Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/RMHED/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?
 * A.Accountable.

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?
 * A. 40+ Male. UK.
 * 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.
 * A. I'm not sure there really is such a big divide, at least the only place I know where it gets highlighted is RfA and RfA is a crock of shit so best ignored.
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * A. A bloody stupid practice.
 * 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.
 * A. This case Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley I disagree with it in its entirety, the case should never have been accepted. It's the kind of nonsense that happens when civility restrictions are attempted.
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * A. I'll leave that to others to decide, though I did get a kick out of DYK I did, I'll link to it later when I can find it. This was the hook ...that virtuoso double bassist and composer Frantisek Kotzwara asked a prostitute to cut off his testicles and died from erotic asphyxiation? 
 * Oh wow - "did you know" as opposed to "did you care". Very nice! :D Giggy (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * A. Of course, I want to support at least three candidates and oppose at least three others.

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?
 * A. It shouldn't be, policies and guidelines aren't fixed they evolve over time.
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * A. They should be removed from the mailing list, it should only be for current Arbs.
 * 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?
 * A. Admin recall has become a joke, it's all but dead. At least Arbs are elected and after a period of time have to seek re-election unlike admins.

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")?
 * A. Arbcom should confine itself to remedies that directly effect individual cases, it should not try to impose its will on the community as a whole. It has neither the mandate nor indeed the requisite power to enforce community wide decisions that are in effect policy changes.
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * A. Too often Arbs see themselves as being on a higher plane than their fellow Wikipedians, they have an obligation to not become self important fuckwits.

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)
 * A. In the absence of a formal Admin recall process, then yes Arbcom has to step in more frequently and more speedily.

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * A. As many as are required, my time is fairly flexible.

Question from WilyD
During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:
 * 1) Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations?  If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * A. An admin should be treated no differently than any other user, though of course this seldom happens.
 * 1) Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when?  If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * A. Of course if an admin does an utterly unacceptable sysop action then a block is appropriate. Though I would imagine it would have to be discussed first on AN or AN/I to get others opinions and if the consensus is for a block then so be it.

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)
 * A. I can't think of any areas where I'd need to recuse myself.
 * 1) Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?
 * A. That's the problem with blocking for personal attacks, everyone has a different opinion on what is or isn't a personal attack. The block should be lifted and the wider issues discussed by all those involved.

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?
 * A. Right call as this way good faith is assumed and the least drama ensues.

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?
 * (a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.
 * (b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.
 * (c) Write your own answer.


 * A. If the new user is adding useful content then best to turn a blind eye. If they aren't adding useful content then answer B seems like the prudent approach.

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?
 * A. Let Smythe know that if he continues to edit trouble free for at least 6 months then the ban can be formally lifted. His continued negative commentary on his blog about Jones is not Wikipedia's concern, Wikipedia cannot be expected to police what its users do off Wiki. Suggest to Jones he starts his own blog and let them bitch about each other to their hearts content, just so long as it stays off Wikipedia.

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?
 * A. Better to propose both the mild and severe remedies and let everyone see how the vote goes. If neither get a majority then it's very likely someone will draft a new remedy. Public disagreement amongst Arbs is fine just so long as it's civil and calm, and in my opinion can actually improve users perceptions of the Committee.

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?
 * A. Precisely why more Arbs are needed that way the burden is less on any one individual. As things stand of course Arbs must by necessity devote a sizeable chunk of their Wikipedia time to Committee business, I can't see any way round this.

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?
 * A. No I have not disclosed my real name or employer. If someone wants to 'out' me then so be it, can't say I'm unduly concerned really.

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).


 * A. A, B, C, D, & E

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?
 * A. Wow, those proposal pages are major snoozefests and that alone amply sums up all that is wrong with Arbcom, way to bureaucratic and self important.

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.
 * A. I think the community doesn't have a great deal of faith or trust in Arbcom anymore and thus they tend not to take matters to them. Obviously this is a bad thing, Arbcom need to earn back the trust of the community.

