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



Individual questions

 * Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.
 * ''Please add questions at the bottom of this section.

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?


 * It was helpful because much of the evidence was related. It was not helpful because processing took too long. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * ArbCom should have two sets of concerns: making the right decision, and being perceived as making the right decision. These are not always the same.  If an Arbiter can be impartial, but a significant portion of the community will doubt them, then they should consider whether recusing might be a good idea. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?


 * ArbCom is just fifteen people. They do not have a private army to enforce their decisions. Therefore, they are subject to community control, no matter what they or policy says.  Therefore, it makes sense for the Committee to give the community a voice in how they do their work, subject to the overriding policies established by the Foundation (e.g. Privacy policy) which the community cannot directly change. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.


 * I think we have our traditions and that we can continue to follow them. Jimmy Wales is just one man.  He cannot go against the entire community, no matter what powers he reserves for himself. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?


 * No. The Arbiters need community trust.  Without trust, they cannot be effective. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Be nice to people. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 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.


 * D + A. The others are sources of information and advice, but are not control parties.  The Foundation is relevant for basic policies.  The Community is relevant for everything else. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology ( C )( T ) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rootology. I have answered above inline style. Jehochman Talk 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from FT2
These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged.

1. There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?

2. 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?

3. 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?

4. 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?

5. 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"?

6. 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.)

7. 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?

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 01:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Answers:

1. ArbCom has a difficult job and our community is big. Keeping a large group of people happy takes skills. Most members of the committee do not have much marketing experience. I think I may be able to help improve communications between the Committee and the Community. To improve ArbCom's failures to communicate effectively, I recommend replacing the outgoing arbitrators with those who will answer questions directly. I'd also like to add help desk software to the ArbCom mailing list to track inbound requests and make sure that an answer is sent to each and every inquiry. It is unacceptable that community members ask questions to ArbCom and do not get answers.

ArbCom does a good job deciding non-political cases. In my experience, cases about behavior surrounding content disputes or admin conduct are resolved correctly, such as Requests for arbitration/COFS and Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Cases brought as part of wikipolitical battles tend to be handled less well. The cure for those cases is for ArbCom to investigate and provide a bright light to illuminate the facts. After that, the community should be able to resolve matters. I also favor giving the community more power to resolve political cases, including the implementation of a community desysop process. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

2. I think that ex-Arbs and Jimbo are very involved in daily discussions, especially with regard to controversial matters where they may have relevant experience.

3. a) Being universally popular is not important to me.  Doing the right thing is most important.  Then I will try to explain what I have done, to the best of my ability and with appropriate respect to privacy concerns.

3. b) Wikipedia makes public much more information about the management of its site than any other top ten website.  Even though we are very open, we can still function.  I think the value of transparency is high and I would tend towards releasing more info than less regarding concerns about WP:BEANS.  Where personal privacy is involved, a very good answer is to rely on the truth, "We'd like to tell you, but we can't because of privacy concerns."  This may also be helped by having trusted parties outside the committee review such decisions and publicly confirm the explanation.

4. My chance of survival is good. I have never quit Wikipedia, nor even taken an announced wikibreak. I have been through several highly stressful situations here and not cracked up.

5. WP:SOFIXIT. If an arbitrator or any other editor sees poorly documented policies, they should take steps to improve the documentation. ArbCom should state clearly if they perceive policies to be lacking and ask the community to fix them. When in doubt, a sincere statement is always a good answer. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

6. My personal agenda will be improving the Community's trust in the Committee.

7. I have not lorded my administrator access over other editors, and I will not consider myself special if I become an arbitrator. However, when an arbitrator takes actions people may draw conclusions that could be unfounded. Extra communication and disclaimers may be needed to ensure that people do not get the wrong impressions.

Thanks, Jehochman Talk 01:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * More details sought, and also, a couple of these (eg 5 and possibly 1) don't actually answer the question asked. FT2 (Talk 16:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I intend to divide my available time equitably between all the questioners, adding details as time allows, and avoiding duplication whenever possible. I value parsimony, and I believe that voters do not wish to read lengthy answers. I believe they want direct answers that go to the heart of the matters.  You mentioned 1. and 5. as not being responsive.  I have looked at them again and reinforced my answers, and I will continue thinking about and possibly expanding the others as time allows.  Jehochman Talk 16:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Gnangarra
What actions would you recommend to users who have; to re-establish their standing with community. Gnangarra 13:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) been sanctioned by ARBCOM
 * 2) community banned or
 * 3) long term block

Good question! Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) No socking or gaming your restrictions.
 * 2) Think about what went wrong and provide a full explanation showing that you understand the reasons for the sanctions.
 * 3) Explain what productive things you plan to do at Wikipedia and then ask to be unsanctioned, unbanned or unblocked after a reasonable length of time.

Questions from Darth Panda
As you've said, you issue many indefinite blocks. Can you explain why you lean toward indefinite blocks? Do you ever think that the measures that you have gone to are too extreme? If so, explain why you went ahead with the indefinite block anyways. If not, explain why you feel your views are correct. Thanks. D ARTH P ANDA duel 16:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Thank you for the question. Jehochman Talk 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In situations where others might place a short block, I often prefer a warning. I sometimes do issue short blocks if they are appropriate.
 * I do not normally patrol WP:AN3 or WP:AIV where shorter blocks are routine. At WP:SSP and WP:RFCU we tend to issue a lot more indefinite blocks.  With incidents of severe harassment or outing, indefinite blocks are also the norm.
 * My blocks have consistently withstood review. Virtually none have been overturned.
 * When editors show a willingness to return, I am lenient about unblocking them.


 * Thanks for your answer. I wish you the best of luck! D ARTH P ANDA duel 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Sam Blacketer
I would like to ask a few questions, partly about events connected with the block of Mathsci on 17 October.

Q1: Why was your first concern to ask Charles Matthews how he found out about Mathsci's harassment? Why was that followed by a second question along the same lines when inappropriate user subpages were deleted?


 * I was interested in knowing if Charles was patrolling the area, checking on the user due to other concerns, or acting on the suggestion of third parties. Asking how a party became aware of a situation may reveal additional circumstances that should be considered.  Charles answered my questions privately, and that helped me gain a much better understanding of the situation.

Q2: Did your comment that Slrubenstein's unblock was completely routine take into account the fact that he had not actually discussed the matter with the blocking admin, but simply informed him of what he was doing? In what circumstances is it legitimate to equate discussion with notification?


 * At that time I was conflating Slrubenstein with Sandstein which is why I said completely routine. Sandstein frequently patrols CAT:UNB.  Charles helped me recognize this misunderstanding, at which point my view of the situation changed considerably because I realized that Slrubenstein was probably not conducting a routine patrol.  See my answer to Q1.  How people find out about things is often very relevant information.  The rest of your question is not meaningful because my comment was based on a misunderstanding of the situation.  Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to ask questions and discuss things, rather than immediately process the unblock request.

