so I am very keen to dispel concerns that I will meddle in their affairs as an arbitrator. If any other ethnic or national cohort of editors grows to dislike me as an editor of the the related topical pages, I would not like to arbitrate over their disputes either.  That is common sense, but it needs to be clearly stated in this case. Arbitration works when the person is uninvolved.
 * These are the situations where I will recuse from arbitrating on disputes that focus on the broader region of the Middle East and Caucasus, again interpreted broadly:
 * A party is an editor who I have had significant interaction with while editing these articles.
 * If the topic of a proposed case intersects significantly with national interests of countries in this region, and any party asks me to recuse before the case is opened.
 * Earlier statements:
 * November 30 answer
 * Clarification on December 1
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * If the personal attack isnt part of a pattern, suggest to the blocked user that they should indicate acceptance that they have crossed the line into discussing the editor rather than the content. It happens sometimes.  If they cant accept it, or there is a pattern, then the blocking admin got it right provided the block length is well measured.  If the block user understand the problem, and ideally agrees to steer clear of the pages involved for a few hours, respectfully request the blocking admin consider unblocking.
 * At the same time the behaviour of the POV-pusher needs to be addressed as well. If they were truly promoting scientific racism rather than just trying to ensure it is covered in an appropriate manner (operative word is trying, as new users may have difficulty doing this), they need to be firmly told that any further attempts to introduce that POV will result in a permanent ban or a topical ban.  We do not need to loose good editors who happened to become worked up by another editor who wont read our well sourced articles that criticise their own points of view.  Some problem editors adapt - some dont - it is better to worry more about the good editors who was baited. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:36, 30 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?


 * Reply:
 * The key here is the "internal discussion" which has not been described in the question. It should be taking into account which administrator it is, what type of IP it is, and what sort of network it is part of, and what other information is available from the networking equipment in place, etc, etc.  All of these factors play a part in whether the right call is to talk to and confront the admin or to block the IP and hope the admin gets the hint if it is them.


 * In general, blocking the IP is a very sensible step as it prevents the vandalism, and may assist in reforming the admin if no other action is take. However the admin could also just get smarter, so I would also seriously consider initiating discussion with the admin and/or the other accounts involved.  If there was any hint that the admin was involved, I would ask them to acknowledge it if it is them, and to not make any controversial use of the tools until the email discussion has come to a close.


 * There may be a number of important reasons why talking to the admin directly wouldnt be desirable. These are complex "factors" that need to be considered and they depend on the admin involved.
 * If there are two separate people involved, divulging to one of them that there is a vandal on their IP range could result in serious real world consequences. While we dont like vandals, we also arn't in the business of destroying peoples lives.  If there is a credible concern that the admin is vandalising, they are also not able to be trusted to act with discretion.
 * The "hope" that the Administrator, who is automatically IP-block exempt, will not be affected or aware of the block unless they are actively looking for blocks on their own range. If the admin is likely to be aware of current blocks in effect, or their IP range is moderately well known by other people in the community (e.g. people know where they work), the admin is going to learn about it anyway, and they may be quite annoyed that they were not informed, especially if they could have been able to help.
 * Admins are also likely to assist collegues to edit, and are going to be mighty surprised to learn that the range they are sitting on is blocked when they click the edit button while logged out.


 * In light of these concerns, if the block is long, it is going to also give the admin the hint that they are not trusted. Luckily, the blocking of the IP isnt the only way to give the operator a hint :- if all the vandal accounts are blocked by a checkuser, whoever is operating them is aware that the game is up as well, especially if this is documented on a CU page.  If they are operated by an admin, they are going to notice, and they are going to know that their IP is now also going to be monitored.


 * If the vandalism had occurred in topic areas where the admin was active as an editor, it might be worth doing some some more digging. Otherwise, good faith should be assumed. Even if the vandalism was coming from the administrator's network, it might have been a simple case of the admin forgetting to logout, or something else non-sinister. If the vandal is a repeat offender, if the vandalism is being done to harass another user or real person, or if it somehow disrupts our processes, and if a motive can be reasonably deduced by reviewing the admin contributions, the problem would be better dealt head on, with the intent of considering desysoping the admin account.  Admins are not immune.


 * There could be any number of reasons for the admin to take a short break, but one is that they got scared because they noticed the block. There are many other reasons, and even checkusers need to AGF - they need to feel quite certain of abuse before they take action.  If there are any concerns still when the admin comes back, the checkuser can run another check.  If they are on a different IP, and there is a similar spat of vandalism, AGF goes out the window.

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.


 * Reply:
 * The answer is almost always going to be (b). Requesting an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the situation allows a fresh mind to verify that the dots all join up readily - if it is necessary to explain the reasoning a few times, it probably isnt as well founded as it seems.  Also, the "involved" checkuser should not run the check, unless the wiki is going to burn down, because the "involved" checkuser should not be aware of whatever the results are - it might be that there is another account (perhaps a partner), or some vandalism edits, or something messier, and this will linger in the mind when the checkuser goes back to editing. The uninvolved checkuser can simply say "It isnt possible to link the accounts conclusively," and the involved checkuser can goes back to editing, blissfully unaware.  The concerns then linger with uninvolved checkuser, who might keep some notes to help if a similar problem arises again.


 * There may be times where the need for privacy trump the need for "checkuser integrity" - if for example the involved checkuser was divulged private information about the banned user, maybe self-disclosed, and the banned user has been quite clear that they did not want it spread around (e.g. their place of work) to the point of being uncomfortable with other checkusers knowing, the involved checkuser might feel it is necessary for them to run the check, and the checkuser should then seriously consider no longer editing with that new user.


 * See also User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide/Jayvdb

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?


 * Reply:
 * If banned User:Smith is able to edit as User:Smythe without drawing any attention to themselves, nobody will know and this works well for many users. (though choosing "Smythe" is not likely to help their cause.) If they have done marvelous works on the wiki, and promise not to repeat the prior harrassment, then they should be unbanned.  I would expect that they edit consistently for at least six months before being unbanned - this demonstrates the extent to which they have been able to restrain themselves - people who are too eager are usually not reformed.  If they edited a lot of similar topics as User:Jones, I would consider that unwise, but if they were good edits, and they did not cause disruption, then that would be taken into account.  Also, I would take into account the blog: while they are free to do as they wish on their blog, people who continue to harass and "out" Wikipedians on their blog don't need a second chance here on Wikipedia.  It is a slippery slope to start deciding what is not acceptable - but if every committee member agrees it isnt acceptable material, then the blogger is almost certainly testing the committee patience.
 * My preference is that banned users go to Commons, Wikisource, Wikibooks, a Wikia, or another smaller project, because smaller communities have much less patience for people with a high signal to noise ratio.

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?

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?
 * Reply:
 * There is no particular part of Wikipedia editing that I enjoy, or feel a calling to do. I would like to write a featured article, but I would rather create another 100 short article in the course of my daily activities which often leave me with a pile of information that needs to be put somewhere.  A large percentage of the topics that I watch are due to giving third opinions and involvement due to dispute resolution.  The only objective that I have really taken a keen interest in is to write encyclopedic stubs for the "missing journals", and it is daunting enough that I just plod along with it, and others are doing more than me in that department.  I have twice flushed my watchlist, starting from scratch, even removing the wikiproject I started without realising it for a month.  If elected, I will flush my watchlist again.
 * The hardest part of my decision to run for Arbcom was accepting that I would not have much time for the English Wikisource project, where I am the second highest contributor. However, despite having nominated over half of the admins on the project, I have not run for 'crat on the project, so I have no responsibilities there.  The community is thriving, and the leadership is in good hands.  In just the last few days, English Wikisource has caught up to the French Wikisource, so .. "mission accomplished".
 * If elected, my sole focus will be Arbcom, and for stress relief I will do a little over on Wikisource.
 * If I choose to not participate in a case or a discussion, I will be accepting the decisions made. Most outcomes are unsatisfactory to some, and I am no different; revisiting decisions means there is less time to devote to disputes that are already under consideration.  If the community asks me to review a past decision, I will if my plate is relatively empty, or the problems presented to me about the case suggest it is more important.  I will not be the champion for a cause, as I would prefer to have the community develop and discuss the request first - I will attempt to simply provide answers that assist the community initiate a clarification request or a new case.  If nobody is able to initiate a request for proper review at WP:RFAR, the matter is best left closed.

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?
 * Reply:
 * I have always edited using my real name. For my job lately, I have mostly accepted short term contracts, or longer term "monitoring" contracts. Most of the companies involved are aware of my participation in Wikipedia, Wikisource and the Wikimedia Australia chapter, and are quite supportive. Typically my professional engagements are related to libraries, universities, research, etc. I generally choose not to disclose the specifics of my professional engagements to my Wikipedia contacts in order to limit unnecessary annoyance and interference; however, involuntary disclosure would not impact my service. My working arrangements for next year have been tailored around having sufficient time for ArbCom.

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).


 * Reply:
 * I will be do all of the above as the case load requires, except I probably wont be keen to spend my time on appeals.
 * I will also be putting together a report about arbcom activity levels, so that both the arbs and the community gain an appreciation of the involvement and investment, and how it fluctuates. Everyone loves a good graph.

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?
 * Reply:
 * I reviewed FT2s draft, and in addition to a number of offline thoughts, I clarified one aspect that I felt needed more precise wording. I've not reviewed it since then.  In general I think those proposed changes are very helpful in clarifying the existing expectations, and also introducing small evolutionary improvements to the existing process.

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.
 * Reply:
 * The percentage of rejected cases appears to be comparable over time, but there has been an increasing number of requests sent to closed motions in addition to Completed requests. Irrespective of the increase in motions, less cases are being submitted to Arbcom.  My guess is that the number of cases should actually be going up, as the project is increasingly trying to stabilise articles and work on the more difficult subjects.
 * Either there are less problems needing arbitration, and/or the community is less inclined to bring them to arbitration.
 * I'm not inclined to believe the former explanation, as I am seeing disputes occurring across the wiki; long drawn out pointless battles, some about content and some not. Arbcom has not solved wiki peace.  Editors are quite happy fighting with each other about whether civility is necessary, and whether civility remedies are useful; i.e. there are disputes about the solutions.  go figure.
 * So that leaves the community being less comfortable taking cases to arbcom. Most problems that arbcom solves can be handled by the community too, however the result is it becomes split over many noticeboards, there isnt a sense of the problem being "resolved", and admins tend to hand out bans to fix problems, rather than seek a solution that allows two sets of editors to work together.
 * Here are some possible reasons that come to mind for why are there less requests?:
 * There is a slump now due to the mega-high-profile cases you mentioned. i.e. the community got burnt, or they had had their fill of RFAR madness in June, and wanted to avoid it where possible.
 * Dissatisfied with previous decisions has made them less inclined to put their tough problems in arbcoms lap.
 * It could be that the community isnt aware of the activity level at any point in time. Especially when there is a private case ongoing, the community cant see what involvement there is in the case, cant determine whether the committee is really busy, and may opt to avoid giving another job to the committee.  This might be solved by a pretty graph which shows the community how busy arbcom really are - that might encourage the community to fill the void whenever the snake starts going down.
 * The cases are getting bigger, and the scope is often "the user conduct of all parties", which means someone initiating the case has to be prepared to come under fire, even though they may be only seeking relief.
 * Maybe what we need now is a poll, to ask the community why there are less requests. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:56, 30 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?
 * Reply:
 * Wikipedia is not Wikisource
 * Encyclopedia articles should not contain complete texts of poems, songs (anthems) and should definitely not contain "free content" translations that have not been peer reviewed and published.

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?
 * Reply:
 * No, I dont think it should.
 * The committee might draft a policy, or recommend an amendment that they feel would be helpful, but it should be given to the community to discuss/endorse.