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?
 * A. Flagged Revisions and semi-protection of all BLP's. I know that's two but they need to go together IMO.
 * A. Arbcom shouldn't create new policy by fiat, though it could propose new policy and the community could vote on it with a simple majority sufficing.
 * A. IRC should fall into a deep dark hole and stay there.
 * A. Make it less bureacratic, simpler and speedier. Though that of course is easier said than done, still it's worth a try.

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?
 * A. Far too long obviously.
 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * A. Wikiprojects at least serve the purpose of keeping all the assorted nuts in conveniently labelled individual bags. Wikiprojects are notorious for over estimating their importance and power, best just to smile politely at them and edge slowly for the exit.
 * 1) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * A. They have the right to delude themselves that they do.
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * A. If it isn't worded neutrally then yes and yes.
 * 1) a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
 * A. Rollback the damaging edits and try to explain the problem to the editor. If the problem continues then blocks of lengthening duration are called for.
 * 1) An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * A. If their contributions aren't that productive then they would seem to be a net deficit to Wikipedia. Give them one last chance to reform if they don't take it indef block.
 * 1) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * A. An indef block seems like the only solution here.
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * A. A community ban should only be used in extremis when an editors behaviour has completely worn out the community's good will. An indef block would suffice in the above cases.
 * 1) (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * A. An inability to effect major policy change, in this respect consensus has become the problem, majority voting is the answer.

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?
 * A. Wheel-warring is bad...Mmmmmkay. IMO wheel-warring is when admin A's action is overturned by admin B, admin A then goes on to overturn admin B. As an Arb my response to a wheel-war would depend on the severity of the warring, each case must be judged individually so a general answer isn't possible.
 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * A. Bring it on, power to the people.
 * 1) What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?
 * A. A few admins do act like bots, though without the personality. Adminbots aren't really a big deal, after all if they fuck up they will be swiftly blocked and at least they won't whine about it. If the unapproved adminbot is doing good work then turn a blind eye. Twinkle, et al. have their uses, though some people do seem addicted to them, which can't be healthy.

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. (Arbitrators need to be 'on the ball' and able to pick up impressions fairly accurately.)


 * 1) (Questions removed. I have decided, on reflection, to ask them individually to candidates, this year at least. I'll see how it goes in deciding if that has worked better than asking them centrally. Also may help with follow-up. To see the questions, look at a candidates' Q&A page where I've asked them.)

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 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not? 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. That case was one gigantic mess, bundling just caused the whole case to become even more unfocused and messy than it needed to be. Arbcom cases should be as narrowly defined as possible otherwise you don't get an adequate resolution just a lot of waffling generalisations.
 * A. Obviously not, if you can't be impartial then recuse yourself and shut up.
 * A. Sounds like a reasonable idea though getting the community to reach consensus on the Arbcom policies would be all but impossible.
 * A. Yes a straight vote would be ideal.
 * A. No, as they wouldn't have a legitimate mandate IMO.
 * A. Every six months the community votes off the Arbcom member who has most displeased them.


 * 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)
 * A. A, D, C, and B. Feckin obvious innit?

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?
 * A. Not really I don't think Arbs need shorter terms, there just need to be more Arbs so the workload is far less burdensome.

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

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

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?
 * A. A1, too much emphasis is placed on civility. It's perfectly possible to be extremely unpleasant whilst remaining completely civil, is that what we really want? I'd rather someone was allowed to vent their anger and move on.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?
 * A. B1, civility restrictions just end up creating more drama and trouble than they're worth.


 * 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)?
 * A. In the unlikely event that I'm not in the top seven, then no, I wouldn't.

