Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/NWA.Rep/Questions for the candidate

=General questions=

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


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

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?
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * 6) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * 1) Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.
 * 2) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * 3) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?

Questions from Sarcasticidealist
I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there. I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.
 * 1) To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
 * 2) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * 3) 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?
 * 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?
 * 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?

Questions from Celarnor

 * 1) What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
 * 2) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

Question from LessHeard vanU
This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction. Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.
 * 1) Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?

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?

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?

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?

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. 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?

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?

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

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?

Questions from Newyorkbrad
1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
 * (A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * (B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
 * (C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;
 * (E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.

Questions from Mailer Diablo
1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?

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?

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

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


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

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

Questions from Maxim

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

Questions from rootology
Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Question from Davewild

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

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

Yes, three years is way too long. We need to constantly get fresh blood in there. In fact, I support re-electing arbitrators every year. If they are doing a poor job, they should not have such a short leash. If they are lazy, then they should not serve. I have never seen an arbitrator getting recalled, but some of them are highly incompetent.--NWA.Rep (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)
'' This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. –  iride scent  01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ''
 * 1) Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?

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


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) 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)
 * 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?
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * 2) 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? )
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 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?
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * 2) 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? )
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 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? )
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

Questions from Heimstern

 * 1) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
 * 2) Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

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

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * 2) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * 3) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * 4) Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
 * 5) Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations?  If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
 * 6) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * 7) Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address?  Do you plan to do so if elected?  If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
 * 8) Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia?  What are their user names and their relationships to you?
 * 9) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * 10) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * 11) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * 12) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * 13) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * 14) Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
 * 15) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * 16) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * 17) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * 18) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * 19) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?

Questions from TomasBat

 * 1) In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)

Question from MBisanz

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

Questions from Pixelface

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

Questions from Badger Drink

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Question(s) from LtPowers

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

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

Questions from User:Dengero

 * 1) If you were an arbCom member, do you think it is still appropriate to keep a personae non grata list? (And no I didn't ask because I'm on it)
 * 2) What sort of temperament do you think matters as a member of the wikipedia community, and especially as an arbCom member?

1. A personae non grata list was made because there was a concerted effort to boot me off the project from a group of POV pushers mainly from WP:CHINA. (some of them are ban-evading sockpuppets who repeatedly harassed me) These users, who constantly gang patrolled articles to reflect their personal views, obviously do not have the best interest of the community at heart. These editors have wasted every chance given to them and should be asked to leave for the sake of the project.

2. Temperament is more of an issue for administrators than arbitrators since arbCom members usually do not interact directly with members of the community. However, keeping their tempers in check would certainly help to foster a harmonious community.--NWA.Rep (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What did you mean when you said, "The arbCom also needs to address the unfinished IRC case that has dragged on for almost a year."?

I am referring specifically to this Requests_for_arbitration/IRC. If I am elected, I would seek to resolve this long-standing issue that has divide our community.--NWA.Rep (talk) 11:08, 19 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?

There ain't no such things as "vested". Wikipedia's best asset is content contributors, unfortunately most of the power brokers are mere demagogues who are more into the politics than the encyclopedic contents. They game the rules and pile up edits by reverting vandalism and making stylistic changes. These people (mostly admins) are obviously not vested and should be prosecuted for their transgressions.--NWA.Rep (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?

Civility is important to create a harmonious editing atmosphere. However, it needs to be enforced "reasonably". Frequently, we see 2 people in the middle of an edit war accusing of each other of personal attacks and incivility. They need to grow a thicker skin. The way I approach this is that since we are all here to build an encyclopedia, dispute should be about the content rather than personality. And just because someone say one of the seven dirty words without directing at anyone in particular does not constitute as incivility.--NWA.Rep (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled — there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?

This is complete bs. Expert content contributors are hard to come by. Like I said, many are more interested in the politics than the encyclopedic contents. Those who write the feature articles are the most important assets of wikipedia. They should not be banned due to politically-motivated reasons and other personality feuds.--NWA.Rep (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right.  It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly.  But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back.  Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented.  In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?

Banned users are banned users. They should be treated as banned users. If they want to edit again, then they must appeal through the proper venue. They forfeited their rights to edit. As a victim of abuse from ban-evading socks, I strongly disagree with the notion of banned users be allowed to edit without appealing through the proper venue.--NWA.Rep (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR.  All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests.  Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use?  If so, what should those be?

Criteria for accepting a case? An arbitration case is usually opened when all other dispute resolution methods are exhausted. If the arbCom doesn't take the case, no one will. I like to see a more efficient arbCom and probably some circuit courts (assuming arbCom's the supreme court) to speed up the dispute resolution process.--NWA.Rep (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Question from Stifle
All (or almost all, I'm not 100% sure) previous electees to ArbCom have been administrators. How will you manage ArbCom duties without admin tools? Stifle (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators and administrators are vastly different capacities. Arbitrators are supreme justices who make rulings on important matters while administrators are janitors who serve the community and clean up vandals. In fact, I could argue that having sysop access could be detrimental for arbitrators since there is very likely a conflict of interest between being an arbitrator and carrying a mop. The interest of an arbitrators is also different from the interest of admins. I think, in a way, the fact that I am not an arbitrator make me more objective when dealing with arbCom cases.--NWA.Rep (talk) 11:06, 19 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 ·:· 11:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?