Q3: The implication of this edit is that you believe administrators may not take action against a mentored user without discussing with the mentors. Is that your position, and how do you justify it by reference to established policies and behaviour? Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, your assumption is not correct. It is good practice for admins to contact the mentors if there is a concern about mentorees, but mentors do not "own" mentorees. When multiple admins are involved in the same situation, it is good for them to communicate with each other to avoid sending mixed signals.  Additionally, given Elonka's history of conflict with ScienceApologist, her involvement in his affairs was likely to produce adverse results.  Elonka subsequently placed a controversial topic ban on SA, which lead to SA engaging in apparent retaliation, as noted by User:Newyorkbrad.

Sam, you seem to have some misunderstandings about my activities at Wikipedia. Perhaps we could chat on IRC or Skype some time to help clear up concerns, or feel free to ask more questions. Jehochman Talk 00:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Jim Butler
Hi Jehochman, one question: do you believe that your topic-ban of Art Carlson earlier this year was a mistake? Why or why not? What did you learn from the episode? Further archived commentary may be found here. regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On 2 Feb 2008 I placed a one week topic ban on Art Carlson. I thought he was being disruptive on homeopathy, an article that had been subject to very intense edit warring and disruption and which was under community article probation. After you and several other editors involved in the dispute objected to the topic ban, and presented explanations, I took a second look.  Art had not caused any disruption after the ban was placed a day earlier, so I decided to unban him, per assume good faith.  You said, Cool... really glad you did that. all best.  What I learned was that rational discussion is the way to deal with other editors.  When confronted with different points of view, one must listen.  A healthy dose of WP:AGF is also useful.


 * Since February 2008, I have gained experience in dealing with editors who might be disruptive. Presented with that same situation today, I'd probably talk to the editor before taking any action in order to see how they responded to my concerns.  Keep in mind that no editor, administrator, or arbitrator is correct 100% of the time. One difference you will find is that some people are willing to listen and correct their mistakes (or doubtful actions), while others will provide rationalizations and dig in their heels.

Thanks for the question. Jehochman Talk 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. At the time I felt that you did the right thing by un-banning, but that you also rationalized it.  As the links in my comment above show, no way on earth was Art's conduct disruptive; he made a couple of edits (in something like a week!) that represented a defensible, if minority view.  IMO, you were trigger-happy, trying to send a message that admins were around and POV-pushers better shape up, and then tried to hide behind the false excuse that Art was disruptive.  I am sort of encouraged by your workmanlike response here, but given your vagueness, I can't escape the sense that your general M.O. is to operate at a sort of bureaucratic level and that you don't really have the capacity to step back and grasp the bigger picture .  No offense.  Well, good luck, and happy editing, or admining, or whatever rocks your boat. --Jim Butler (t) 03:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I believe the problem with my action is that I did get a broad enough view of Art's activities before taking action. (My perception that he was being disruptive was based on too narrow a review.) This is something I have learned to do more completely over the last nine months or so.  Before blocking or sanctioning any editor, I normally look at their recent contributions, earliest contributions, and a sampling of contributions in between.  This is a good way to get a better understanding of what sort of response might be required. Jehochman Talk 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for clarifying. That puts my mind at ease.  This issue was really the only concern I had about your candidacy (and obvously it was pretty important to me), but it's cool:  it sounds like you understand my concerns, and anyone can err; what's important is to learn and move on in a better light, as you have.  I struck my comments above that were overly grouchy and, I now realize, based on a misunderstanding of what you meant.  You seem like a patient person, even-tempered, highly computer-literate, and obviously committed to helping WP (cf. lots of time put in helping other editors, including a few who would test the patience of a saint) .  You've also shown the capacity to grow as an editor/admin, and are willing to take on a pretty thankless task, so ... I think that suffices; you've got my vote.  Good luck to you, Jehochman.... and my sympathies if you're elected! ;-)  --Jim Butler (t) 07:50, 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)


 * I've done some editing in science articles, and I do not approach them differently from other articles. The prevailing view in reliable sources is a good way to determine how to present a scientific topic.  I consider Physics Today as a reliable source, for example. I think the difference between SPOV and NPOV is that we would identify and explain notable fringe theories and then state that they are rejected by the scientific community, whereas a scientific journal would not mention such theories at all.  I think it is a good idea for people who have about something notable in pop culture, such as cold fusion, to be able to look up the article in Wikipedia and get an understanding of the history, what the proponents are saying, and what the scientific community thinks.  Jehochman Talk 03:34, 21 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)


 * 1) Flexibility:
 * a) Here's an example of how I handled a WP:BLP dispute at Sonal Shah that was pointed out to me by User:Rlevse.  He asked for my help after checkuser on several accounts that looked like sock or meat puppets turned up negative results: Talk:Sonal_Shah, and subsequent sections.   A variety of different responses were employed with different users who disagreed with me.  I did everything from backing down to blocking, depending on the user and the circumstance.  One account was blocked for bad behavior, several warnings were given, and I called for help at WP:BLPN to get experienced editors involved.  The problem has since resolved.
 * b) One example would be User:Einsteindonut.   I started with warnings and friendly advice:   There were then friendly conversations on my talk page and via email as I tried to steer the user towards a more productive path.  Regrettably, my advice did not take hold, and the user was blocked by another administrator.  I had to protect their talk page to prevent abuse.   Finally, they had exhausted community patience, I blocked them for one year.  Another example would be my approach at Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph where I attempted to mediate between the parties.  When that reached an impasse, I requested arbitration to finally resolve the matter.  Zeraeph was banned from Wikipedia.
 * c) I indefinitely blocked user A (who I'd rather not name) because they were causing major amounts of disruption, even though they were not malicious. I recruited several potential mentors, and when one was selected, I unblocked A and they are now happily editing. They thanked me for my involvement.  Jehochman Talk 20:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * d) Here are two: 1/ Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII.  I eventually brought User:Slrubenstein and User:Charles Matthews to the point where they agreed on common principals and the conflict ended.  2/ When User:Majorly was summoned to arbitration, I examined the evidence against him, and explained nicely that he should resign his sysop tools, and he did.  I believe that in both situations my involvement helped resolve these disputes while conserving valuable arbitration resources.  Whenever a case can be avoided by agreement between the parties, that is a big victory. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Conduct under pressure:
 * a)  In particular, Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph was a very nasty dispute that I brought to arbitration. I got blasted (by a friend, who I do not want to single out) for bringing unwilling participants to arbitration.  There was a serious disruption and something had to be done.  Disputes are now owned by the participants.  If they spill over to disrupting Wikipedia, we need to take necessary measures to restore a productive working environment for our volunteers.  I was also criticized heavily for bringing  Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance.  That was a situation where major damage was being done to Wikipedia and arbitration was the best way to stop it.
 * b) There was a private matter involving severe harassment and outing of an administrator where I intervened, and despite intense personal attacks and hair raising threats, I managed to defuse the problem.  You'll have to email me for the details.  User:Jimbo Wales and User:Mike Godwin were involved too.
 * c) Attempts at diversion happen almost constantly when dealing with tendentious editors.  I can be quite goal oriented and have no problem focusing on the task at hand when people start pulling red herrings across my path. Requests for arbitration/COFS contains a few examples.  You could also look through Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and the subsequent appeals, including the one that is currently active at WP:RFAR to see my style. Jehochman Talk 20:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * d) I set up the community article probation at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation.  You can see the results on that page.  I was also involved with resolving terrible conflicts at Waterboarding that ended up at Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding, and finally turned into a community ban of a tenacious sock puppeteer.