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.
 * A. I'm all in favour of an Opt Out of the marginally notable, or to be clearer, anybody not in a traditional paper encyclopedia of one kind or another should be allowed to Opt Out of Wikipedia.
 * A. Yes to that, the sooner a non consensus BLP AfD is a default delete the better IMO.
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * A. Primarily policy.
 * A. This kind of wide ranging BLP issue should be tackled by the Foundation who have up to now done bugger all, they need to be held to account. If Arbcom can add pressure on them to act then all to the good.
 * A. I'd try to pressure the Foundation into taking an OFFICE action of semi protecting all BLP's and introducing Flaged Revisions. This stuff is too important to be left to consensus, trying to get a consensus for any major change on Wikipedia is nigh on impossible these days.
 * 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?
 * A. I agree Wikipedia is in a deep rut, it has stagnated. I'd change this by having a simple vote to implement policy or guideline changes, voting is not evil, it's practical and resolves deadlocks.
 * 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?
 * A. Yes ASAP, any form of flaged revision is better than none, IMO the stricter the better.
 * A. The community seems incapable of making significant policy or guidelines changes. In this regard consensus has become a millstone around our necks, time to cut it loose and switch to straight majority voting. Arbcom has no direct role in this matter, it needs to come from the Foundation, Arbcom though could do a lot more by adding pressure on the Foundation to do the right thing.
 * 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)
 * A. Yes, as to do otherwise would discourage contributors greatly.
 * A. Oversight should be used in these cases if requested, though once the genie is out of the bottle you can't really expect total anonymity.
 * A. If a link is posted on-wiki to the site doing the outing then that really isn't acceptable as to do so would be an act of bad faith.
 * A. Nope I've got no plans to openly reveal my ID, except to the Foundation, if somebody outs me then good luck to them.
 * A. Of course there is no guarantee of Pseudonymity, many users reveal real life info about themselves unknowingly on and off wiki, and that's their lookout and bugger all to do with Arbcom.
 * A. Depends if that info has at some point already appeared on-wiki, if it hasn't then the editor should not have revealed it and they should be punished. If the outing is off-wiki then it is of no concern of Arbcoms.
 * 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?
 * A. No and no.
 * A. None beyond cooperating with any law enforcement agency.
 * A. None, they don't have to edit Wikipedia they can find a new hobby if concerned about stalking.
 * A. If it's article manipulation then Ban the culprit and Perma protect the article. If the stalkee is an editor and if the stalking is genuine and not a 'cry wolf' situation then ban them, though this of course doesn't stop them returning. If it's really serious then suggest to the stalkee that they report the matter to their relevant local law enforcement agency.
 * A. Reviewing another users edits is not stalking, if that is all an account is used for then they are clearly a disruptive SPA and can be dealt with accordingly.
 * 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?
 * A. Not if their contributions are useful, why go to the effort of reverting them, that just gives them even more attention.
 * A. Again, if the edits are good then just ignore.
 * 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? )
 * A. Any potential on-wiki action, especially admin actions, should only be discussed on-wiki, not on the likes of IRC. There is nothing wrong with outside criticism on other websites, it can be beneficial in some cases.
 * A. Nope, no blog.
 * A. I quite like Wikipedia Review it can be an entertaining read, I have no problem with anybody being a member there. I have no knowledge of Wikback so can't really comment. An ideal outside criticism site should be thorough in its examination of Wikipedia and offer helpful and constructive criticism.
 * A. Anybody should be free to participate at an outside criticism site. It's a matter of freedom of speech.
 * A. No.
 * 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)?
 * A. No more than any other organization.
 * A. It's foolish to pretend that all contributors are equal, certain allowances should be made to those who have made significant contributions.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * A. Forest Green, it's very restful.

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?
 * A. Article and edit restrictions can work well in these cases. Failing that, find a version of the article that both sides hate, revert to it and permanently protect it until they agree to play nice.
 * 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?
 * A. Civility restrictions cause more problems than they solve, they should be largely done away with.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * A. As long as I was in the top 7 then no problem.
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * A. See the answer to Sarcasticidealist's third question.