 * 2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?


 * 3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?

1. One of my proudest records is my relentless pursuit of sockpuppets. My hatred toward sockpuppet is well-documented.

2. Disclosed alternative account should be allowed, for example Bish’s ‘zilla is a very competent administrator. It is sort of an alter ego that lightens the atmosphere of the project, which helps morale and harmonious editing.

3. Socks should not be allowed to comebacks under any circumstances. Users who have large sock farms should be banned. Checkusers should do a more efficient job to catch these puppet masters and admins should block them in a more speedy manner.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:00, 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 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's invalid given that arbCom is an acting body. It is the closest wikipedia has to a supreme court.--NWA.Rep (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Swatjester
Your userpage, which I find distasteful and disgusting, claims that you're a lawyer. In one particular thread on another forum I've noted that you have claimed to have made 5.5 million from your law practice. Your user page, however, states that you are only 23 years old. Also, neither the New York nor California state bar associations have any record of an Andre Wallace licensed to practice in the state, nor does NYU, UNC, nor USC's websites. This places the veracity of your claims somewhat in doubt. Please provide your bar number and/or some sort of verification that you hold a J.D. from NYU Law School. Perhaps you could give us a link to your firms website and your profile there? &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My userpage is neither distateful nor disgusting. If you find them to be that way, that put the objectivity of this question in question. I am appalled that you searched me up. It seems borderline stalker behavior. I have no intention of revealing my firms website and my profile there because that would only lead to more harassment from wikipedians in real life.

All I want to say is that do not take my userpage too literally. Certain parts of my userpage are satirical. In certain way, certain qualities of my userpage does not necessarily describe me, but my alter ego. Just like Eminem has Slim Shady, Andre Wallace has the D.O.C.--NWA.Rep (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question. You claim to be an attorney on your user page, but have not confirmed if that's the case. It would be a serious problem for a candidate to be lying about something in their candidacy.... &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  14:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a follow up question, as an arbitrator, would you be calling the people who ask legitimate questions of you "stalkerish"? Would you agree that an arbitration candidate who is lying about their credentials would be considered disruptive, and probably should be blocked? Given that concern, and given the serious questions about the legitimacy of your claims, do you still refuse to answer the question as to providing proof that you are an attorney?


 * Finally, as for being appalled, that's rather surprising, given that an attorney would understand that their names would be registered on the state bar's website so people can verify their credentials; and furthermore there are several national lawyer databases (such as Martindale Hubbell) for precisely that thing. The concept that any lawyer would be "appalled" that someone looked them up tends to lend credence to the argument that you are not being straightforward with your candidacy. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  14:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, one further followup: Do you think that inserting obvious BLP violations about an actress' breasts into the lede of an article is appropriate behavior for an arbitration candidate? And given that you have publicly quit the project and made disturbing allegations of deciding to commit suicide,, should we consider your entire candidacy to be a joke, and therefore withdrawn? &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  14:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Ling.Nut
Without delving into details, do you have strong views on issues related to the political situation regarding China and Taiwan? Do you believe you could render an impartial decision on any editors or topics related to those issues? Have you dealt with those issues in a (mostly) calm and (totally) impartial manner in the past, and can you provide links to relevant diffs? Thanks and good luck Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 09:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I object your categorization of the China-Taiwan race war as a "political" situation. There is more to it than that. Personally, I have very little stake on this issue since I am not a citizen of either country. However, the independent research I've done in this area made this one of my expertise. In real life, most Americans are ignorant about the truth of this issue due to the large presence of Chinese-American community and propaganda campaign by China, which spread misinformation and misconception about ethnic Taiwanese. Wikipeida, however, is a comprehensive encyclopedia in which NPOV should be enforced. I find WP:CHINA, Ideogram, and others Chinese admins gang-patrolling of Taiwan related articles to be one of the biggest injustice on wikikpedia.

There was evidently a concerted, behind-the-scene effort by Chinese wikipedians to boot me off the project. I have encountered countless harassments and threats both on-site and through off-site communications from Chinese wikipedians strictly because I try to revise the gang-patrolled articles in an unbiased, impartial manner. In the narrow minds of Chinese wikipedians, Taiwanese are Chinese despite overwhelming evidence that point to the contrary. I made my position quite clear on my userpage, but for the sake of this arbCom election I will reiterate these basic facts.

a. Ethnic Taiwanese (about 88% of the population) do not self-identify as Chinese. Old generation Taiwanese fought against (some volunteered) China in WWII when Taiwan was part of the Japanese Empire. b. The concept of Han Chinese is not a genetic one (lack of unifying blood even between Northern Chinese and Southern Chinese), but rather a cultural one, which makes the inclusion of Taiwanese controversial. c. Most ethnic Taiwanese have been living in Taiwan longer than some of the Koreans who emigrated from the Chinese province of Shandong and Manchuria. d. Taiwanese did not start speaking Mandarin until Chiang Kai-shek illegally occupied Taiwan after WWII with the tacit approval of the United States. e. Korea, like Taiwan, had been part of the Qing Empire and also part of China's other dynasties in various time throughout history, yet they are not classified as Chinese. f. The presence of Chinese characters and Chinese culture can be found in almost all Asian cultures including Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Like Japan and Korea, Chinese culture is a part of Taiwanese culture, but Taiwanese culture is not a part of Chinese culture.