I may revise the answers soon to provide more details. Jehochman Talk 08:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do. In these I have asked for cited examples to show what you do do -- not descriptions of what you think you would "prefer" to do, or "believe" you do. Its an important difference.
 * 1a to 1c are the latter, which is not helpful in the context. 1d and 2d are much more the style of information I'm looking for. FT2 (Talk 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've pulled out some cases to provide similar style information for the other questions. Jehochman Talk 06:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from AGK
These issues have been a niggle for a while now. Rather than cast an uncertain vote, I'm going to be straight with you and communicate my precise worries with your candidacy. I'd be very interested in your responses.


 * 1) I find your post and the comments by Elonka at User talk:Elonka/ACE2008 to be highly pertinent to the analysis of your candidacy multiple editors will no doubt be conducting between now and voting time. Elonka raises some good points, including this diff. Those are serious claims, and you haven't responded to her as yet. Therefore, could I request that, as a candidate, you comment on this page on the points raised in Elonka's rebuttal?
 * 2) Concerns have been expressed by some editors that you are more "political" than most. (By "political" I do of course use the definition used on Wikipedia.) The role of an Administrator or Arbitrator demands fairness and neutrality, not boardroom politics so that would be a worry. I find the following two points, by extention, to be germane—as above—to any voter's evaluation of your candidacy.
 * a) Whether you have ever acted "politically" with other editors or taken action based on "politics"?
 * b) Would you categorise any of the quarells or disputes you have been involved in—including those with Elonka—as "political" or "politically motivated"?

Thanks for any insight you can offer through your responses. AGK 13:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I responded once to the personal attacks placed by Elonka, and another administrator has admonished Elonka for those attacks. I am not interested in setting off a conflict with Elonka, so let's leave it at that.  If she has current concerns about me, dispute resolution is available.  She did use dispute resolution in the past.  If she raises old issues now, during the election, one must wonder whether her goal is to solve a problem, or something else.


 * a) I take actions based on the merits.  If you look around you will notice that I frequently will oppose my wikifriends if I disagree with them.  You can see me disagreeing with User:Akhilleus at Talk:Waterboarding (in early 2008).  You can see me disagreeing with User:Durova quite often.  You can find places where I have disagreed with you.  In short, you will not find me habitually agreeing with anyone.  You can also find many instances where I have agreed with those I may have had conflicts with.  At Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII, I agreed with both Elonka and Charles Matthews (whom I have had disagreements with in the past).  Claims of me being political are rumors started by those who like to play politics.


 * b) Elonka and I used to be on good terms, and I hope we will be again some day.  From my perspective, our relations became very strained when I filed Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, which she had asked me not to do.  For a time I had sincere concerns about her approach to administration, which are on the record.  Recently those concerns seem to have been addressed.  I see no reason with further conflicts with her.


 * As for others, I have gone on record opposing User:SlimVirgin's use to tools to revert another administrator. I don't see how that is political.  It's a clear matter of policy.  Can you provide any other specific examples of so-called political actions that I might be able to explain them? Jehochman Talk 15:09, 30 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) 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * I don't know. Enough to handle the work, and not so many as to slow it down excessively.
 * 1) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * Two years.
 * 1) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * I generally try to let them have peace on their talk pages. Keep case discussion on case pages.
 * 1) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * Yes. Bad edits can be fixed.
 * 1) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * Yes. They are also editors.
 * 1) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * I dislike that idea.
 * 1) Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
 * I support our notability guideline as it exists. If a topic has not had serious coverage, it is not possible to write a quality article about it.
 * 1) Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
 * There is no conflict. Incorrect or unstructured or unbalanced info is not knowledge.
 * 1) Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * I think this is a behavioral issue. Whether I'd vote to accept depends on the specific facts. I will not opine on future cases here.
 * 1) Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * This is a behavioral dispute. The block flip flopping is a bad sign, as is requesting review of a block after the fact.
 * 1) Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?
 * No to all three propositions. People have jobs and investments. If they are not violating content policies, let them be. Jehochman Talk 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

General questions

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

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


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

Questions from Giggy
Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.
 * 1) a/s/l?
 * 40/M/Connecticut, USA
 * 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.
 * Those suffering Adminitis need to edit articles so they remember what the project is for. Those editing articles need to appreciate that the community would not continue to function without organizational and administrative functions. We are on the same team; we should not create false divisions among editors.
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * Useful edits should not be reverted unless there is doubt about whether they might contain non-obvious problems such as subtle vandalism. Edits are not owned by the editor.  If this is contrary to policy, WP:IAR is relevant.
 * 1) Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.
 * I am not going to make additional comments at this time on the specifics of matters that might appear before the committee again. I have made extensive comments on some of our high profile cases. You can see where I have disagreed and what I thought should be done.  For instance, see Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland.
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * See these pages: Search engine optimization, Gamma ray burst, German submarine U-853, Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding, Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph. The first three are articles I helped write.  These were challenging topics to cover well.  SEO had problems with source reliability because most of the good information is available on websites and blogs.  Nevertheless, it became a featured article.  Gamma ray burst was difficult because I am not an astrophysicist.  It is now a good article.  U-853 was my first serious attempt at a military history article.  The good article review identified severe flaws, but I patched it within a week.  The last two links were extremely difficult disputes that I helped to resolve through arbitration. Jehochman Talk 22:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * Yes. Everyone should vote, including candidates. I will support those I feel would do the best job, but I probably won't be opposing anybody.

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 12:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Sarcasticidealist
I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.
 * 1) To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
 * See my answer at . Policy is documentation, not law.
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * See my answer at . There are pros and cons.
 * 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?
 * Vote carefully. Administrators open to recall has proven to be highly controversial.  When you really need to use that process, there is a good chance it will break down.  I'd be happier if the process were eliminated because it is not enforceable.  My own regard criteria are published at User:Jehochman/Dispute resolution.