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)
 * Reply:
 * Absolutely not. Neither should mailing lists, Facebook, blogs, etc. be under their jurisdiction.   ArbCom is for dealing with disputes; it doesnt need to regulate everything related to Wikipedia in an attempt to prevent disputes.  If an English Wikipedia user acts inappropriately elsewhere on the internet or real world in a way results in a dispute on English Wikipedia, the committee can look into it.  Where feasible, it is a good idea for Arbcom to have access to logs of any discussion forum that regularly discusses English Wikipedia and problems have occurred in the past.  IRC definitely fits that description, but so do many forums across the internet, and a good percentage of them not in English.
 * See also:
 * See also:

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?
 * Reply:
 * See

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

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


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Way too long. I've not looked at the case closely, but I am guessing that the wiki did not wait that long for the solution; it found other means to resolve the problem.  The scope of the case was to address the prior behaviour, so it doesnt really help to advise the community on how WikiProjects and consensus should operate - if the case isnt likely to address any user conduct issues, the committee and parties should decide to dismiss the case.
 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * WikiProjects help bring together a set of editors to discuss common problems, and to act as a sounding board for people wanting assistance in an area they usually dont edit in. WikiProjects should develop standards, and maintain them, but need to be careful not to enforce them at the expense of the wider community standards or prevent new consensus from forming. (i.e. they occasionally should rethink them when new suggestions come around).  When there is disputes about standards, they should encourage more people from outside their project to come and assist nut out the problem.
 * 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)
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Parent projects should be focused on a different set of problems; i.e. they end up further away from the rubber on the road, and it would be clueful for a child project to invite a members of a parent project to come and help.
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Canvassing and forms of communication are orthogonal concepts - it is what is communicated, and how the recipients are selected that define canvassing.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Articles can always be fixed easily, by using rollback. If the edit caused a mess, roll them back and engage the messer.  Try to do their edit for them.  If you cant figure out what they were trying to do, ask them.
 * If someone insists of making a mess, protection or blocks should be used, but only after attempts have been made to engage the person calmly with an intent to help them. Sometimes you will be trolled; sometimes you will help a new user join your team.  It all levels out in the end.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * If one or two editors have tried to work with the new editor, and they are not getting the picture, grab an admin or take it to WP:ANI, and then go have a cuppa tea, or write a new stub.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Same as before. If they dont understand English, editors should try to determine what language they do understand, and seek another editor who can correspond with the new user.
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * A community ban is where a person has exhausted the patience of our community. If enough reasonable and uninvolved people have tried, situations 5-7 can all lead to a community ban.  Sometimes it is very obvious that the user is trolling, in which can a community ban happens sooner.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * I think the biggest problem is the adoption of useful process and technology improvements, when they are not incremental improvements. A while ago I rambled on my own talk that there are "two ways of change that have been known to work on Wikipedia: ramming a half baked solution down everyones throats, or the two-steps-forward-and-one-back gradual improvement with a well oiled feedback loop."
 * The "ram it down peoples throat" approach is when respected people within the community take the charge to implement something new (e.g. community elected checkusers; or the merge of WP:RS and WP:V), or demolish an aspect of the project that they think is bad or outdated methods (e.g. spoiler tags). Often this works, but just as often the "leader" ends up burnt in the process.  Even when the change is adopted, those who opposed it often resent the people who pushed it.  This divides our community.  We often see people being dismissed (e.g. at RFA) because of some proposal that they championed a year ago, irrespective of whether it was adopted or not.  These struggles also end up at arbitration, either in regards to the actual proposal, or later when people from each sides meet again over an unrelated matter and end up at log aheads rather than working together.  i.e. sometimes the matter at arbcom isnt even why the parties are having a problem - historical grudges often play a big part.  It is easy enough for the committee to address the conduct of the parties, however it is up to the community to find a better way of introducing large changes.  If we let these power struggles fester until they become disputes, we have a problem because the people involve all mean well, and are trying to move the project forward in various ways.  Thinking longer term, we can prevent these power struggles occurring in the first place, by injecting good governance into the adoption and deprecation of policy/process/technology.
 * The big technologies on the horizon are flaggedrevs and revision deletion; arbitration policy has been undergoing significant rewrites and lots of people are pushing for stronger protection for articles about living people and children. These all have the potential for harming the people who champion them.  Can we find a better way to adopt changes; an approach that is more predictable and thorough?

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

Questions from Maxim

 * 1) What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * My stance is roughly: dont do it unless you are right, and know you are doing the right thing.
 * See:
 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * So long as there is no dispute in the community about a proposed desysop, the community should feel capable of doing it. Ideally it would be a crat that initiates the desysop request to the steward, in order to keep the process orderly and to avoid confusing the stewards.  Over on English Wikisource we have a desysop for inactivity and for lose of confidence, and it works just fine.
 * 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)?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * I agree that BAG should be responsible for adminbots, and that provided the operator has the same or greater permissions, there is no need for RfA/whatever. The bot account is an extension of that person - the additional account is purely to improve transparency and auditing.  The community should raise any concerns using the WP:RFBOT process, which is open to everyone.
 * fwiw, my two bots have both been to use tools not commonly used by bots, or humans for that matter.
 * New page patrol bot : nearly 100,000 uncontroversial actions
 * Oversight bot : request outstanding
 * As part of my role as a committee member I'll probably be creating more strange beasts which use advanced access/tools, and will continue to request the community to evaluate & approve them before they touch any pages.
 * Unapproved adminbots need to be approved. The community deserves to know when an automation is in effect otherwise they may fear to raise an issue because they think that the admin did the action for a good reason.  Transparency helps everyone.
 * High speed admin tools are useful, however the operator should be very careful. The community rightfully have concerns here because admins are known to delete tens of hundreds of images and pages without looking closely in order to clear queues (Im not sure how much this still happens; I dread to look)-- that is wrong; if we need queue clearing bots, lets see if the community will accept that?  If the community wont accept it, then having admins acting as automations isnt acceptable either.

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?


 * Reply:
 * For those that are unaware, I was the clerk on this case for quite a while. My guess is that they merged them in order to address the growing problem with Vested Contributors, however the committee did not give any clear direction to the clerk or the community that this was the case.  There was no obvious scope or objectives - lots of people had their own objectives, not all of them good, but there didnt appear to be any boundaries.
 * When RegenerateThis (aka Tony Sidaway) added himself to the case, I put my foot down and said "First explain why you need to be a party," in order to prevent it turning into a pile on, which would dilute the case further and also to protect Tony, because the case pages were already filling up with nasty stuff that was unlikely to be resolved anyway. "I did not want people to assume that they can start digging up dirt on Tony until it was clear that everyone thought it was a good idea." Several members on the committee opined about whether Tony could add himself, and what that may or may not mean, but didnt address whether he should add himself, nor did they consider that being a party means the community typically then goes and digs up whatever related evidence they can find.  (As an aside, .. my efforts to protect Tony were somehow used as the basis for an accusation that I had a grudge against him when I later reinstated a short block that someone had thought was appropriate, but felt uncomfortable doing themselves as they were too involved.)
 * Big pissing matches dont help. If anything this case ensured every bit player had their gloves off when I blocked RegenerateThis; the result at ANI was shocking, and RFAR/SlimVirgin-Lar was spawned because the issues were not resolved months before.  And .. it appears that "SlimVirgin-Lar" may still have legs.
 * In the end, this case ended up reinforcing the "Vested Contributors" problem, as it has allowed specific individuals to dominate the committee's time, at the expense of others.
 * Arbcom works best when it deals with specific issues. Each dispute is different, and needs to be carefully evaluated on the facts of the matter, and what is best for the parties and the project.

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?
 * Reply:
 * It is bizarre that he couldnt support the notion that all of these contributors were valued; they clearly are, and it is not even subjective to say so - it is patently obvious. It would be only subjective if there was some credible evidence which indicated that a cost-benefit analysis was needed.  In the case of these five, that level of inspection isnt required - they have all been part of creating this project.
 * Maybe he thought that it was necessary for the FM FoF sentence "However, he has taken relatively few administrator actions in recent months." to be on record, but even then he should have proposed an alternative wording which just said that.
 * If an arbitrator is not able to be impartial, they should recuse. If they cant know when to recuse, it is either because the case turned out quite differently than they expected without them fully realising it, or the community elected the wrong person.

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?
 * Reply:
 * Absolutely! Isn't it already like that?
 * This is one policy where I would expect that nobody is bold; all changes should be discussed widely as it will effect people who may unexpectedly find themselves needing to follow it.
 * Any major changes should probably be implemented at a specific period of the year, June/July would be a good time, and they should probably be approved by a majority of the crats and arbs as even very good ideas sometimes need to be postponed or rejected.

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.
 * Reply:
 * I've seen concerns that the Arbs and even the Ex-Arbs may be influencing the "Jimbo decision" making process, which is a concern if it is true, but I doubt this is likely to play a big role. I dont mind the idea of Arbs/Ex-Arbs/Crats have some control in the process, but if they do it should be open and they should veto the nominee before the election begins rather than after.

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?
 * Reply:
 * We expect 70% support for sysop, but 50% for arbs?? We should require much higher support - around 70% support looks to be appropriate based on the 2007 results.  This would reduce the field a little, and but would ensure that a broad cross section of the community trusts them.
 * See also: (more detailed answer, written after I've witnessed the shenanigans that go on during the election)

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?
 * Reply:
 * Before accepting a case arbitrators must publicly compose a description outlining a binding scope.

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


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


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


 * Reply:
 * I dont understand what you mean by "power"; feel free to clarify what powers you are interested in. There are a number of powers involved.  Power to elect, dictate the policy and depose are three that come to mind.  In each of these, the order differs slightly, and where possible the power should primarily rest in the hands of one.  Your earlier questions deal with who should hold the power of the election and policy, and the power to depose sticks out as being the most important - the most powerful.  I rank the power to depose as follows:


 * The Wikimedia Foundation
 * Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee
 * The Community


 * The community always has the Right to fork, and this in turn means they have a reasonable level of control over the Foundation (i.e. fear of forking). As a result, in the interests of stability, the power to depose should be vested in the Wikimedia Foundation.  This means that if there is a problem with an arbitrator or the whole lot, the power devolved to arbitrators can be removed, by force if necessary by disabling of accounts.  Any committee member should also be able to be removed by the committee (a simple majority should be sufficient), and this would be a good method of opening up a seat if someone goes awol.


 * The committee is morally obligated to serve the community that elected them, however they are legally obligated to ensure the community abides by the law and the WMF resolutions. As a result, I rank the duty to serve as follows:


 * The Wikimedia Foundation
 * The Community

I have intentionally left out options that do not apply. As far as I am concerned, Jimbo's power should only be by way of the Foundation, or whatever position he wishes to be elected into. However he is still a crutch that we occasionally lean on; we need to improve our governance so that we lean on his less as time goes on.

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


 * Thanks for the interesting questions. It is a bit past 4am here, so I will save and review the answers in the morning. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:12, 28 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Yes; three years is too long for .. most arbitrators. I have a very fixed objective which I intentionally expect will only need a year to achieve.  I think two years is about the right term duration in order to get quickly rid of any arbs who arnt functioning appropriately, and because we have many suitable people for the role and we need to elect more of them while they are still fresh.  There is less risk in appointing someone for two years, so we will be more willing to appoint people who break away from the mould.  At the end of the day, no one person on arbcom can have any real effect, except to make a fool of themselves if that is their ambition.  We need to think agile, and shorter terms helps ensure that.
 * In order to offset the reduced term, each year the outgoing arbitrators could put there names forward in a concurrent election for one or two of the available seats, the "winner" of which would serve a second two year term. This would increase the "institutional memory" of the current committee from 5 years to 7 years.
 * If we retained the current structure of 15 seats, with 1 and 2 seats occupied by existing arbs continuing on for a second term, there would always be at least 6 seats available for new appointments each year, which is one more than is currently the case.
 * To approach meshes quite nicely my objective this year to require that the ex-arbs return to being a normal member of the community once their term is over, as we would have less need for their faculties on the arb mailing list.
 * To assist implementing this, I will simply clear roadblocks, but I will not write the policy or put pressure on how it should be altered. I will respond with as much information as is appropriate to any community requests for information regarding the inner workings of the committee.  Armed with answers, the community can make informed decisions about how the arbitration policy should be altered, and a change to the duration of the arbcom terms should be simply an alteration of the policy.  If there is any need for clarification needed between the community and the Foundation, I will do what I can to ensure the Foundation and/or Jimbo clearly articulates any procedural requirements that it feels are necessary before it will "accept" the desired alterations of the policy.  If the community wants this, but there is no traction for institutional reasons, I will get more persuasive this time next year.
 * Also, I will stand for re-election in two years, and if re-elected I will stand down after another two years. I will also  forcibly request that my access be removed to anything which is "arbcom private" when my term is over.
 * Also, I will stand for re-election in two years, and if re-elected I will stand down after another two years. I will also  forcibly request that my access be removed to anything which is "arbcom private" when my term is over.
 * Also, I will stand for re-election in two years, and if re-elected I will stand down after another two years. I will also  forcibly request that my access be removed to anything which is "arbcom private" when my term is over.