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * A. All kinds, article creation, gnomish stuff, project space stuff etc.
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * A. Yes, but I don't see how they're relevant.
 * 1) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * A. I enjoy making complaints to the BBC, largely because the corporation is run by self-serving arrogant tossers.
 * 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?
 * A. None that I can think of that weren't non-routine.
 * 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?
 * A. No, I loathe all party politicians and hold all religions in equal contempt including certain atheists who can be just as smug and arrogant as their religious opposites.
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * A. Yes, I was Milk Monitor.
 * 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?
 * A I'll identify to the Foundation if required, but that's it. If someone wants to 'out' me then let them go ahead.
 * 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?
 * A. Nope no one close to me.
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * A. Just occasionally by email, nowhere else though.
 * 1) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * A. Any and everybody. All are equal, though some of course are more equal than others.
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * A. Anything that looks juicy, ignore anything that looks terminally dull.
 * 1) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * A. Sanctions should only be imposed for on-wiki behaviour, not for anything done off-wiki.
 * 1) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * A. Editing and article restrictions can be effective. Bans of course can be continually evaded and beyond sending a message to the individual that their behaviour was unacceptable, are somewhat pointless.
 * 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?
 * A. No, other than to try to repair the disconnect that currently exists between the Committee and the community.
 * 1) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * A. None
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * A. Reasonable, now all you need to do is get an agreement on what constitutes reasonable proof.
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * A. The Foundation buries its collective head in the sand far too often. They need to shape-up and take much greater responsibility, especially for things like BLP's.
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * A. I have nothing to do with OTRS, who in my opinion are about as useful and effective as a chocolate teapot. They are just another way for the Foundation to try to evade its responsibilities.
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * A. No.

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?)
 * A. User as another human being definitely, though it all depends on whether you believe the other person is genuinely truly acting in good faith.

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.
 * A. Sarcastically.

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?
 * A. None.
 * 1) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
 * A. None.
 * 1) Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).
 * A. None.

Questions from Badger Drink

 * 1) It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
 * A. Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman and Requests for arbitration/IRC. In regards to the first, AC should have been allowed to resign quietly and the case closed. In regards to the IRC case well that is unresolved to this day, Arbcom fudged the issue and hoped it would go away, it hasn't. Obviously Arbcom doesn't have the power to shut IRC down specifically the admin IRC. They should though insist it comes under direct Wikipedia control as far too many admin actions are taken as a result of IRC chatter. If the chan ops resist the takeover, desysop them. Sometimes you've got to be ruthless for the greater good.
 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * A. A perfect example of how not to do things.
 * 1) This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
 * A.

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)
 * A. Those two suggestions sound reasonable and fair.

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.
 * A. Now this is a tricky one, I would accept the journal Homeopathy as a reliable source. Though it would come with the caveat that other peer reviewed scientific journals expressing a more mainstream opinion, should be equally represented in the relevant article. This way both the mainstream and minority views get coverage.
 * A. WP:NOT is there to prevent those with a strong POV, ie religious or moral, from removing content they don't approve of. I doubt the policy affects academic's view of Wikipedia, the lack of peer review is largely more concerning to them. As for the general public, well that would very much depend on an individuals views, the general public can't really be lumped together.
 * A. The trouble with only covering the mainstream scientific view is that in many cases the mainstream is seldom a fixed point. New research can propel a minority scientific view into the mainstream. Best to give coverage to both the mainstream and minority views, though the current mainstream view should have greater coverage than the minority view.

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)?
 * A. Fully reviewed, none. Followed quite a few though, and some of them just seem to drag on forever.
 * 1) In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
 * A. Not really relevant, as I have no intention of reading through all that waffle.
 * 1) In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
 * A. See answer 2.
 * 1) How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
 * A. Not very well probably, such an eventuality would justify a swift reopening of the case and an examination of the new evidence. The evidence though would have to be compelling.