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

Thank you. This page is already quite long so instead of repeating answers, I have linked. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Celarnor

 * 1) What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
 * I think it is a very bad idea to issue a remedy on a specified user without hearing their side of the story. General sanctions may be issued in an area of the encyclopedia when needed.  Normally there is a requirement that editors are put on notice before they can be sanctioned under a general sanction.


 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * Being on the Committee should not be anything special. Members should have the same obligations as other sysops and editors.  There are written obligations, such as maintaining privacy.  Unwritten customs include not commenting elsewhere on cases that may come before the committee as such comments may be prejudicial.

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from LessHeard vanU
This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction.
 * 1) Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am on record suggesting that ArbCom should consider cases where an sysop has lost the trust of the community through dodgy use of tools or sysop status. I think we should use the standard "has shown a pattern of poor judgment in use of tools".  We need to be careful to avoid gaming of the rules.  For that reason, cases should not be accepted unless there is a reasonable basis.  As to whether I would be more willing to accept cases, it really depends on the specific case.  My general approach here is to be strict but fair.

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

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * About 20. I am a business owner.  My work involves sitting by the phone so I am accessible to clients.  My calendar has many bits of unscheduled time which I use for editing Wikipedia.

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from WilyD

 * 1) During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally).  While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:
 * Is it appropriate for an admin 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?
 * 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?

Answers:

1. Admins are allowed to block other admins over regular editing concerns. However, I think this is an extremely poor idea and would never knowingly do so myself. Such action will lead to controversy and may trigger a wheel war. Admins are expected to have a high level of clue. If they do something wrong I would issue a warning and if that warning were ignored, I would escalate to the administrators noticeboard for outside opinions, and then perhaps start a requests for comment or even file a request for arbitration.

2. No, admins may not block each other over inappropriate use of sysop access. Sanctions could include removal of sysop access, depending on the facts of a particular case. I have first hand experience. User:Archtransit blocked me ostensibly for a bad block I had placed. They received a lot of [Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit| criticism] for that, and were desysopped about a month later.

Questions from PhilKnight

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

Answers:

1. I am not going to prejudge any situations during this campaign, so you will be disappointed with my answer. As I have stated elsewhere, it is important for the Committee to improve its reputation. Arbitrators can help that cause by recusing from any situation where their impartiality would be called into question.

2. The admin should be told to pull their head out of the sand and look at the facts of the dispute. Normally when somebody makes a statement about another editor, I would ask them to refactor for civility and provide diffs as evidence. Jumping straight to a block is probably not a good idea unless the attack is egregious and obviously unsupported by evidence. If somebody makes a racist remark, there is a polite way to call them out.

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?


 * If an admin is using sock puppet accounts to vandalize Wikipedia they should be treated as any other editor in the same situation. If the vandalism were humorous rather than destructive, leniency might be appropriate.  It might have been a better idea to ask the administrator to explain the observed circumstances, but I'd rather know more before taking a position.

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.


 * (c) As long as there is a basis for a check, it may be run. The Checkuser policy, unlike administrative policy, does not require recusal from areas of editorial involvement.  If evidence of sock puppetry were found, it would be wise to ask a second checkuser to confirm the results and implement any necessary blocks.

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


 * This sounds a lot like gaming the rules. Why wouldn't Smith just continue with Smyth if they merely wanted to edit peacefully without harassing Jones?  Once the "don't ask, don't tell" pact has been broken, I think it becomes necessary to block Smyth.

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?


 * Having to take a public position and provide justification may help clarify the thinking of the arbitrators.  Why bother with voting at all if every decision will be made in advance behind closed doors?  I think the two positions should be advanced publicly, and after due consideration a compromise can be put forward if the two proposals have deadlocked.

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


 * I think it is unreasonable for every arbitrator to be involved in every matter. Arbitrators should continue content editing to avoid losing touch with the Community.  If I have to miss something, and I don't agree with the result, I have to accept it.  We don't always get what we want.

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


 * I have disclosed my information (Jonathan E. Hochman, http://www.HochmanConsultants.com/), even though some have counseled me not to do so. My experience with being an "out" editor has generally been positive.  Most trolls and disruptive editors now find me to be quite boring.  It did take a while for me to learn how to deal with the occasional difficulties that arise from being identified, but I feel like I have a good handle on it now.

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).


 * Yes for (A)-(E). For (F), I believe that ArbCom should designate Checkusers for requests at WP:RFCU or those otherwise not connected with an arbitration case.  Arbitrators have enough things to keep them busy without looking for additional work.  Delegation is an important management skill.  For (G), I would be willing to help work on processes and policies related to ArbCom, Checkuser and Oversight.  I am already active in outreach on behalf of Wikipedia to the broader Web community.  For instance, I presented at the Web 2.0 Summit on the topic "Defending Wikipedia". (slides) I think outreach is a useful activity for ArbCom members.

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?


 * Current policy is very incomplete. The NYB version is much better because it includes most of the common sense understandings that currently exist.  The FT2 version is even better because it explains interactions with other policies and clarifies a few areas.  I am not keen to lengthen this policy as people tend not to read nor understand lengthy documentation.

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.


 * This is probably because I have not succeeded in starting any cases for nearly a year. As a frequent "customer" of the Committee, my impression is that lengthy cases and a few badly handled cases (e.g. Requests for arbitration/Durova and Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman) have provided a strong incentive for editors to resolve their disputes short of arbitration.  Let's not mislead people; arbitration has often been very unpleasant for the participants.  I think we should try to reduce the pains and stresses.

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?

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?

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)

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?

Answers:

1. I would not do such a thing, so I have no answer to this question.

2. Definitely not. I am opposed to monarchy or oligarchy.

3. IRC should either be separate from the English Wikipedia and not be subject to ArbCom, or it should come fully within the remit of the Committee.

4. I have not made any campaign promises. More rules and processes are not the answer. Rather, we need more clue and better judgment. You can help by choosing the best candidates.

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * 2) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 3) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * 4) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * 5) a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
 * 6) An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * 7) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * 8) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * 9) (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

1. I'd hope that cases don't routinely take three months.

2. WikiProjects facilitate collaboration within a particular group of articles. I do not think they can create policy. However, a discussion at a WikiProject page could establish a consensus. Consensus can change, especially if there is a new discussion elsewhere.

3. WikiProjects have no right to create rules. They are a means of coordinating activity. They may host a discussion that leads to a consensus.

4. Canvassing has a specific definition that looks at distribution and neutrality of a message. Newsletters or IRC could be used for canvassing, but not all messages sent through such media would qualify.

5. Judgment is required to distinguish vandalism from inept editing. It is generally a good idea to assume good faith whenever there is any indication that the editors is making an earnest attempt at improving a page.

6. If an editor is causing serious disruption, they can be blocked after sufficient warnings. It does not matter if the disruption is intentional or unintentional. Our administrators do not have the ability to know for sure what thoughts are going through somebody's mind.