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:01, 12 December 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?
 * Reply:
 * None of the above. Proposal A.2 is ok, however 1) the lost contributors can be measured/inferred by research, and I would like to see some numbers to substaniate that rationale, and 2) the proposal allows people to feign the "effect" in order to bring about civility restrictions on someone else, which is very gamable.
 * Any low level civility problem should take into account that sniping between long term contributors is going to happen and, while not advisable, we cant force two people to be friends but they still may need interact often. There are also a lot of co-dependent relationships on Wikipedia, and their interaction often distresses their friends more than it distresses the parties.  if it is low level and infrequent, and between two people who are big enough to look after themselves, they should be left to sort it out between themselves and other counsel each person may have.  Others should not use these interactions as an excuse to nail one of them who crosses an imaginary line.
 * However civility problems when interacting with newcomers, or new acqaintences should be looked on with suspicion.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?
 * Reply:
 * None of the above. Civility restrictions are definitely needed for the more extreme cases where coaching hasnt worked, and they have not been rejected by the community.  They are needed way before "the last resort" because we need them to kick in before too much damage happens.  Long time contributors have a network of friends, so one excessive bout of incivility is not likely to send them packing - obviously the people involved should say sorry after the event.  However if a long time contributor is taking advantage of their safety net and biting new-ish contributors, that is likely to discourage them from sticking around because they have less ties to the community.


 * 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?
 * Reply:
 * To get the discussion going, I would break it into different situations, with various strengths of restrictions. The most important would be to establish civility requirements for admins.  This ties in with issues of desysoping, esp. whether the community can desysop.  If we cant codify the expected levels of civility of an admin, admins should not be imposing civility restrictions on non-admins except in the most egregarious situations.  My basis for this is that collective admins have unclean hands when it comes to civility; the best admins are tarred with the brush of the worst of them.  Non-admins are often treated rudely by one admin, and when they retaliate, a different admin jumps out of the bushes and whacks the non-admin with a restriction or a block.  When it is done in a tight sequence, other admins can see that there is a problem with how it was handled, and step in and fix the situation.  However usually the non-admins get treated rudely a number of times before they get fed up and retaliate, perhaps at an admin who hadnt done anything wrong, and in these cases it looks like the non-admin unduely attacked rather than retaliated, and nobody rescues the situation.  If we had an admin civility code of conduct, and an "admin review" process, the non-admin would not have built up a latient resentment for admins or the general editing environment.


 * Once admin civility is fixed, the other situations that should be considered separately are, in order of importance:
 * estbalished user->new user
 * established user->new acquaintence
 * new user->new acquaintence
 * new user->established user
 * new user->admin


 * Only after a lot of discussion over different scenarios should be start trying to write a policy that codifies boundaries on low-medium level incivility.
 * In the meantime, my yardstick is roughly...
 * ''Civility restrictions may be imposed on an editor where any randomly selected group of five established user would agree that the user has demonstrated that they are unable to show the level of restraint necessary in order to maintain a cooperative, collegial community.

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)?
 * Reply:
 * no. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 13:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * 1) ;Reply:
 * The correct approach is the one that works, and ... our current policy is the one that is working. This sounds like a tautology, but it is not.  A stronger policy that doesnt have community support will not be enforced, and there will be big problems that slip through the cracks.  Improvements in the policy need to happen in step with improvements in the community - sometimes a rude shock is the catalyst for this.
 * I honestly thought it was default to delete; I was involved in a wording clarification quite a while ago, and default to delete was one of the changes I thought was agreed upon.
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * 1) ;Reply:
 * Question 1 is not a question of content or policy - it is question about policy.
 * I believe that Arbcom should not be extending policy. They should limit their remedies to "So and so is restricted/banned/etc..."
 * The community should keep improving the policy, or if they want to give Arbcom more flexibility, they need to loosen the policy so it can be interpreted more.
 * I will be "encouraging" the Wikimedia Foundation to put in place a firm groundwork policy about living people, similar to the fair-use resolution. I will not be editing policy; instead I will be giving my views as a contributor and crossing my fingers that the community takes the reins and avoids a media spectacle.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply
 * I am leaning this way. My view is that we dont need to abandon the consensus based approach, but it doesnt happen of its own accord any more, and fails miserably when we try to "obtain" it.  It is always something that we know when we see it.  I believe that a solution may be found by a group forming around a need, and require that they solicit opinions and then bring a well-formed idea to the wider community for review.  If the community doesnt have consensus, the group should not try to force it in; they need to listen and revise.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * It's time is coming, and I hope it comes soon, but in the meantime we are still very ineffectual at patrolling new pages, so I am worried about the additional workload that FlaggedRevs requires.
 * 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?
 * Reply:
 * Yes. It is a contributors choice.  There are times that is required for personal safety, and also the community can end up saying some nasty things about some nice people, with or without good reason, and while that happens (I doubt it will ever truly stop), it is a big risk to edit using ones own name as it is not a similar matter to sue someone who lives on the other side of the world for defamation, irrespective of whether you know their name or not.
 * 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)?
 * Reply:
 * I would support the Foundation passing a resolution requiring that certain classes of articles can only be edited by users who have a verified identity on file, and an "editrestricted" tag like we do for editprotected. For example, BLPs would be a very broad class where such a requirement could help.  At present, I dont believe it is necessary to restrict all BLPs at the moment, because most of the BLP edits are boring.
 * Another example are the "hot potato" articles where there are litigation issues; currently we often use fully protection for these articles, and little obvious reason is given why full protection is used. Full protection isnt good enough, as unsuspecting admins could get themselves into very hot water by fulfilling an editprotected request that seems logical unless they know the details of the real world.
 * Note that we do not have the software support for something like this, and the Foundation would need to have community backing before they could pass such a resolution; but it is an idea I would support it if there was a need for it.
 * 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?
 * Reply:
 * Oversight should not be used if someone has outed themselves with informed consent. The identity of minors should be oversighted; I have knowingly broken the policy a few times in this regard, and when I have a little more time I will be begging the community to rectify this.  Also if someone is really unaware of the action they are taking in releasing their private information, oversight is sometimes sensible.  I prefer deletion in these cases, but it is risky with some of the people we end up appointing as admins.  I have commented elsewhere on this page that perhaps we need an intermediate level between oversighters and admins, or maybe we just need more oversighters and have oversighted revisions more clearly merged with the existing edit history so people can see that there is a diff there, but cant see its contents.
 * 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?
 * Reply:
 * No, however if it draws unnecessary attention to additional private information disclosed elsewhere, it should be seen as bad form, and people creating those "links" need to be especially careful that they dont draw the wrong link. Ask first via email, mkay?  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (and think worst possible scenarios before you say to yourself "I wouldnt care..")
 * 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)
 * Reply:
 * I always have used my real identity, and have been more detailed since running for arbcom. If it is not already the case, I believe it should be a requirement that all committee members must provide the Foundation with their identity, which is needed for oversight and checkuser anyway, and I would prefer that they all reveal their identity.
 * 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?
 * Reply:
 * The WMF position has always been that anonymous & pseudonymous editing is fundamental. For example, this 2005  Resolution: Applications and modifications of mission statement was intended to limit changes to the Mission statement and it specifically indicated that exclusion of anonymous editors was not a decision that individual projects can make, as it would require Board of Trustees approval.  That resolution wasnt put to a vote, but it can be seen as indicative.
 * In the last year there have been two major changes to the privacy policy:
 * April: wmf:Resolution:privacy policy update April 2008 - notification of requests and release of private information
 * October: Board of Trustees approval of a more details privacy policy.
 * The Privacy policy (both old and new) are very explicit that the user may "outed":
 * Users are "identified by their chosen username"... "the IP addresses of users .. may be used to identify the source(s) of the abusive behavior. This information may be shared by users with administrative authority who are charged by their communities with protecting the projects." ... "It may be possible for a third party to identify the author from this IP address in conjunction with other information available. Logging in with a registered username allows for better preservation of privacy."...
 * "It may be possible to use [IP addresses] in combination with other information, including editing style and preferences, to identify an author completely."
 * And at the bottom there is a whopping big disclaimer (emphasis added):
 * The Wikimedia Foundation believes that maintaining and preserving the privacy of user data is an important value. This Privacy Policy, together with other policies, resolutions, and actions by the Foundation, represents a committed effort to safeguard the security of the limited user information that is collected and retained on our servers. Nevertheless, the Foundation cannot guarantee that user information will remain private. We acknowledge that, in spite of our committed effort to protect private user information, determined individuals may still develop data-mining and other methods to uncover such information and disclose it. For this reason, the Foundation can make no guarantee against unauthorized access to information provided in the course of participating in Foundation Projects or related communities.
 * The WMF has gone a long way to make it clear that there are no guarantees, and the policy to limit the acceptable release of private information is also improving.
 * The WMF privacy policy is linked to at the bottom of every wiki page; the main improvement I would like to see is a pretty non-lawyer version of it privacy policy, like the CC licenses have. Most people are not going to read the full policy.  Maybe they should move the disclaimer to the top, and add bold where I have.
 * The most useful and easy tasks that the WMF can do about loss of pseudonymity is to remove the accidental IP address outings. See my email to foundation-l about that.
 * If a case involving a loss of pseudonymity is brought to Arbcom, they should try and resolve it. Otherwise, the committee should do nothing about it.
 * 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)
 * Reply:
 * BLP
 * Why should we write mini-biogs about contributors when they are all not-notable monkeys on machines spitting out reams of NPOV?
 * The problem we have here is that we want discussion to focus on the edits, rather than the contributors, so there should be no need to document anything about the contributor.  But, our editors are not monkeys, and therein lies the problem that we havent solved yet.
 * There are two sets of rules that apply here: BLP, and community expectations. And those two become very complicated when the contributor is also a subject of a BLP.
 * The sanction should be measured in terms of the effect that the "outing" had on the project and the person, and to a lesser degree the "means used" is also important.
 * If the project benefits from establishing a link between a wikipedia identity and a wikipedia criticism blog, or wikipediareview account, then there is usually no need for any sanctions. An example of this would be a person asking to be elected as a "functionary" (crat, arb, checkuser, oversighter) where the community is asked to judge the character of the person.  If someone felt it was necessary that the community knew about the offsite activity of the person, they should probably first approach the person and ask them to reveal it, pointing out why it needs to come under community scrutiny, and if they dont oblige, and after a second and third opinion from other Wikipedians, it should be posted.  An example of where this would be appropriate is if a Wikipedian in good standing was being duplicitous and using their blog to encourage vandalism or directing readers to attack a specific user.
 * However linking a wikipedia account with a "family website" is usually unnecessary, and so it is inappropriate, and usually maliciously motivated. If the justification is inadequate, and depending on how this adversely affects the "outed" persons real life, the "outer" should be either given an editing restriction to prevent any further lack of judgement, or banned for a year if it was clearly unwarranted, malicious and damaging.
 * If it was a severe lack of judgement, but there is good reason to not ban the user, an example "worst case" remedy could be "User X is restricted for one year from linking to an external website except where it is an appropriate target within an inline citation that is fully compliant with BLP where it applies." I.e. where the user doesnt follow the vague "community expectation" rules, they could be subjected to following the strict sourcing and the BLP rules at all times, in all namespaces.
 * 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?
 * 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.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * 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.
 * 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?
 * I'll answer this tomorrow.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * For editors that have demonstrated that they have no intention of helping build the project, Yes.
 * For other cases, it gets messy - it depends on whether the community wants to endure the point that is being made by that person. See
 * 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?
 * Reply:
 * I am a bit concerned about the need for this question; I thought they were going to be insightful?? I've seen newspapers discussing Wikipedia; I hope Arbcom arnt going to try and regulate that as well!
 * 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?
 * Reply:
 * I do not have a blog or web-based venue for making comments about Wikipedia. However, I do often participate in the IRC channels, and I view them as primarily a vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia, especially  where we rant and rave about the madness of writing a new encyclopedia. ;-)
 * 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)?
 * Reply:
 * I've watched Wikipedia Review a bit, and it is steadily growing respectable. I blocked someone about this.  Enough said, I hope.  I never got into Wikback, and I dont have much time for sites dedicated to criticism 'cause I've got a long laundry list of reasons why Wikipedia sucks, and I'm too busy trying to give them less reason to criticise.
 * 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?
 * Reply:
 * See below.
 * 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? )
 * Reply:
 * Yes, I am jayvdb at WR, and probably the same at WikBack or whatever it was called; I have zero posts on both because I have enough places to say my thoughts here, and a backlog of things to do and say here and especially on Wikisource.
 * I dont care whether arbs have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site, however I would expect that they can defend every post that they make on such a site, and so it should be inconsequential whether or not the link is made between their Wikipedia account and their account on another website.
 * 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)?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Yes. While there are many influences that might turn a long-time valued contributor into a "VestedContributor", the main problem that causes this is we have gone way beyond DefendEachOther and AGF to DefendOurFriendsAndAttackAnyoneWhoAttacksOurFriends.  This isnt a social network.  Come equipt with your brain please, and analyse each situation and defend the defensible.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * The two other aussies have picked green, so I will go with Pantone 116C.
 * Yes. While there are many influences that might turn a long-time valued contributor into a "VestedContributor", the main problem that causes this is we have gone way beyond DefendEachOther and AGF to DefendOurFriendsAndAttackAnyoneWhoAttacksOurFriends.  This isnt a social network.  Come equipt with your brain please, and analyse each situation and defend the defensible.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * The two other aussies have picked green, so I will go with Pantone 116C.