The conclusion can be drawn that ethnic Taiwanese was betrayed by the United States after WWII mainly due to their support for the Japanese Empire. Ethnic Taiwanese are also brainwashed by the Chinese Nationalist regime into adopting Chinese customs. This is not an opinion, but a fact that is unknown to most Americans who categorize this as a "political" issue between "free" China (ROC) and "communist" China (PRC). The presence of ethnic Taiwanese is easily overlooked, forgotten, and ignored. They approach this as a battle of political ideology in the mode of North Korea vs. South Korea, West Germany vs. East Germany, and North Vietnam vs. South Vietnam. However, this is more of a "race" issue than "political" issue given the level of Taiwanese nationalism and momentum of the name rectification campaign.

The race war in Taiwan between ethnic Taiwanese and descendants of the post-1949 Chinese nationalists highlights the fact that the war is far from strictly "political". Surveys in Taiwan in recent years (after President Lee's dismantle the Chinese military dictatorship, White Terror, and cultural brainwashing) generally show that ethnic Taiwanese is overwhelmingly against Chinese annexation even if China becomes a democracy and Taiwan becomes a Taiwanese-controlled dictatorship. This points to the fact that ethnic Taiwanese are sick of foreign colonization, brainwashing, and oppression of Taiwanese identity. The rise of Taiwan-centric consciousness combined with Chinese's inability to look at the basic fact of Taiwanese history makes a mutually-destructive war inevitable. Evidently, this will be a war both Taiwan and the United States cannot afford to lose.--NWA.Rep (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you consider this an unbiased and impartial manner way of dealing with things? Dengero (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I honesty consider WP:CHINA to be a net negative to the project. It fails to follow the way wikipedia projects are meant to be used. Instead of encouraging article collaborations, this project is frequently used as a front to recruit Chinese sympathizers and to jointly form an alliance against editors who try to change the gang-patrolled nature of Taiwan-related articles.--NWA.Rep (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I live on Taiwan, and am relatively well acquainted with the issues... my goal was merely to offer you an opportunity to express your views, since they will come up some time or other. Good luck. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from FT2
1. Your statement says that "ArbCom should be open. Mailing list and other means should be make public." Everyone (myself included) values "more transparency", so that's not anything unusual. However, as more of the cases being handled by the committee today involve privacy issues, and the mailing lists contain a lot of information that is mandated to be kept private by the Foundation, it seems to me this may be a promise you're making without a good appreciation of the nature of the things you're promising. Can you carefully sum up a bit more, what exactly you feel you will be doing in this area?

2. You state that I have little ties to the establishment... not one of the behind-the-scene power broker... Wikipedia needs a revolution. However in fact the majority of new arbitrators elected each year have no such "ties", unless one counts matters that their own peers have seen fit to trust them on. For example, I was an "unknown" in that sense last year (never spoken to Jimbo, never much spoken to any arb,crat, meta-person, or anything...), and I'd never even heard of Sam Blacketer or Fayssal (sorry Sam!), and so on. I think it's the same for most of the current arbitrators. Not surprising; in fact they all got appointed because they were experienced users who were trusted a lot by the wider community, no other reason. So... thoughts on the above snippet from your statement? What "establishment" and what "ties" do you see as a problem? Who are the "behind the scenes power brokers" you refer to, and how are you any less connected to these than other "independent" users (if that's the right term) who got appointed last year, or are standing this year?

These aren't intended aggressively (in case that's how they may be seen), but as with questions asked to other candidates they are intended to be tough and searching, and they look for you to evidence the thought behind your position(s). Thank you! FT2 (Talk 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Obviously violating privacy law and other legal infringements are out-of-bounds to this promise, but legal infringements should not be used as an excuse to keep potentially upsetting or embarrassing evidence/communication out of public scrutiny.

2. By "establishment", I do not mean spoken to Jimbo Wales, bureaucrat, meta-person, or current arbitrators. What I mean is editors, not necessarily admins, who seem to be more interested in the politics of wikipedia than encyclopedia content. They wield stronger influence in the community due to the unprincipled support of a particular faction. This allows them to behave outrageously with little consequences.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Joowwww
--Joowwww (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Regarding your userpage, and acknowledging a previous statement of yours for people "not to take it too literally", do you think that the content and opinions expressed on your userpage would affect your credibility, or people's ability to take you seriously, as a neutral ArbCom member?
 * 2) I am one of the users on your "persona non grata list". If I or anyone else on the list were to take an issue to the ArbCom for arbitration, would you take our case seriously and neutrally, as if it were anyone else's case, or would your preconceived opinions of us as editors affect any discussion or decision made by you?