7. Same as above.

8. A community ban usually happens when an editor has used up more than their fair share of community time. Each case needs to be examined on the merits.

9. Since I have been here, Wikipedia has lost some of its civility and has seen the growth of formalism and bureaucracy. We need to look at the merits of each situation, rather than pretending to be robots applying rules. We also need to try harder to be nice to each other.

Questions from Maxim

 * 1) What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
 * 2) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * 3) What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?

Answers: 1. Wheel warring is redoing a sysop action that has already been undone. In addition, it is also wrong to do a sysop action that you know will be controversial without prior discussion and consensus.

2. I proposed a community desysop process that gained substantial support, though not enough to become policy.

3. Using bots to perform non-controversial housekeeping that requires admin access (such as deleting redirects that point to deleted pages) is a good idea. Whoever operates an unapproved adminbot should either be warned or lose sysop access, depending on the circumstances. High speed admin tools may be useful if they are not controversial and are not creating the risk of errors that could impact users. For instance, Checkusers now have a bulk blocking tool that can block and tag a large number of sock puppet accounts at the same time. This tool has had some problems because it did not always function correctly. Any such tool needs to be thoroughly debugged before use.

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 12:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Davewild

 * 1) Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?

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

1. I think a two year term would be better. We have seen many arbitrators burn out at the two year mark. The way to implement this is to explain the rationale to all concerned parties, including the Community, and get a consensus.

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 12:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?

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


 * 2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?

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

Answer:


 * I need to craft my own statements. You can fit these to the proposals to see how I would vote.


 * A. I do not think that civility can be legislated by creating long lists of rules which invite gaming. Users should be nice to each other online, the same as if they met in person. Behind every account there is a real person with feelings.  Respect and try to help each other is the right way to act.


 * B. I do not support blocking for incivility, unless it rises to the level of personal attacks or harassment that would discourage another contributor from participating. For low level incivility, the most helpful response is to point out problems and ask the editor to reconsider their tone. Civility restrictions do not make sense in this context. I think we need to create a new formulation that recognizes the correct threshold for action. Jehochman Talk 05:51, 13 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)?


 * That would depend on why the other person was passed over. If Jimbo provided a good rationale, that would be one thing.  If he was being capricious, I don't think I would accept. Jehochman Talk 05:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * Answers:
 * a) I believe that marginally notable individuals should be able to opt out. Why shouldn't we be respectful to people when we have the opportunity?
 * b) AfD discussions can be tumultuous. I think defaulting to delete on BLPs is a good idea, because borderline biographies are too easy to manipulate, which may result in unreasonable harm to a living person. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * Answers:
 * a) Question one is a policy question that should be resolved by the Community, unless the Wikimedia Foundation provides specific guidance to the contrary.
 * b) ArbCom has the ability to enact whatever measures are necessary to protect the project from harm. If BLPs have caused serious disruptions or other problems, the Committee can take whatever action is necessary to protect the project.  If BLP problems are risking legal problems for WMF, I think ArbCom can and should act to prevent trouble.  Past actions seem to have had a reasonable basis, or an arguably reasonable basis.
 * c) I would want somebody to present a coherent argument with evidence that a better approach is possible. To date, I am not aware of any such arguments. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
 * Answer:
 * The number of articles continues to increase, but the number of editors has plateaued. The challenge we face is that ratio of editors to articles is decreasing, making it easier for abuse to occur and go uncorrected. We may need to change our methods of patrolling the encyclopedia and resolving conflicts.  Consensus only works where there are a reasonable number of uninvolved participants.  I have seen a number of conflicts, such as the one at Hemshin peoples where resolution is difficult because there are hardly any uninvolved editors taking an interest.
 * Another problem I see is that as the project has grown, some of our central noticeboards have turned into circuses. Some of our top content editors avoid these noticeboards.  I have been heavily involved at WP:ANI, trying to promote the orderly resolution of cases, but sometimes it feels like a losing battle.  Perhaps we should try to break up some of our larger noticeboards in order to promote orderly discussions. These are my personal opinion.  ArbCom does not dictate such things. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?
 * These are potentially better technical solutions, such as controlling our feeds to the search engines so that we do not export vandalized versions. This does not need to impact users. I do not have strong feelings about sighted revisions, and I do not think this is a matter for ArbCom to decide.  Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * 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?
 * 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)
 * 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?
 * 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)
 * Answers:
 * a) In an ideal world all editors would feel comfortable identifying themselves. As a practical matter, many editors are concerned about real life complications from what they might edit here.  I do not like to push my philosophies onto others.  Therefore, I accept that some people wish to edit pseudonymously.
 * b) The best we can do in the immediate future is encourage editors to participate, either with their real name, or a pseudonym, and try to protect them from privacy invasions.
 * c) The project should make reasonable accommodations to users who want to upgrade their privacy. I think blanking would be the right level of assistance in most cases.  For serious problems, deletion or Oversight could be used.
 * d) Speculating on the identity of Wikipedia editors should be discouraged. If there is an intent to harass, annoy or hinder participation, that should probably be treated as outing.
 * e) I am an out editor. This avoids the risk of being outed.  Trolls are less interested in me because I am out.
 * f) I think WMF and ArbCom have been handling the issue of pseudonimity well enough. Users are warned that we cannot guarantee their privacy completely.  We can help, but we can't guarantee.  Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * 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?
 * Answers:
 * a) WMF should be proactive by participating in government or social discussions about online stalking. Warnings need to be issued to the public about all Web 2.0 sites, not just Wikipedia.
 * b) Real life stalking is something to report to the policy.  WMF should cooperate with law enforcement.
 * c) Information that is not verifiable is not of much use.  If we somehow learn of a verified problem, we should use common sense to help the user.  I do not see a formulaic approach adding much value.
 * d) Stalkers who use Wikipedia to harass victims should be banned and if they are breaking the law, reported to the police.
 * e) Stalking and harassment can be claimed by an editor as a means of gaming the system. I wrote an essay about this. Whenever I investigate accusations, my first step is to look at the accuser and see if they are credible. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * Answer: I think common sense needs to be applied.  If we are concerned that one in five edits is bogus, it may be more productive to revert them all than to check each one.  If we see a banned editor has single handedly written a featured article, I do not see the point in deleting it.  Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * 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?
 * 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)?
 * 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?
 * 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? )
 * Answers:
 * a) People will talk where they like. We are not the world government.
 * b) I make comments about Wikipedia all over the place.  It is part of the conversations I have with other people.  Whatever I say is attached to my userid, Jehochman, or my name, Jonathan Hochman.  You can stalk me via Google.
 * c) I have a Wikipedia Review account, mainly to be able to track new posts, and make a very small number of my own posts.  Knowing what people are saying is useful.  I see no reason to pretend they don't exist, and sometimes people there make valid criticisms or suggestions.
 * d) People are free to say what they like, as far as I am concerned, as long as they do not cross the line of doing so to disrupt the project. If somebody is disrupting Wikipedia via off site activities, we can do whatever within our power is possible to reduce or prevent disruption.
 * e) My participation everywhere on the net is transparent. My usual identity is Jehochman. Exposing other identities that are not connected to real life identity probably does not constitute outing, but it could be considered harassment depending on the circumstances. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Answer: Yes.  People who feel like they are above the rules need to be confronted at the earliest stage.  The longer a problem festers, the harder it will be to solve.  Regrettably, some vested contributors get on a tangent that leads them to depart the site, either voluntarily, or involuntarily.  Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * b) I make comments about Wikipedia all over the place.  It is part of the conversations I have with other people.  Whatever I say is attached to my userid, Jehochman, or my name, Jonathan Hochman.  You can stalk me via Google.
 * c) I have a Wikipedia Review account, mainly to be able to track new posts, and make a very small number of my own posts.  Knowing what people are saying is useful.  I see no reason to pretend they don't exist, and sometimes people there make valid criticisms or suggestions.
 * d) People are free to say what they like, as far as I am concerned, as long as they do not cross the line of doing so to disrupt the project. If somebody is disrupting Wikipedia via off site activities, we can do whatever within our power is possible to reduce or prevent disruption.
 * e) My participation everywhere on the net is transparent. My usual identity is Jehochman. Exposing other identities that are not connected to real life identity probably does not constitute outing, but it could be considered harassment depending on the circumstances. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Answer: Yes.  People who feel like they are above the rules need to be confronted at the earliest stage.  The longer a problem festers, the harder it will be to solve.  Regrettably, some vested contributors get on a tangent that leads them to depart the site, either voluntarily, or involuntarily.  Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)