Questions from Heimstern

 * 1) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * I started getting very involved in this after seeing a few cases of this in the Azeri-Armenian arena, namely Khachkar destruction and Mammed_Amin_Rasulzade. (Each have an incomplete breakdown of my involvement at User:Jayvdb/AA_involvement)  I stepped into this completely uninvolved, and unprepared as I recall.  Over the months that followed I watchlisted as many related articles as I could find - I wanted to understand the flash-points and how the disputes moved.  I dont know for sure how much of what I have learnt from AA is transferable to other similar cases of nationalistic disputes, as I havent touched any of the others.  I am thoroughly convinced that editing restrictions that cover "everyone involved in a national conflict" do not work.  Most editors simply start using socks, in addition to the meatpuppets, and the main outcome is that WP:AE is kept busy, and few very admins can work out what is going on because of the complexity of the dispute, and the socks and the personalities involved.  As a result, the admins making the decisions are usually "involved", or they dont care about the content and hand out blocks to as many offenders as possible, or they are knowledgable and not involved and could write nice non-biased articles but dont because they would turn into a mess as soon as a POV-pushing noticed it.
 * I have semi-jokingly suggested that the right editing restriction to apply to these situations is "User X is restricted to revert/undo only as many edits as they created new articles in the previous week". Or perhaps the number of granted reverts per week would be based on the number of DYKs accumulated.  But that is only a semi-serious look at the problem - the fundamental problem is that the participants have difficulties trusting each other and working together.  And revert limitations dont work because they encourage socks in order to work around the limits.  We need to encourage good behaviour (i.e. DYKs, GAs, etc).  If we can make the dispute about who can be the best wiki contributor, the wiki wins either way.
 * I dont have a magic bullet; the best that I can recommend is that sourcing is one of the biggest failings. The AA people routinely dispute the appropriateness of a specific source, due to the assumed or documented POV of the author.  That type of discussion goes on across the project, however in AA talk pages it is used as a weapon to justify a revert and sometimes it seems like the reason is simply to antagonise the other side.  Often they could find a second source and add it, but instead they remove the first one and the chunk of text.  One type of editing restriction that I think might be useful, and will introduce onto a Workshop for discussion when it seems most appropriate, is a "User X must provide a fully qualified inline citation for every sentence.", and perhaps "User X is prohibited from using online-only resources." (i.e. sources must be published books, journals, etc) and perhaps "User X is restricted to using English only resources." for extreme cases where the contributor is intentionally using foreign language works which cant be reviewed.  Users restricted in this way would still be welcome to add suggestions to the talk pages.
 * Arbcom should be willing to ban more editors, topic ban more of them too, and handle more cases. An interesting approach would be to have a regular review of each dispute, similar to what is happening now with the Scientology case, which is revisiting the territory as the COFS case a little over a year ago.  A separate yearly review process would also do the trick.  The editing behaviour of each major participant would then come under scrutiny, and sanctions adjusted accordingly.  Editors that have been better behaved would have their sanctions lowered, and those that have acted up would have more sanctions applied.  A three monthly quick review would also be helpful, run by a self selected group of admins, uninvolved editors and a checkuser to clean out all of the socks and keep everyone a bit more honest.  If the parties know a review is coming, they will act accordingly.  The AA participants know that AA3 is coming, but as they dont know when, they are less concerned.  Admins do need to get more involved, but more importantly, uninvolved editors need to become involved.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * The enforcement of civility restrictions generally results in more anger and further incivility, or the comments turn very civil and twice as nasty.
 * This is an aspect of Wikipedia which I have very little experience. My block of TonySidway was related to a civility problem, and I reblocked User:ScienceApologist in another enforcement situation that I think was civility related but I would need to research that one.block notice, rfar notecomment re subsequent unblock; AE archive; there was another report soon after:, AE archive: "If there is no damning evidence, there is no reason for everyone to be commenting here. Go do something else. This is not ANI."
 * The community does quickly and often assess civility problems on ANI, and blocks happen routinely. The problem arises when it is longstanding members of the community who are facing civility blocks/restrictions; in those cases, they rarely stick at ANI, and wouldnt have consensus on a /Workshop, so the committee is creating a problem for the administrators who enforce these restrictions.
 * I dont know what the committees approach should be. My guess is that they should leave minor or isolated civility problems for the community to sort out, and hand out stronger remedies when there has been a consistent pattern of minor civility problems despite the community attempting to correct it.  e.g. a RFAR motion to have the user blocked for a month should do the trick.  If not, a six months block should be attempted.  The point here is that there needs to be sufficient build up, time given for evidence, and the committee needs to assess the actual events to determine if it is worth a strong civility block.
 * See:
 * The community does quickly and often assess civility problems on ANI, and blocks happen routinely. The problem arises when it is longstanding members of the community who are facing civility blocks/restrictions; in those cases, they rarely stick at ANI, and wouldnt have consensus on a /Workshop, so the committee is creating a problem for the administrators who enforce these restrictions.
 * I dont know what the committees approach should be. My guess is that they should leave minor or isolated civility problems for the community to sort out, and hand out stronger remedies when there has been a consistent pattern of minor civility problems despite the community attempting to correct it.  e.g. a RFAR motion to have the user blocked for a month should do the trick.  If not, a six months block should be attempted.  The point here is that there needs to be sufficient build up, time given for evidence, and the committee needs to assess the actual events to determine if it is worth a strong civility block.
 * See:

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Percentage thresholds are not a useful indicator in a competitive election due to the complex public choice theory involved. There are a fixed number of seats available, so this is a zero sum "game", which differs considerable from RFA/RFB where we benefit if 10 concurrent "discussions" all result in appointments.
 * One indicator that could be useful is requiring a minimun participation rate in a candidates vote. i.e. in the current model with support/oppose, if most people choose to abstain from voting on a candidate, they would not win even if only a small number of people supported their candidacy.  An extension of this would be to add a "voter participation" multiplier into the equation to elevate the candidates who obtain more votes, whether for or against.  Among the top candidates, this has a similar effect to giving supports a higher value than opposes.
 * The community expects that the "top seven" are appointed, and any deviance from that should be seriously questioned.
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * No. I dont like the administrators recall system for a whole raft of reasons.  They give everyone a false sense of security, and when used, they are an aggressive weapon which doesnt allow the admin to step down with dignity, which means the admin fights harder than they should to prevent the recall process from working properly, and this results in even more problems.  I've not seen it work well yet, but I havent reviewed all instances of when it was used.
 * If there is a good reason for an arbitrator to step down, there should be enough backbone in another arbitrator, and crats or stewards acting under advice of the WMF to make it happen. If not, we are electing the wrong people.
 * Vote well.

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Most of my time over the last year has been spent on Wikisource.
 * Here on Wikipedia, I mostly create new articles, often about journals, authors and especially translators who are often forgotten.
 * I have spent a disproportionate amount of time at WP:AFD, delsorting articles and trying to save them - I rarely voted keep without trying to improve the article.
 * Also, ever since I found Wikisource, I have being slowly removing poems and other "full text" from Wikipedia, especially translations of foreign national anthems and the like, by finding pagepages scans of the originals and putting them on Wikisource - Wikipedia readers deserve to know which edition they are looking at. Most collaborative translations on Wikipedia need to be researched for hours to verify they are not some bastardised version of a copyrighted translation (which is what I find has happened half the time).  Once I've confirmed its copyright status, I move the translation to Wikisource, where it can have a page dedicated to the text, which makes the collaborative translation process much more understandable as the edit history is dedicated to the translation tweaks over time.
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * See my userpage
 * 1) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * My other online activities are mostly to do with open source projects; again see my userpage.
 * I used to hang around on IRC back in the uni days.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * I initiated this crosswiki vandalism investigation, which then came onto En.WP, and while I did think it warranted being placed user the AA editing restrictions, I was very clear that I had not intention of blocking them.
 * I have volunteered as a arbitration clerk here for six months.
 * I was heavily involved in the "Poetlister" investigation and negotiations
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Yes. Wikimedia Australia (maybe falls under advocacy) ;-)
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * See my userpage
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * The foundation has my details, as does the Australian chapter.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * My father and mother have accounts, but try as I might, they dont use them more than a few edits per year. I will not disclose their usernames publicly, but I am happy to inform the rest of the committee if they wish to verify this.
 * I expect a good number of the technical people I know or have known do have accounts, but I dont know of any except for Orderinchaos, who I used to work with a long time ago.
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * 3) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * 4) ;Reply:
 * Everyone; part of the job is to serve even the banned users.
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * The committee should accept cases that have a well defined problem unless the community consensus during the request phase indicates that the community thinks they can tackle it.
 * 1) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * If there is no onwiki dispute, the community should be doing the monitoring and management of these concerns.
 * If there is an onwiki dispute, the committee should be accepting relevant offwiki evidence, but ruling on the onwiki effect/dispute.
 * 1) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * I'm more of a "creative remedies" type of person. Problems that come to arbcom are going to be the ones where turf isnt already well managed by policies that admins can readily apply, or it is extreme cases like a great contributor who is messing up in one area, or sometimes it is just that a few users are in uncharted water and they interfering with each other.  I like to know what each party wants, and try to restrict them in such a way that they can continue to achieve what they want to do without affecting the objectives of the other people.
 * Bans are effective for repeat offenders, as their disruptive pattern has been identified by then, so the socks can be more readily identified and blocked.
 * 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) ;Reply:
 * Yes, see
 * 1) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * I've not had a lot of contact with them. FT2 has done a lot of good work, esp. Poetlister.  I've seen that NYB has been a great asset in arbitration.  FloNight too, especially as she is an admin over on Wikisource - the skills she demonstrates here have come into play over on Wikisource a number of times.  Charles Matthews has done so much content work here - I really respect that; likewise Raul654.
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * thinking
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * I've no real concerns, except for the lack of attention being given to the lack of dumps and stats. The lack of dumps are especially a concern, as the right to fork is based on them being accessible.
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Not enough. I dont often work the queues.
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * I wont be going out of my way to publicise information from previous years without the permission of all the appropriate people, as is normal.
 * I do plan to provide statistics to the community about the committee workload for the coming year, and it might be quite interesting to do the same for past activity levels, but that would be aggregate information and I'd be seeking ex-arb permission before doing that.
 * I do plan to provide statistics to the community about the committee workload for the coming year, and it might be quite interesting to do the same for past activity levels, but that would be aggregate information and I'd be seeking ex-arb permission before doing that.