 * Blue, no Yellow... aggghhhh! Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

 * 1) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
 * We must be strict, but fair. We need to encourage admins to enforce existing policies and use their good judgment.  We also must identify and remove any admins who participate in disruptive nationalistic battles.  Jehochman Talk 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?
 * Incivility should not result in a block until it rises to the level of personal attacks or harassment. If incivility is used in conjunction with other disruptive tactics, it may add weight to a case of blocking for disruptive editing. Jehochman Talk 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * It would have to be more than the candidates not being appointed, excluding any candidates who were disqualified for valid reasons. Jehochman Talk 06:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * I think recall should not be relied upon. If an arbitrator has honor, they will offer to resign if they lose support of the community.  If an arbitrator is less than honorable, they might game or ignore a recall request. This is the problem of recall.  It cannot be used against those for whom it is most needed. Jehochman Talk 06:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * See my answers in MBisanz section above. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * See http://www.hochmanconsultants.com/about/. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * See my answer in Lar's section above. I am known as Jehochman or Jonathan Hochman on many Web 2.0 sites. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
 * None. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations?  If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
 * I do not feel an conflicts of interest. My allegiance is mainly to my family, my country (USA), and perhaps my University (Yale). I try to avoid editing articles about Harvard, and Princeton.  Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * You can view my LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jehochman. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address?  Do you plan to do so if elected?  If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
 * Yes. I am an open book.  I plan to laugh at threats. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia?  What are their user names and their relationships to you?
 * Not at the moment, though my wife might make an occasional IP edit. Maybe she'll create an account some day. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * IRC, email, Gchat, Skype, real life. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * I see one constituency: all users (editors and readers) of Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * That's always a judgment call. I'd probably be a bit more liberal about accepting cases than the 2008 Committee.  If there is trouble and the Committee can help, then accept the case and deal with it expediently. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * Going off wiki to inflict on wiki disruption is a behavior that can be addressed. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * The strongest remedy is providing a careful explanation and convincing users to change their problematic behavior for the better. Application of force should be a last resort.  In that case total or partial bans are probably the easiest to enforce.  Civility restrictions are notoriously hard to enforce fairly.  Account limitations (use only one account) are clear.  Revert limitations are also clear.  Whatever remedies are passed, we need to think about whether they can be enforced fairly and efficiently. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
 * I have an open mind. Going in with a set agenda is probably not the best way to collaborate. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * I like Jpgordon because of his direct and concise style. Newyorkbrad is diplomatic yet firm when needed.  Charles Matthews has a very keen analytical mind (though we have disagreed on occasion).  Kirill does a good job drafting decisions.  FT2 has given me extremely good advice on several occasions (though his writing is lengthier than I'd wish for).  I have not interacted much with you, FloNight, Morven, Deskana, Thebainer, or Sam Blacketer. Ah yes, YellowMonkey seems very level headed.  If I've missed anybody, let me know. Ah, sorry, I missed FayssalF, who seems very good at trouble shooting disputes.  Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC) and 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * Will the Community believe we have made the right decision? Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * They are experiencing some growing pains, but I have faith that they will overcome them. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * My work is in other areas. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * Absolutely not. Even if they were incorrectly hiding secrets that should be out in the open, the only way to resolve that is by agreement to release the info.  Leaking is corrosive to the trust that is necessary for a group to function. Jehochman Talk 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from TomasBat

 * 1) In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)
 * I look at what's best for the encyclopedia (which is often a region of uncertainty), and then within that realm of possibilities I consider how we can treat our users as kindly as possible. Note that being cruel to somebody risks bringing the project into disrepute, so that can never be what's best. Jehochman Talk 06:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from MBisanz

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


 * Answered above. I am an "out" editor. Jehochman Talk 01:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Pixelface

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


 * Answered above. See User:Jehochman/Arbitration for the complete list with links to all the cases.  Yes, except for Hoffman, all of the disputes seemed to be helped by involvement of the committee, particularly COFS, Zeraeph, Sadi Carnot and Waterboarding.  Hoffman is currently at WP:RFAR upon a request to vacate the decision. Jehochman Talk 01:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have commented on a large number of cases.  Memorable cases I've commented on where I was not a party include Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision, and Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.  My general impression is that my comments have been read and absorbed.
 * I requested Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot, Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph, Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance and Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, which just opened. To the best of my memory, I also filed one request that I withdrew on advice of the Committee.  I'd rather not give details because I'm trying to get along better with the editor I was in dispute with.  I hope you understand that getting along with others is more important than answering an election question. Jehochman Talk 01:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Badger Drink

 * 1) It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
 * 2) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * 3) This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?


 * Screwed the pooch: Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman. You can see what I would do right here.Jehochman Talk 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the way to conduct a case. You think they would have learned from Hoffman and Durova that we need to uphold basic procedural fairness. I am glad they vacated it.
 * Two of the primary opinion writers were the subjects of Hoffman and Durova. Hopefully the AC members have taken that advice on board. As a party in both cases, I certainly empathize with the concerns listed in the RFC, foremost  that the AC needs to provide as much transparency as possible and give the accused a chance to answer charges.  I personally raised concerns on two occasions about people being on the AC mailing list who should not have been there for certain discussions.  Both times my concerns were dismissed, but just this year the list procedures have been tightened up.

Thank you for the insightful questions. Jehochman Talk 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * I think that you have outlined one potential solution, but there may be others. I generally prefer to work as part of a group.  Perhaps the Committee could call on people outside the committee to review their evidence and decision.  We do have Checkusers and Oversighters who are not on the Committee.  Jehochman Talk 01:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just fixed the diff link in my question if that makes any difference. I never meant imply that no one else should be allowed to review evidence but rather to outline the bare minimum of review that should occur in a case where the normal public review is decided to not be used for whatever reason.  Of course the more review allowed the better. I am really only concerned about cases proceeding with lower standards than I have outlined. Where the parties are unable to review the evidence of their own actions or where the decision is reached with the arbs only consulting a single version of evidence presented. -- Birgitte  SB  18:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself.  On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki.  On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days.  Which definition do you prefer?
 * 2) Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
 * 3) Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
 * 4) Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right.  It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly.  But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back.  Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented.  In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
 * 5) Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR.  All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests.  Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use?  If so, what should those be?

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


 * See VestedContributor for interesting thoughts. The answer to your question is that contributors who have been here a long time and have many friends may become very informal is their dealings.  We all need to remember that most Wikipedia editors come, stay for a while, and then leave.  The small number who stay for a long time need to set a good example for the newcomers.  The way to deal with vested contributors is social pressure from their friends and reminders that we all need to uphold standards.  Blocking a vested contributor for incivility predictably causes disruption.  Contacting them, or one of their friends, offline is a far better way to deal with concerns.
 * Civility is a goal, not a criteria. The criteria I use are no personal attacks, no harassment and no disruption.
 * We should not be blocking people lightly for things like "incivility". If the incivility is bad enough to merit blocking, it will breach other policies and guidelines (such as the above three), which provide clearer criteria.
 * We are concerned with results, not with burning the letter B into the forehead of somebody who has displeased the community. Depending on why a person was banned, if they are making a quiet return and are not causing trouble, generally we can leave well enough alone. (Certain banned users, such as predators and real life stalkers should stay out no matter what.)  It is far better to have somebody editing quietly without trouble than to have them socking and disrupting.  We can't lock people up to keep them away from the Internet. We have enough actual problems to deal with that we don't need to be looking for people who aren't causing problems.  If banned users are undetected because their behavior is completely different from whatever got them banned, good for them and good for us.
 * I recently filed a request for arbitration Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion and it was accepted 7-0 within a day. When there is a real problem, and when the request is laid out properly, the Committee has always been quick to accept cases in my experience.  Those who are inexperienced with arbitration should contact a clerk or an editor who has experience for procedural help in making a proper request.

Thank you for the questions. Jehochman Talk 14:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * thank you for your answers. I thought these were generally very clear and helpful.  Good luck with the candidacy. The Land Surveyor (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit] I particularly liked your answer to question 1. I'm offering an opinion now rather than asking a question, but it is my experience that careful and sensitive handling off-wiki, and avoiding any terrible and pointless escalations thereafter, is one of the best ways of settling disputes and disagreements.  Very good.  The Land Surveyor (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Commercial publishers are ultimately out to make money. We are concerned more with the quality of editorial supervision than who is the publisher.  Whether a source is reliable depends on their reputation for editorial fact checking. Jehochman Talk 06:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Wikipedia is not censored means that we should make articles that are as useful and informative as possible. We don't remove information for the sake of pleasing those who might be offended by certain types of content.  On the other hand, we should not permit gratuitous use of profanity, for instance, when it does not improve the accuracy or quality of an article.  Content that might be offensive should be kept where it belongs.  With an article about Bambi, there is an expectation that it will be family friendly.  If somebody is looking up Jenna Jameson, those expectations don't apply. Jehochman Talk 06:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * The basic formula is that views are covered relative to their prevalence in reliable sources. For a science topic, the reliable sources will be scholarly works and peer reviewed journals.  We should describe conflicts rather than participating in them.  For a scientific study that produces a controversial result, there will probably be notable contrary opinions.  We can report on who says what in proportion to how prevalent those views may be.  We do not state which view is The Truth&trade;. Truth is for the reader to decide. Jehochman Talk 06:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions From ?ere 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.  ?ere 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?


 * I don't keep a running count. More than ten.
 * Probably 90% or more of unanimous decisions seemed correct to me.
 * Probably 75% or more of split decisions seemed correct.
 * Very well. We can ask for a review of modification of a past case.  Many such requests have been processed, and most seem to reach a correct conclusion.

Thank you for the questions. Jehochman Talk 06:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question(s) from LtPowers

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


 * To my eye the Committee seems very concerned about making the correct decisions. However, when they are subjected to criticism, they tend to circle the wagons.  I believe this happens because the individuals involved have not had formal training in public relations.  Our community is big.  When the Committee makes a decision, they need to realize that perceptions matter.  This meme "ArbCom can't be trusted" can be stopped if the Committee understands how its actions will be perceived.  Specific steps that should be taken include:


 * Monitor conversations where criticism is posted. Sometimes the critics are right.
 * Respond promptly to all concerns. I have heard that ArbCom does not answer its email.  That has been my experience too.  Perhaps they can install software to provide a ticket number for each inquiry, track them, and send a response when each ticket is closed.  This is a common practice among organizations that provide good customer service.
 * Conduct business in the open when feasible. I think the ArbCom mailing list should be used sparingly.  When a case does not involved private information, discussions should proceed in the open.
 * Enforce high standards of conduct on Committee members. Holding editors to standards that they don't keep themselves is hypocritical.

Those are a few ideas off the top of my head. Thank you for the question. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Will Beback
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
 * See answers above. In short, I use one account and declare the others, such as User:Jehochman2 (quite boring), which are largely unused. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?
 * Humor is a way to improve morale. That should not be discouraged. Otherwise, I disfavor the use of multiple accounts, especially for editing policy or in other serious matters.  An account that is obviously engaged in humor-mongering should be dealt with gently.  Our sock puppetry policy is the way to address concerns. It may need editing to conform with common sense expectations or customs.


 * Role accounts are not allowed, except with special permission. The only authorized role accounts on the English Wikipedia are User:Schwartz PR and User:Oversight. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?
 * Existing policies need to be applied vigorously by administrators using good judgment. We need to encourage admins to ascertain the full facts of each case and do a thorough job uncovering all sockpuppets that may be part of a sock farm. A good method of combating sock puppetry is to always file a suspected sock puppet report or request for checkuser.  These pages provide a record that may be useful for controlling subsequent incidents of socking by the same puppetmaster.