Questions from TomasBat

 * 1) In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * The two concepts are orthogonal. I dont have a stance on which is a higher priority, as it differs wildly depending on the circumstance.
 * I might come back to this question.

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.
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * My identity is public knowledge; there are of course private details that could be used to harass or bribe me, such as address, phone #, etc, etc, but they are mostly going to be details that would bring down public scorn and probably litigation on anyone who wished to go down that path.
 * If someone really intends to go down that path, the odds are very high that they are going to do it irrespective of what I do, so I may as well do what I believe in.

Questions from Pixelface

 * 1) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * None.
 * 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?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * These are the ones I can remember of hand, but I likely participated nominally in the workshopping on a number of others, especially when I was a clerk.
 * (private statement, analysis and appeal)
 * (evidence, and workshopping)
 * (appeal on the proposed decision talk page)
 * (clerk)
 * (clerk)
 * (workshopping)
 * (clerk)
 * (clerk)
 * (clerk)
 * And lots of statements, evidence, data analysis, motions and requests for clarification. Too many to list; here are the ones from last month:
 * SoC (statement)
 * SlimVirgin desysop motion (passed)
 * Alastair Haines motion (statement/evidence/etc; currently waiting on arbs)
 * Jack Merridew unblock motion (passed)
 * etc
 * I've always felt my time invested in arbitration was worthwhile because even when I didnt like the decision, I imagine it would have been worse if I didnt participate.
 * 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).
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * The current Alastair Haines motion was requested by myself. I've also helped a few other people draft requests.

Questions from Badger Drink

 * 1) It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * There was a disproportionate number imperfect cases last year, and I have covered a few in detail in replies to other questions.
 * (the committee should have trusted the desysoped admin and community with any resysoping process; they are not a nanny)
 * (I would have brought it to a close sooner)
 * (gah, I couldnt have done anything to make it worse)
 * (I wouldnt have shown partiality that defied WP:LOGIC; never a good combo)
 * (I would have written more findings of facts, and would have had a much more open case)
 * They also screwed up on "Alastair Haines", hence my motion currently on RFAR - they gave the community a scope which was both wrong and too broad, leaving all parties floundering to determine whether they where trying to improve the pedia or attack each other.
 * WP:RFAR/Motion: re SlimVirgin (I would have asked SV very early what I eventually asked her to do when I finally chimed in (I was too busy with the "Alastair Haines" motion), too late as the arbs decided to take the decision out of her hands. Again, the committee is taking on a nanny role here instead of letting the party and community take ownership of the resysop process.
 * I'll be happy to expand on any of these or other cases if people ask me to.
 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * The issues that were raised had merit, and there was a dispute to arbitrate, but the community had not openly requested the committee to handle it, and the evidence was not open for community comment. The way it landed was atrocious (it should have been a proposed RFAR), and the entire committee is to blame for not being more communicative on arbcom-l before the case, and not being able to make a decision on how to proceed soon after it blew up.  I feel very sorry for Orangemarlin as it would have been a horrible experience to sit through, especially the indecision after it had happened.  A large chunk of the "case" seemed very reasonable, and the remedies looked warranted based on only the evidence presented by FT2, but therein lies the problem.  Irrespective of the merits, the ordeal was more than sufficient "punishment".
 * Allowing this to happen was my biggest mistake as a clerk.
 * I'm not sure the lesson has been learnt by FT2 yet, as the Giano block that hit WP:AE was another sentence rather than a committee decision to resolve a dispute at the request of the community. Im more convinced than ever that committee members need to take off the "admin hat" when they are elected, and either use their tools in non-controversial ways, or as agreed upon by the committee.  Arbitration enforcement is probably best entirely left to the sysops who are more responsive to community pressure.
 * See also: (the effect of silencing community opinion)
 * See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin (Giano block)
 * 1) This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * See:, my candidate statement, and most of my answers to questions.

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)


 * Reply:
 * Hi BirgitteSB,
 * As usual you've made some very good suggestions, and it wont surprise you that I've some very different ones. All of these need to be pushed into "trail" or discussed and codified into established process/policy.
 * To directly answer your question, having two arbs independently build an evidence pack creates a good check and balance, and introduces accountability as those two arbs should be named publicly, so I would endorse your suggested practises. This approach is not my preferred solution to the problem, but they are a darn sight better than way we have now.  My concern is that it would then depend on which two arbs did it, how much time each dedicated to it, etc, etc.  i.e. building two different sets of evidence will not only consume more arb time, and it also introduces doubts whether one arb was negligent rather than more "reserved", and resolving the differences in the two evidence packs will take more time.  Time well spent, but still .. more time.  I'd be looking for a means of obtaining the desired evidence pack with more haste if possible.
 * Stepping back a bit, non-public cases should be avoided. There is almost always a need for community involvement throughout any case.  According to the list of completed requests, there were three official non-public cases in 2008, and none prior.  However it doesnt take much imagination or recollection to strongly suspect there were many more non-public cases prior to 2008 that were kept under wraps, either because they were dealt with quietly, there was no conclusion, or simply that there was no desire to document them.  For example, there was the user:runcorn case in earlier years, and the user:poetlister case this year.  It is my understanding and opinion that of those three listed for 2008, only the JoshuaZ case has been reasonably concluded, as the wiki and the user have moved on sufficiently, so I've not touched on this case in any answer - its not worth using this as an example.  The Orangemarlin case was just a big mess, and the SlimVirgin-Lar case still festers.  I've commented at length about those last two cases in other answers, but I will make two more quick comments here, as I do see the need for private cases in very irregular cases where privacy is a major concern, and more importantly when they can minimise adverse effects because the evidence and remedies are not on public display.
 * If a minor matter needs to be investiged and addressed, and it is expected that only a minor corrective nudge is required, a private case could work if the parties are happy to submit to a private process. A private case should not be private from the parties - it is only the general public that need to be excluded.  i.e. Orangemarlin should have been aware of, and involved in, the case bearing his username long before he did.
 * In my private appeal to the committee regarding the SlimVirgin-Lar case, I implored the committee to put together a presentation of the timeline, etc. That, and the findings of fact, should have been distributed to everyone involved a long time ago, giving time for rebuttal and improvement.  Again, the parties needed to be involved in the process.
 * What I would like to see is that all non-public cases have the equivalent of a /Evidence and /Workshop page where all of the arbs get involved and treat it like a typical case. The technology to change manage "pages" over an email transport is available (e.g. git (software) and quilt (software) for two specifically designed for this; there are others that are more user-friendly.) and this is an area I specialise in.  These pseudo /Evidence and /Workshop pages can be distributed to the related parties for comment and rebuttal, using "subpages" for evidence which cant be distributed to all parties for privacy/confidentiality reasons.
 * Also, one of the big benefits of the RFAR process is the collaborative process where parties work together on the same pages. This virtual environment also needs to be established in private cases.  i.e. instead of all emails being sent to Arbcom, any moderately large case that is going to be handled privately should have its own private mailing list for the parties and arbs.  It would also be helpful to invite a few people who are not involved to oversee the process and participate.  The majority of the evidence can then be submitted directly to that mailing list, reducing concerns of tampering along the way and allowing vigorous discussion.  If there is evidence that cant be sent to all parties, it should be sent to the arbcom-l list as is currently the case anyway.
 * Note that this "mailing list" idea isnt as wild as it sounds - it already happens; the parties CC: all sorts of people in their emails to arbcom-l, however the CC lists on each email can differ, usually introducing more confusion. Currently the CC list on each email sent is decided based on the content of the email - it should be the inverse: the parties should include the appropriate content based on a fixed recipient list, removing the opportunity for games.  Then there are only two options: send the email to the closed distribution list of people involved in the case, or send it to arbcom as truely confidential.  This encourages the team of people involved to sort it out together, with the committee only being the final decision maker.
 * See also:
 * See also:
 * See also:
 * See also:
 * See also:
 * See also:
 * See also:
 * See also:
 * See also:
 * See also:

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

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.

Questions From Ϣere Spiel  Chequers
For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
 * 2) In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
 * 3) In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
 * 4) How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?

Question(s) from LtPowers

 * There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment?  If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust?  (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with.  My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.)  Powers T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Individual questions

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

Candidate

 * Questions about the candidate may be placed here.

Questions from Will Beback
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?


 * Reply:
 * I have never used any other accounts. I have created a few accounts to prevent them being available to be used abusively.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ''Questions 2 & 3 appear below

Candidature

 * Questions about the candidate statement, or other aspects of the candidature, may be placed here.

Question from AGK

 * 1) I confess myself to being impressed by your candidate statement. Forgive me, however, for asking one important follow-up question: what steps will you take to reassure the Community that you will honour all aspects of your statement? For example, do you plan to be "open to recall" as an Arbitrator, in the event you are unable to honour the time commitments you have made? Good luck with your candidacy. AGK 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply:
 * "Honour" is the key word here. I may not be able to achieve every objective, but I intend to put in an honourable attempt.  I have tried to put forward objectives that I can personally undertake without requiring the committee approval, and that are measurable.  If I fail to achieve an objective, I will give a full account of why - we should be an agile project - non-agile roadblocks need to be discussed openly.
 * I do not intend to be open for recall. I consider it to be a brain-dead concept, but it has legs so I respect that people feel it is needed in certain cases (some people might feel more comfortable having defined recall criteria, some voters might be swayed by the existence of recall criteria).  For arbitrators to be on recall is especially silly in my opinion, as the drama would overtake the wiki.  On English Wikisource, we have an annual reconfirmation process, and what a "mandatory site-wide recall process" which allows a reconfirmation to be called at any time.  Simplicity is best; something like that should be implemented here.  I believe that this is an evolutionary stable system for all roles of responsibility.
 * What I will offer as reassurance is that if another sitting arb asks for me to step down, via the arbcom-l mailing list or on wiki or even on their blog, and doesnt retract it after a bit of vigourous discussion, I will do so with as little drama as possible. I would expect the same of any other arb; they need to be accountable to each other, and to the community.  A house divided against itself cannot stand.
 * I have made a number of rather large changes to my life recently that should mean that I can sustain the energy required for the job. If I cant keep up the energy required, and another candidate in this election was pipped to the post but has the requisite community support, I will give them my seat with pleasure.
 * If someone feels I am falling short, come and chat with me.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 23:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from NuclearWarfare

 * 1) I found myself very interested with your very well-written candidate statement. One issue that you did not go into that deeply that I felt that you perhaps should have was your "[resignation] due to a messy affair, which has since been settled amicably." I wondered if this was a public event that I was just unaware of, or a private matter that has stayed between the parties. If it is the latter, how would this affect your Committee work?
 * Reply:
 * It was a bit of a spectacle. I didn't cover it in my candidate statement in order to keep it under the limit, and I was expecting someone would ask.  Thanks :-)
 * In the course of my clerking the Omnibus case, there was a early scuffle between me and arbitrator Jpgordon about whether Tony Sidaway/RegenerateThis(and other nicks) could add himself as a party to the case without any further explanation provided. Here is the log of the page in question; and this was discussed at on the case talk page.
 * Fast forward a month, I blocked Tony Sidaway and much blood was let. The discussion at AN/I went very sour, sparking the SlimVirgin-Lar case. Jpgordon requested that I resign at my talk, I complied with the request, and got a bit cross at the arb.
 * There was no response from Josh at the time, but he did approach me about it recently. Also, he supported the arbcom decision to drown me in oversight work. ;-)
 * As Jpgordon has resigned from arbcom, I do hope that he will take an active role in checkuser or oversight duties, as I think that ex-arbs are going to be vital in the coming year - the committee is going to need the additional manpower if we are going to raise the bar.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing

 * Questions relating to Wikipedia editing practises and policies may be placed here.

Questions from Will Beback 2

 * ''Questions 1 appears above

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? 


 * Reply:
 * I dont mind multiple accounts being used to have fun, but not to make a point. If at any time the fun is at the expense of others, that is not cool.  The "expense" should be broadly interpreted.  If you can reasonably predict it will cause problems, dont do it.  If people object to it, don't do it.


 * Where transparency is desirable, or if the edits are done in an area that could confuse newcomers (e.g. positions of trust), the user should keep it simple and not use alternate accounts that are not clearly disclosed. In-jokes are good, but not when there are people who are not "in" who will be confused or concerned.


 * Alternate accounts that are not disclosed should not edit policies, and they should have extremely good reasons to participate in RfCs and conduct themselves in an impeccable manner whilst doing so.


 * fwiw, I think I have made one joke edit by an undisclosed sock; I cant find it now, and in hindsight it probably isnt all that funny so maybe it is better I dont find it. I think it occurred at either Giggy or DarkFalls user page, and I am pretty sure they knew it was me.  Bystanders may have raised their eyebrows, but it was overtly a joke edit.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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?


 * Reply:
 * Great question, and thanks Tip for selecting it as one of my first to answer. To begin with I have given my own views which stray a little from the question, but I do outline some preventative measures.  I'll add more about possible structural improvements later.


 * It is important to gain an appreciation for why they keep coming back, or asserting their POV. This is part of WP:AGF.  We should attempt, as much as humanly possible, to believe that all users are rational people, and intending to be worthwhile contributors.  If they are rational, it follows that they are haunting the place because of an inner calling that they have.  The analogy of a ghost haunting the place is very apt - I like it.  Understanding their mission is the first step in setting them free, and in turn preventing further disruption to our project.


 * If the person is misinformed, and the related Wikipedia articles do not adequately cover the territory, that is an area that we can improve! As an editor, my approach has often been to "out-research" POV warriors.  When providing second and third opinions to editors who have taken on the difficult job of managing an article that is being haunted by a POV warrior, I often strongly recommend that they limit the use of the undo button and recommend that they outclass these people: fill in the blanks, write auxiliary articles, and improving the sourcing.  This approach engages, and possibly antagonises, the POV warrior :- along the way they start to demonstrate whether they are interested in the truth, or whether they are going to completely ignore it.  It is not uncommon for POV warriors with nationalistic motivations to cave in to the truth on one article, only to move onto the next perceived problem, perhaps using a new sock.   This results in slow process for the good content developers, as their efforts need to be responsive to wherever the current debate is, and are aggravated by lots of unnecessary talk and reverts.  What makes them more aggravating is that these people tend to work as a group, supporting shared beliefs until they no longer make sense to do so.


 * If the facts are as plain as day, and a "POV warrior" resist careful explanations, then they probably have placed their faith in people who have told them information to the contrary, meaning that they are unlikely to ever believe someone else. They are not interested in changing their worldview in the light of good information.  This is sad.


 * Long-term Wikipedians usually have a knack for quickly locking onto POV warriors and trolls, and block and forget. I don't have a problem with this - it is a pragmatic approach.  However, it is all too easy to "tag and bag" these users.  Usually they can be productive if guided.  Sadly, these people are usually banned outright on Wikipedia without recourse, or if they are unblocked, they are not sufficiently guided to avoid the prior problems.


 * The long term approach is to assist them to solve their own underlying problem, or to divert their energy to something that they can peacefully and productively work on. Many of the socks that haunt the wiki are due to our own practises of ejecting people too quickly and roughly.  This turns them into adversaries, and they come back with guns.  However, Wikipedia has bigger guns and a reactive energy shield that works, so persistence results in escalation.  Wikipedia often feels like the death star in the way it handles people who dont quickly learn the ropes.  Peace comes from diplomacy.


 * We should be more active in encouraging "topic banned" users to work on that topic on Commons and Wikisource, where POV is irrelevant, or on Wikiversity, where their POV can be explored. Topic bans should be handed out much more frequently, as a corrective means, however they currently have too much stigma attached to them.  Maybe they need a new name for them.  They are currently viewed as the last step down the path towards a ban.


 * Finally, there are also many irrational people in the world, and Wikipedia is not the place for them either, but there is no much we can do to improve on our death star approach to dealing with them.


 * John Vandenberg (chat) 02:46, 20 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)


 * Reply


 * Scientific consensus is the most important "view" on natural science topics, however I dont like to call it a "point of view".
 * Instead, it is easier to understand by saying that the scientific method it is a process of eliminating points of view, leaving behind a reliable explanation of the physical world consisting of facts, theories and hypotheses.
 * On Wikipedia the NPOV requires that we also cover other views, however they should be clearly labelled, and the various scientific consensus (often different fields of science have very different ways of expressing themselves - different nomenclature, etc) are brought to the forefront in the article. Each alternate view needs to be given appropriate weight in the article, and sometimes that weighting is determined by the wider public awareness and the politics of science.  In these cases it is also useful to be clear why an alternate view is being given so much real-estate in the article.
 * Where there is broad scientific consensus for a single explanation, that is neutral, and due weight in an encyclopedia means that the other views are not wanted. We need to take the high road here - we are not a newspaper nor are we bound by circulation figures.
 * I have assumed that your question is primarily concerned with natural sciences; I'll try to expand my answer if you intended it to be broader. Literary topics obviously dont usually need much scientific input. etc.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 13:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Administration

 * Questions relating to Wikipedia administation may be placed here.

Committee

 * Questions relating to the role of the committee, and position of an arbitration committee member, may be placed here.

Questions from synergy

 * 1) Is there any one past arbitrator that you looked up to (role model if you like)? Is there a current one? And if so, who?
 * A.


 * 1) How do you feel about the Arbitration RfC?
 * A. So many good ideas! That RFC has over 0.5 Mb of text, and over 2000 edits.  The community wants the arbitration process, and the committee, to be improve.  That much is clear.  We now need to implement some of the suggestions.
 * My preferred approach would be for Arbcom, or a working group working with Arbcom support, to distil that RFC into a comprehensive report outlining which improvements are going to have a fighting chance of helping, and be acceptable to most. Then the community can discuss and selectively endorse the recommendations that they think will be helpful.
 * There are a few reasons behind my desire to see a written report come of this:
 * While the majority of wiki-process is developed over time, and can be tweaked at any time, arbitration process and policy needs to be a "rock". Any non-trivial changes to the Arbitration process and role of the Committee need to be adopted by both the Committee and the community, and the wrinkles ironed out with the support of both in spite of any teething problems.
 * The processes and policies involved are now important enough that they need to be understandable by people who are unfamiliar with the inner workings of the community.
 * Proposals to change the process also need to be well described and understood before they they can be properly reviewed.
 * We need a mediation and arbitration handbook for dummies, and reporters, that helps parties learn the ropes quickly.
 * Some of the more outlandish suggestions, e.g. ArbCom Lite, should be seriously considered, and those may need to be recommended only for a trial basis, with a review phase before they become part of the standard process and policy.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 01:52, 21 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.

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?
 * Reply:
 * To be honest, I can really know answer that directly, as I dont possess a good enough understanding of what is going on behind the closed doors.  We only see the effect, but not the cause, so it is hard to put a finger on the problems, and it is even harder to determine what good is done by arbcom, as I assume it often happens without a public action/edit to show for it.  And even when the good is done "onwiki", there is never a song and dance about it.  Everyone moves on quickly when there is nothing to complain about.
 * I hear the grumblings and feel the rumblings, and in the last year Arbcom has done a lot of various things that have been met with dissatisfaction from the community, as they have in previous years, and odds are on it that they will for years to come.
 * The process, when followed, works reasonably well. However each case seems to follow a unique course.  Sometimes this works out for the better, but it usually leaves the parties with doubts along the way, unless the party is a wiki-aholic and used to working on shifting sand, and knows how to push back when needed.
 * The committee as a body with residual knowledge of historical disputes is also a necessary aspect. This should also mean that they have extra foresight, which means a lot of additional tasks are thrown in their lap.
 * The cases progress well when the committee assists in the workshopping, but not when they add unexpected items fishing for support from one half of the community when they know the other half doesnt agree.
 * If I was to guess and put my finger on a single problem, it would be that the workload is too heavy for the sitting committee to carry. I know that there are communication problems within the group, and I am told by parties that the committee does give enough/timely feedback, leaving them in the dark at times.  I also know that the ex-arbs are not looking for opportunities to carry the additional load.  The scope and length of the cases has been truly bizarre.  But I attribute most of these visible effects to the workload imposed.  The committee needs to devolve responsibility to other people as much as possible, so that they can focus on the cases.  The committee needs to rigorously discuss the cases coming before them in private or in public, to ensure that the scope is well defined before the case opens, so that the community is empowered to build evidence that is appropriate without picking at old sores.  All this takes time; time they appear to not have, or is being misused on other activities.
 * ''Copied from the first draft of my candidate statement
 * Whilst on the committee, my mission for reform within the committee and arbitration process will be to:
 * Encourage participatory democracy. The arbitration committee has taken on too much authority, overburdening themselves, putting themselves up for the great fall, and causing many people in the community to quake in their boots when committee member waltzes in. It is now up to the committee to stop, turn around, devolve responsibility, and encourage and assist the community to set up better wiki management for the non-arbitration tasks that are in their workload simply because they are the only current elected group that is endorsed by WMF to make decisions.  With less "other stuff" to do, the committee can spend more time focusing on arbitrating, and stop trying to define right and wrong.
 * Fire the slackers and the lurkers and people whose term is up. Each year, more people are added to "ex-arb" list, who can keep their bits and place in the power structure. I'll be honest: I dont know what effect this has on the ability of the sitting arbs to do their job properly, however I do know that it is good to shed dead skin every once in a while.  I do not wish to simply remove ex-arbs if they are helping, however they do need to be allocated a part of the workload that is not case related.  After obtaining a good feel for the inner workings, and in consultation with the sitting arbs, I will write a report for the community summarising traffic levels on the private lists (arbcom-l/arbcom-l/other?), aggregated in various ways, including breaking it down by list member in order to indicate activity levels.  The community will be encouraged to define what they want to know, and to discuss the results openly.  Obviously the report will be limited to what is fit for public display.  I envisage this type of report to the community will become a quarterly bulletin.
 * Require that arbitration cases have a clear scope before they open. Arbcom cases go haywire when they are not well defined. This is primarily a community problem, but it is also the responsibility of the committee.  The community often throws meaningless comments supporting or opposing an RFAR that hasnt opened.  This initial period should be for the people involved to define their grievance, and for the community and arbcom to agree on a scope.  Where no scope can be established, there is no case, and it should be rejected until the community can put together something that can be arbitrated.
 * I expect that these changes will ensure that the committee does more arbitration, does it quicker, and does it with a greater level of community support.

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? 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? 