 * A great deal of POV pushing seems to involve advocacy of fringe theories. ArbCom has already provided administrators the additional tool of discretionary sanctions to help control disruption in the area of pseudoscience.  At Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop I have proposed expanding those discretionary sanctions to include other fringe topics.  The problems in pseudoscience are representative of a general problem.  Jehochman Talk 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from harej
Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Committee was created by Jimmy Wales to fill in for him in resolving difficult disagreements. It was also given the role of appointing Checkusers and Oversighters. Maintaining some sort of perceived good times isn't part of the mandate. The Community should get to decide what are good times and what direction the project is going.

Questions from Al tally
Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
 * I have previously supported community appointment of Checkusers. They should be confirmed by the Wikimedia Foundation Office to ensure compliance with privacy policy.  I don't see why Oversight should be different. Jehochman Talk 19:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
 * Yes, the Community can overrule ArbCom. They banned User:Mantanmoreland after ArbCom refused to do so.  Some issues involve privacy or the Community cannot achieve a consensus.  These matters need to go to ArbCom because there is no other practical way to resolve them. Jehochman Talk 19:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
 * We need Checkusers and Oversighters. If former arbitrators wish to continue these duties and there is no reason to suspect their integrity, they should be allowed to continue.  It seems less risky to keep experienced volunteers than to try new folks who might not be as reliable. Jehochman Talk 19:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).
 * Vote carefully. Many sure you elect arbitrators who have personal integrity.  If somebody does something wrong, will they value their honor more than the power trip?  Those who have honor will resign when they have lost the trust of the Community. My standards would still apply; if I lose trust of the Community, I will resign. Jehochman Talk 19:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC) and 16:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Lar
I may revise and extend as needed (and I note that you have answered the general questions I posed... but this is rather timely):

1) From Requests_for_arbitration:
 * "Arbitration remedies mean nothing if any admin is free to simply undo anything they personally disagree with. Where enforcement is subject to community consensus, it must be demonstrated consensus, not merely individual defiance" -- Kirill Lokshin

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why or why not? Contrast that with Risker's statement:
 * "The Committee has failed to make a case that administrative actions taken under the proviso of the "any admin may" sections of general or specific sanctions should be inviolate."

Is it not true that while community consensus is allowed for (making a sanction not "inviolate"), single rogue admins, acting alone, are not? (If this differs from your answer to my question 9, which I rather liked, please elaborate on how and why) ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins should not undo blocks the way SlimVirgin did, whether the block is under an ArbCom sanction or a Community policy. ArbCom is not superior to the Community.  Their edicts have the same force and effect as policy.  I believe the argument advanced by Kirill is a tautology. Individual defiance is never allowed, whether the matter is an arbitration remedy or not.
 * I agree with Risker that all admin actions are subject to review, discussion, and if a new consensus forms to reverse the action, then it can be reversed. There are times when a sysop action is obviously incorrect, or else the circumstances have changed significantly enough, that an admin can reverse the action without further discussion.  These cases should be non-controversial.  A sysop needs to have good judgment to understand when summary action can be taken.  Jehochman Talk 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Ling.Nut

 * I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
 * Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
 * Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I will comment first on the situation you described, then read the essay and comment further. My initial thoughts are that you should be allowed to do what you like in userspace as long as you are not hurting the encyclopedia.  I do not see any evidence that you were causing a problem.  We have enough real problems that the admin should have moved along to deal with something important, or gone off to write an article.  Now, I will read your essay. Jehochman Talk 00:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your essay mirrors Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. Admins are not robots.  We are here to uphold Wikipedia policies, and we cannot know what actions might or might not harm a real person behind an account.  If somebody is destroying an article and will not heed warnings to stop, I will block them, even though this might hurt their feelings.  As far as contributors having individual liberties, we should try to be nice to contributors because they are volunteers.  My own laws are to first, uphold the standards of this encyclopedia for the good of the readers.  Then, do whatever is possible to be nice to contributors, because they are the ones who make it possible.  Jehochman Talk 00:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Good luck with your run! S. D. D.J.Jameson 18:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Arbitrators are just plain old administrators when they are not acting on behalf of the Committee. Administrators and arbitrators are just plain old editors when they are working on content.


 * My personal feeling is that any administrative action should not be reversed lightly. Unless there is obvious error, or a significant change in circumstances, and the reversal will be non-controversial, a reversal  should be based on discussion and consensus, not whim.  It is particularly important to respect actions taken by oversighters or checkusers who may have access to non-public info.  Those actions should definitely be discussed before any reversal. Jehochman Talk 18:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Marlith
What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years?  Marlith  (Talk)   03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see many more featured and good articles. We have a huge amount of work to do. For instance, as a reader, I often use the medical articles. Many are incomplete or unreferenced.


 * To improve the quality of so many articles the project needs more active editors. In five years I hope we could double the number of editors and increase featured and good content by a factor of five. Jehochman Talk 05:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Tony1
My good wishes for your candidature, Jehochman. I'm asking these questions of those I consider the best candidates. "However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as 'best practice' in some cases (although not required to). Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will 'stick', in certain exceptional cases."
 * 1) What is your attitude to the notion of introducing commercial advertising on WP?
 * 2) Many users believe that the current "official" processes for ensuring that administrators adhere to the policy requirements of their behaviour—particularly the use of blocking—are inadequate. What is your attitude towards the reform of those processes so that they avoid the accusation that admins judge the behaviour of admins?
 * 3) Some of the policy tenets embedded in the policy page WP:Administrators are cast in terms that may require ArbCom's interpretion during your term. Can you give us an idea of how you'd approach the interpretation of this potential exception from the critical policy that admins avoid conflict of interest in their role? The text in question is green and includes a commented-out section. The hypothetical case you face as a member of ArbCom would involve a claim that an admin who has not followed the putative "best practice" has breached the WP:UNINVOLVED policy by themselves blocking a user with whom they've had a negative interaction on the talk page of the same article several months before.

Tony  (talk)  15:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Commercial advertising would destroy Wikipedia as we know it.

2. I believe we need a community desysopping process, and have worked with Friday and others to propose one. Such a process would allow rank and file editors to supervise the conduct of administrators.

3. There is a big difference between what administrators are allowed to do, and what is best practice. My method would be to inform administrators of any way that they could improve their performance up to best practices, but I would not vote to sanction anyone unless they had fallen below minimum standards. Normally I'd recommend a warning and only support a sanction for repeated poor judgment, or perhaps for the first instance of egregiously poor judgment. When an administrator's presence is generating more heat than light, even though they may have done nothing wrong, they need to have the good sense to back off and let others take over. (This bit of advice is something I should have paid closer attention to myself at times.) Jehochman Talk 16:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)