 * Reply:
 * I personally lean towards open governance, but also hope that the committee has members that lean the other way in order that the committee considers each situation from all angles, and balances these concerns in a way that the community can respect, which requires good communication. I look forward to the challenge. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 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?</li></ol> <li> 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?</li></ol> <li> 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"?</li></ol> <li> 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.)</li></ol> <li>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?</li></ol>

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 12:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Ral315 for the Signpost
4. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?


 * Reply:
 * Confidentiality is vital for personal security and well being. It is a basic principle of humanity. People become worried about what may come of what they say to one person. They may also fear to speak up when it would be appropriate if there is a genuine prospect of vindictive retaliation or harassment. However, often confidentiality is a guise for a lack of accountability.


 * In the real world we learn to distrust people who gossip, and we doubt their motives. The opposite is also true. As we become familiar with a persons or organisations respect for confidentiality, we tend to rely on them to do the right thing. If they make a mistake with the right intentions, we usually forgive them depending on the ramifications. Once lost, it is hard to regain.


 * Arbitrators must neutrally handle many cases where these come up routinely. It is especially important that they respect privacy, to not gossip, and they should be wary of any incoming correspondence that appears to be gossip.


 * If a piece of evidence could have been submitted for public scrutiny, it should be; if it is submitted privately instead, the obvious question is "why?". In this case I would recommend that the sender post it publicly, redacted/refined and possibly posted by a clerk or arb if that would help. If there isnt a good reason to keep it private, then it should not be hidden from wider eyes. If that is unacceptable to the submitter, then it needs to be treated with caution, and may sometimes need to be disregarded if there is no supporting evidence, or cannot be verified via some other means.


 * If evidence shouldn't be public, I would attempt to ensure that all parties are aware of the evidence provided to the committee, perhaps in a condensed format or with the submitters name redacted if there are credible concerns, such as retaliation. However in some cases (harassment being the classic one) this may not be possible, since even to refer to the matter might identify the victim of it. Sometimes it is unavoidable that a judgement call is going to be needed, though. Another example would be a persistent sock-user (Poetlister and Archtransit being canonical examples) where to disclose everything is to tell them how to avoid detection of their latest possibly harmful activities.


 * Personally, I have always sought confirmation before passing on private information/correspondence, stating who will be receiving it and why I feel it is necessary, even when I have submitted evidence privately to Arbcom. That will not change. I also feel that no arbitrator should ever make decisions that bind someone, based on evidence that only I have seen; I can understand if someone doesnt trust all of the committee, however a majority should agree with any conclusions, or at worst, one or two additional sets of eyes are needed.


 * John Vandenberg (chat) 15:36, 23 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 01:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply:
 * That statement is over-simplistic, and not really helpful to evaluate the Committee's role which is to deal with a wide array of the complex cases. It would be fantastic if "good times" came from their involvement, but the nature of the role means that people often end up walking away with bruises and/or scars.  Ideally this would not happen, and there is room for improvement; a greater appreciation of the parties needs and motivations will help.  Often parties focus on what is wrong and who is to blame, rather than telling the committee what they want achieved from the arbitration, and work together to define suitable methods of obtaining it.  In these cases, Arbcom should step in and tell the parties how to usefully participate if they want an amicable solution.
 * It is wonderful when people have a good time while editing, that is not Wikipedia's responsibility and Arbcom shouldn't be swayed by that. Having fun is the responsibility of each individual editor, and the community at large.  If you are not having fun in one area of Wikipedia, or you are lacking a sense of accomplishment due to edit wars, etc, do something else, or try a different approach.
 * See the comments at Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines/Workshop.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 01:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous arbcom cases

 * Questions regarding previous arbitration cases or clarification may be placed here.

Questions from Ncmvocalist
1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply:
 * ''I dont understand you query in regards to this being "distinct" from other cases. Please clarify you question if my answer does address what you had in mind.


 * I would not support a motion to vacate the case. If it needs fixing, it should be done.  If the people involved do not want a public mess in order to have it fixed, it can be done privately, with a final draft provided to the community for comment.
 * Blanking the case would have been acceptable to me, and I would have been quite flexible with the wording that accompanied the blanking, however I would not have supported any wording that undermined the validity of findings of fact that appeared to be well founded upon my review.
 * I dont feel it is beneficial for the committee to require that the user obtains arbcom permission to seek reconfirmation. Wherever possible the committee should empower the community to do the right thing, and let it make mistakes.  This was not an occasion for the committee to shackle the user to them.
 * So ... I would have opposed any motion that required the user come back to arbcom, and I would have proposed one or more motions that involved them seeking adminship via RFA in the regular fashion. Some of the optional clauses I would have suggested in alternative motions are:
 * a specified RFA threshold of 75% or 80%
 * the nomination must disclose the prior sysop account
 * the nomination must explain that the circumstances of the desysop.
 * the RFA should wait at least 12 months from the desysop.
 * If the user truly had no desire to seek their sysop tools again, I would have put forward a motion to strike (or remove?) the previous remedy and add a note to indicate that the person no longer wishes to be a sysop, so there is no further remedy required at this time.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 11:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

2. The community have, on occasions, found it difficult to have poorly written or handled ArbCom decisions reversed, even today. What mechanisms (if any) would you propose to remedy this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

3. One of the major concerns with certain past and current arbitrators is their failure to handle ArbCom tasks in a prompt or timely manner. What steps will you take to help move things along? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

4. (A) What is your stance on tendentious problem editing? (B) Why do you believe the community is, at times, passive in dealing with this issue? (C) If you are appointed as an ArbCom member, what steps (if any) will you take to help ensure this issue is actively dealt with by ArbCom? (D) What proposals would you make to deal with (or remedy) this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless to clarify anything above, I have no further questions for the candidate. Thank you for your time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Other

 * If you are not sure where your question belongs, drop it here, but it may be moved later on.

Questions from Al tally
<ol><li>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.</li></ol>
 * Reply:
 * As an aside, I was unanimously elected as a first successful Checkuser, alongside Pathoschild, by the English Wikisource community. There was a prior election also involving Pathoschild that did not obtain sufficient votes due to the size of the community at that time.


 * Also, your question isnt quite right, as there is a lot of variety in how the WMF wiki elect CU/OS even when they do have an Arbcom, and usually the method chosen has an elect of "tradition" to it. When revising our process, and it is definitely needed, we should undertake a review of the other methods, and adopt many of the good points.


 * As you will see from my candidate statement, and other answers, I strongly believe that the Arbitration Committee should be primarily focused on the job of arbitration, and that they should be pushing anything that can be public into the public. That holds true for the discussions, and the "power".


 * In order to overhaul this process rapidly, the following is rough basis of what I will be attempting to implement:
 * A set of core competencies are written up, probably drawing on the ones defined by the German Wikipedia, to define a good candidate.
 * Candidates submit their name either publicly or privately, and there is some initial discussion in the Committee.
 * Under each core competency, the committee members endorse or oppose, with a simple majority (or net four?) being all that would be required to have "passed" each competency. If the candidate has passed 2/3 or 3/4 of the core competencies, the nomination would proceed.
 * The election for OS/CU should be roughly similar to the elections for 'crat; maybe the threshold needs to be higher, or the process a bit different, but that is a community decision to make.
 * Finally, and this step can be removed if the above process works well, every sitting arb committee member has a final veto right that they can exercise if there are substantial issues that arise during the public election.
 * After six months, a review would be good, and further incremental improvements should then be the responsibility of the community. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

<li>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).</li></ol>
 * Reply:
 * The community should not overrule the committee; vote carefully! That said, the committee should not have their fingers in every pie.  The committee is there for when the community either cant settle on a solution, or there is community approval that a situation calls for the committee to take over.  As a result, the committees decision needs to be accepted, or appealed in an orderly fashion.  At this time I dont think we need a separate appeal process other than the amend/clarify/etc process, but it might be necessary to instigate a process and a separate review panel.
 * The community can choose to ban someone without need for the committee. The idea of community bans is a scary one - pitchforks and all that - however it happens all the time.  I dont have any experience with WP:CSN (which may support Dmc's statement that it was an insular group maintaining it), but the general idea was a good idea, perhaps poorly implemented or managed.  WP:RfBan is a good work in progress, as it re-inforces the WP:RFC process rather than duplicating it.

<li>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?</li></ol>
 * Reply:
 * Refer to my candidature statement, and reform objective "Fire the slackers and the lurkers and people whose term is up." in my reply to FT2's first question.
 * In addition I would like to say that I had to forcefully surrender my access/privs of being a clerk against the wishes of everyone who controlled those privs - and I still have access to the IRC channel - I made use of this once to inform them that there was a clerking task that needed doing immediately, as I didnt feel comfortable doing it. I would have been just as happy to find that my access had been removed, in which case I would have sent an email to their list.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

<li>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).</li></ol>
 * Reply:
 * Refer to, and.

Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Pixelface
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions: Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * 2) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * 3) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * 4) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * 5) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * 6) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * 7) Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
 * 8) Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
 * 9) Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * 10) Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * 11) Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?

Question from 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) 15:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply:
 * Interesting, but there are at least two problems.
 * You are missing a zeroth law, which would place the community above the individual - i.e. an admin sometimes needs to do an action which is not good for another Wikipedian, but is in the best interest of the community.
 * Inaction is permitted on Wikipedia, as we are not robots: we are volunteers. We are allowed to pass the buck, if we wish to, in a large range of scenarios.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 17:20, 28 November 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.
 * 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.)
 * b) Please outline your track record at choosing remedies that are effective, but not overly-excessive, in a sample of difficult cases.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * b) Please point out a matter where you were badly attacked, accused, or heavily provoked, but remained in line with "best practice" conduct, yourself.
 * 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.
 * 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.

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)

Question from Majorly
You've voted on every candidate, opposing most people, some who I believe will be successful, based on the current results. Do you think it's a good idea to oppose for no reason on your potential future colleagues? At this moment, you are looking to be successful, and opposing your fellow candidates really leaves a sour taste.  Majorly  talk  12:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply:
 * In this years election I voted in the exact same manner as I voted last year; before the election started I had committed myself to doing this. See my answer to Giggy at  and User:Jayvdb/AC votes.  Some of the people I opposed last year are candidates this year; I can't retract those opposes, can I?  I would hope all arbitrators are not influenced by such pesky things as this.  The community decides who is elected, and they choose them to resolve disputes - surely if there is a sour taste after this, a quick chat between them should sort it out.  If not, we elected people who cant resolve disputes.
 * It is common sense that all of the members of arbcom wouldn't support each other; some candidates are not voting at all in order to not make their preferences known, and some are only voting in support of a few but their abstains are just as telling.
 * I have openly ticked every box on the ballot sheet. "power voting" leaves nothing to the imagination - there is no question about why I have voted or not voted a specific way.  I have also given the voters a good idea of who I would pick, and can judge me accordingly for that as well if they feel it helps them.
 * Thank you for asking this,
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of the way this is run on percentages, opposing other candidates has essentially the same effect as voting for yourself - it reduces your opponents percentage rankings which can then push you up the rankings ladder. Sarah 08:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming a voter turnout of 400 (a low estimate), my "voting for myself" has an effect of 0.25%. I had not considered this.  If the election comes down to a margin of that percentage, I will give my seat to the next person. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It might have a null effect, however it still doesn't look very good to be opposing one's opponents in this sort of open, small community election. Especially right at the start where it can be seen to influence other people's decisions. I recall this also being raised as an issue for a certain candidate last year who picked up a number of opposes as a result and didn't end up being elected (although you and I both voted for them). Sarah 09:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My intention was to be open and forthright. I said I would vote for all candidates on day one, and I did. Those are my preferences; I voted as a member of this community in an unambiguous manner.  If I am not elected because of this, so be it.  Note that I selected seven candidates other than myself, rather than six.  While it was not obvious in the first few hours, I was aware that there would be a significant backlash from specific vocal groups that would push me out of this election.  As you can now see, my strong and early votes for candidates that I thought were right for the job were more important than what affect it might have on my own bid.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Should have beens"? Ouch. Sarah 12:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that Rebecca voted on all candidates according to her conscience on the first day, exactly like I did. If that is a fault, and the community is going to continue to see that as a fault, we had better write this rule down, because I think it is more tactical for candidates to not vote, as they are hiding what they believe, and many other good candidates will fall prey to thinking that they are allowed to vote.
 * Note that last year the comments on the talk suggested that Rebecca didnt do anything wrong, and people struck there oppose votes after they thought about it. It was also suggest that it be made into a rule.
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Rebecca
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 15:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may interject, I think this reaction to John's voting behavior is overly cynical. The "percentages" argument has been refuted as - at best - a nominal advantage. Frankly, I was unaware that running for ArbCom means that one surrenders their normal rights as a wiki editor. I get to vote, you get to vote, Johnny or Jane Anon (with more than 150 votes as of 11/01/08) get to vote; why is John excluded? It's a very cynical view that he cannot vote his conscience because it "looks bad". I reject this as a Style Over Substance" viewpoint. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I too want to interject. When I first read about John rejecting most candidates I though what? and it greatly influenced my decision. However now that I've looked into it more, I've realised I was misled. John may have voted against a majority of candidates but that's because he's decided to vote only on a top 7. Of those in the current top 7 excluding himself he has supported 5 and opposed 2, hardly indicative of a substanial disagreement with the community. The simple fact with the form of voting used here (dunno what it's called, it's similar to approval voting) candidates are free to support or oppose as many candidates as they want and for whatever reason. There is great room for tactical voting particularly given the instant tallies and there is a strong risk supporting a candidate who is acceptable would harm a candidate who is preferred Later-no-harm criterion. Many people have chosen only to vote only 7, some less. If John had opposed everyone or perhaps only supported those who weren't serious I would object but I see nothing wrong with the strategy John has chosen which appear to be supporting the 7 he approves most of all. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Slrubenstein

 * 1) In a recent ArbCom case, a project page was created with an unprotected talk page.  Later in the process, the talk was archived - in effect, the page was blanked - and the page protected, foreclosing any further discussion (see this discussion.  Looking towards the future, what policy would you propose concerning the purpose of talk pages, the protection of talk pages so as to prevent talk, or the blanking of talk pages by ArbCom?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * The layout and management of Arbcom pages should be decided by the community. The opinions of committee members on how to run these pages are likely to be more fine-tuned, because they spend more time working on these pages and know the needs, but the community can take that into account and add their own ideas, which can be just as insightful.
 * In this case, the problem was not the talk page, or the comments which were being placed there. That was a symptom.  The problem was that the issues were not being closed off, which meant that the community still had a lot to discuss.  More findings of fact were required, and still are required - these issues don't go away because they are told to.  The discussion spread from that one page to multiple user talk pages, which didnt help.
 * I dont see any need for talk pages to be protected - if a page is being obviously misused by a few, clerks and the community will push back. If they are being widely misused, the community will need to consider whether the policy needs to be changed.
 * See also: #rootology-AC-policy-maintenance
 * See also: #giggy-final-decision (ails of the SlimVirgin-Lar case)
 * See also: #Arbcom Reform Objective No. 1 (offloading responsibility and focusing on dispute resolution; this was part of my illfated initial statement)
 * 1) Do you find the word "troll" useful in describing a certain kind of problem at Wikipedia?  Is labeling a user a "troll" always a personal attack?  If the term is useful, how, in your experience, does one recognize a troll?  What is the appropriate response?  Does ArbCom have a role?
 * 2) ;Reply:
 * Words are our tools. They can be used wisely, or abused.  The word "troll" is rarely going to help matters, but if the label fits then couching a message to avoid the WP:BADWORD isnt going to help much either.  If there is a chance that the user will reform, a more gentle approach should be used.  Trolls are recognised by their low signal-to-noise ratio and a what the...? factor.  The repeat questions that most people of their skill level should already know; or stonewall discussions pleading ignorance.
 * The run of the mill variety troll, which have very little patience, will make a big spectacle of themselves very quickly, and should be blocked as soon as any administrator is pretty confident that they are not here for the encyclopedia. The block/unblock process is a social tool that helps admins work out what is going on.  It narrows the options down to one: the problem user needs to demonstrate that they are a useful member of our community.  They may need to go through a few denied unblocks before they realise they will remain blocked until they wake up and realise that we are a team building an encyclopedia, and not everyone is welcome - the ball is in their court.
 * Most other types of trolls do it for the feedback - they love feedback, so the most appropriate solution is to not give them the feedback they want; instead kill them with kindness giving them every available opportunity to work on the encyclopedia and, only when they have clearly demonstrated that they have no desire to focus on mainspace, initiate an RFC or ban them.
 * Arbcom does have a role here; sometimes the community cant decide a user should be banned. Trolls often buy themselves more times with a little good content - they are often cluey enough to know that the patience of the community is wearing thin.  The good content makes the disruption more acceptable.  The problem user might move around a bit to ensure they dont keep pissing off the same people.  Rather than have the problem user endlessly burn out editors who work around them, they should be taken to arbcom, where their contributions to the project, the good and the bad, can be assessed and the committee can provide reasonable remedies laying down a very narrow path that the user then needs to follow.  The good-at-heart user will follow that path; the troll will get bored and walk away or will fall off the path.
 * 1) Should WP:DE be made a policy?  Why/why not?
 * I've quickly scanned it, and I like it. I'm not comfortable saying it should be policy, because I would need to have a good look around at the other policies and guidelines, and the guidelines on policy formation, to determine whether it is needed as a "policy".  I might come back to this one when I have more time.
 * I hope you will, when you have more time - I hope you will consider suggesting concrete changes on its talk page, that you think could make it an effective policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Some people have claimed that a hierarchy, or hierarchies, of authority are developing at Wikipedia.  Do you agree?  If so, do you consider this a necessary feature of the community, or a problem for the community?  More specifically, in what ways do you see members of ArbCom as leaders or as servants of the community?
 * 2) ArbCom was originally formed to be the ultimate stage of resolving edit conflicts at articles.  Since then, its mission has expanded.  Do you believe it has expanded to reach the appropriate limit of its powers?  If you believe that its mission has not expanded enough, or has expanded too much, please provide specifics and explain how you would deal with this.
 * 3) ;Reply:
 * I believe that the Arbitration Committee has expanded its "mission" way beyond what it was instituted for. Before going into the meat of the question, it is worth pointing out that the committee doesnt have a "mission", nor does it have a vision for that matter.  It has a scope, and increasingly its scope includes whatever seems acceptable at the time.  Whenever there was a need for "authority" or "responsibility", they have taken it, and that is neither scalable nor desirable.
 * It is for this reason that I plan to get very active in each request, seeking to work with the parties to ensure that there is a clearly defined scope of each potential Arbcom case. Then the parties, clerks, community and the committee know what it is that is trying to be resolved.  Also the remedies should not be broad "community-moulding" exercises, which has turned WP:AE into a mini-arbcom.  They should focus on the specific dispute, understand what caused it, and pass remedies that resolve the dispute and prevent those who caused it from repeating the same dispute.
 * Also, there are many tasks that the committee has taken on without looking for other alternatives. For example they have accepted the responsibility to appoint Checkusers and Oversighters, and we are woefully badly staffed in both of those departments.  They have also "decided" that they would be the chiefs of IRC.  It is too easy for the committee to accept these responsibilities, as it means they dont have to think about structural improvements, and they can promise a solution because they are then responsible.  However even when the committee does do a good job with these auxiliary tasks, they overburden themselves and reduced the role of the community.  We need to rethink think these auxiliary tasks and responsibilities, especially looking to the other projects which have not had a "Jimbo" and godlike arbcom.
 * See also: (CU and OS should be an open community based decision)
 * See also: #Arbcom Reform Objective No. 3 (require a clear scope for each case; initial statement)
 * See also: (remedies should be "user X is ..")
 * See also: #Arbcom Reform Objective No. 1 (offloading responsibility and focusing on dispute resolution; initial statement)

Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Mattisse
This will seem like a silly question. Every time I go to "Support" you, I see the quote you have at the top of your voting page about being a "cold-blooded revolutionary", and I stop dead in my tracks. Each time it hits me again. What was the message you are meaning to send by having that quotation there? (The fact that you voted against opponents does not bother me, as you clearly stated in advance that you would do so. I admire that boldness and honesty.) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you find that quote arresting. ;-)
 * I thought I had explained the quote in more detail elsewhere, but I cant find it...


 * Reply:
 * The quote is a quite literal explanation of a life changing even in the life of Hunter S. Thompson - he went to a political event as a journalist, and while he was wearing a press pass the police brutally assaulted him (I dont have the book on me as I am on a remote client site at the moment, so I will accept corrections) - this was an eye opener for him, and he became very political and he worked very hard with the tools he had to fix the problems that he saw in government and politics.
 * I "grew up" here on English Wikipedia, however over the course of 2007 I feel in love with Wikisource, a project which I feel will be of enormous importance for Wikipedia as we move forward. After my RFA nomination here, I self-nom'd for adminship on Wikisource, and I have always been very emotive and "political" over on Wikisource, pushing for change and growth.  As I was otherwise preoccupied with Wikisource, I didnt have the reason/opportunity to "get political" here on English Wikipedia.  I was up to 25,000 edits before RFA, and except for a few exceptionally stupid episodes, admins seemed to stay out of my way, so it wasnt a big deal.  My personal plan for 2007 was to put most of my energy into Wikisource, and when the opportunity to do some En.Wp Arbcom clerking came along, it seemed like a good idea -- I was going to be highly accessible and ever present, but I had no political investment in the English Wikipedia project and barely knew anyone here.  i.e. my lack of "involvement" could be a benefit to Wikipedia.  Also, at the time I was thinking that eventually Wikisource will grow up and have the same problems that English Wikipedia already had encountered, so I wanted to learn about them here to help avoid them reoccur on Wikisource, or at least be prepared for them.  I signed up as a "clerk" to learn about arbitration, in order to use the experience over on Wikisource when the need arose.  I was "journalist".
 * The first six months of clerking was largely uneventful, and I didnt really question the decisions being made by the committee members, because a whole lot of discussion goes on behind close doors and, at the end of the day, decisions need to be made even if they don't appear logical. There were a few times when I thought the process was falling apart, and I personally came under fire for my involvement as a clerk of the Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin "process".  But in the whole, I left the arbs to it, and sat back and just did the clerking without being a respecter of persons.
 * In mid July my clerking involved me blocking a long term Wikipedian, for one day, due to a very unsavoury comment on an RFAR talk page whilst he was under a specific agreement with an Arbitrator to be civil on those page. As a result a different arbitrator asked me to resign as a clerk, accusing me of being political and involved.  I was shocked and annoyed, but most of all I was dismayed because I knew then that all was not well.  Emails and talk messages flowed in, and lots of ideas were germinated.  There were many other problems that unfolded as a sequence of my block - it was a catalyst.
 * I spent the next two days desperately reading through my collection of Thomson books to find the quote. It summarised how I felt.  I found it and added it to Wikiquote.  Since then I have been getting involved in "meta" discussions on foundation-l, talking to Wikipedians from other language projects, trying to help at RFAR, working closely with senior Wikipedians here, etc.  Lots of listening; lots of being a sounding board. And the more I listened, the more I realised that a revolution of the arbitration committee is needed.  I am not interested in merely fixing a specific type of problem that comes to arbcom; I am not just wanting to help anyone who comes to arbcom looking for help; I just want the committee to be an honourable institution that is lauded for its good execution of an understandable process.  If the community is going to own and improve the arbitration process, and keep the committee limited in its powers, more transparency is needed, and then everyone can get a better grasp of the roadblocks and timesinks, and find better solutions.


 * See also: (about the block)
 * See also: User_talk:Jayvdb (follow up discussion)