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)
 * A. I agree to a certain extent with your assessment. The bulk of Wikipedia contributors take virtually no notice of Arbcom as they most likely feel it really has nothing to do with them. This is understandable as Arbcom has long since lost touch with the grass roots of Wikipedia. Arbcom needs to reconnect with all the community and be relevant to all the community. This will only happen when there is greater community involvement in Arbcom, this direct involvement needs to be ongoing and not just at election time. Now, as to how to achieve a more direct, hands-on community involvement;
 * 1. Arbcom members could be much more encouraging and active in asking editors to express their opinions on cases, either publicly or privately.
 * 2. A more radical idea would be for Arbcom to come up with a series of proposals/sanctions on a case and the community then votes for the proposal/sanction it prefers. Now that would send a shudder of fear down the spines of the powers that be.
 * 3. The community should have the power to insist that an Arbcom case be reopened, this could be achieved by a fixed mechanism of say a 100 established editors signing a motion. If having reopened the case Arbcom still find their decision to be at odds with the community, then the community should have the the power to formally dissolve Arbcom via a No Confidence vote.
 * Arbcom needs to be of the community and for the community. RMHED (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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)
 * 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?
 * A. The latter definition is closest to my opinion.
 * 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?
 * A. I'm in favour of letting people verbally vent their anger and frustrations, by all means point out to them that they'd do well to calm down, but don't block them for it. Generally the whole thing is quickly over, the person calms down, hopefully apologizes and everyone moves on.
 * 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?
 * A. Oh yes very much so, hordes of experts are lining up to write Wikipedia articles for nothing. Academics though, do have a tendency to behave like petulant children when they can't get their way. I say let them alone, ultimately they're only showing themselves up.
 * 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?
 * A. Ideally yes. If a banned user has been making good contributions under a new account for a reasonable amount of time, then Arbcom should look again at the case.
 * 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?
 * A. I very much doubt anyone could write a clear submission criteria guideline, at best it would deal in generalities and not be terribly useful. One of Arbcom's strengths is its broad remit, though ironically that is also one of its greatest weaknesses. The best way to solve Arbcom's sluggishness is to drastically increase the number of arbitrators, this way several cases could easily be taken on simultaneously if need be.

Question from User:Sticky Parkin
Given that you have two unsuccessful Requests for Adminship behind you, what has inspired you to try to be voted in as an arbitrator? You promise the sh*t will hit the fan if you get in- what are you planning, so we know what we're voting for? :)  Sticky   Parkin  03:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Thank you for your individual question. Now to attempt an answer.
 * My two RfA's were very different affairs, the first being your standard type RfA it got about 66% support. Now the second was of course something of an experiment that unsurprisingly crashed and burned quite spectacularly, still it had a certain entertainment value.
 * Arbcom though is a very different matter, it's not about blocking or deleting but about being able to look at all the evidence of a case and give a truly unbiased judgement. What Arbcom needs is a fundamental shake-up, a reconnection to the community it represents. Time for non-admins to be on Arbcom, it's all too easy for admins to forget what it is like to be naught but a lowly editor peon and this ultimately colours their Arbcom judgements. IMO what the current Arbcom doesn't need is pomposity, self importance, aloofness and verbosity. Arbcom needs far more alacrity in resolving cases, clearer and more focussed resolutions, approachability and a greater willingness to admit its mistakes. I'd do my utmost to bring these things about and give the community an Arbcom it can truly trust.
 * We agree 100% on what we need less of in the arbcom, and the need for approachability and willingness to admit mistakes bit. Thank you.  Sticky   Parkin  02:10, 18 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) 16:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A. That is part of the reason why Arbcom have become disconnected from the community. Those who make up the vast majority, the ordinary editors, are not represented on Arbcom. As to how I'd manage Arbcom duties without 'the tools' then I can't see how this would be a problem for me. Arbcom exists primarilly to hear cases, review the 'evidence' and reach a 'judgement'. Now if the evidence involves deleted content then that would indeed need to be restored so it can be viewed by any non-admin arb. Depending on the nature of the deleted content, then this could be done publicly or via email if confidential or sensitive.
 * Thinking on this more, there could indeed be advantages to all arbitrators being non-admins. An entirely non-admin Arbcom would I believe have greater community trust and greater accountability. Any admin elected to Arbcom would then have to relinquish the tools for the duration. This would certainly help ensure that they were running for the right reasons, rather than a desire for more power.
 * Thank you for your question, feel free to ask a follow-up if you require any clarification. RMHED (talk) 17:38, 18 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?


 * A. No, except for a few IP edits.
 * 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?


 * A. That very much depends on the nature of the joke, if it's malicious then definitely not. Generally though I don't think joke accounts or personality accounts cause any real harm. Role accounts can have a legitimate purpose, though they can be taken to an extreme. Socks are best not used to edit policies, RfC's or Arbcom cases etc, though I don't think there should be a fixed policy on this. Best to judge on a case by case basis. If a joke account is used to run for Arbcom or RfA then it wouldn't have a hope in hell of passing so could never do any harm, it might though provide some much needed light relief.
 * 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?


 * A. Whether someone is POV pushing or trolling very much depends on personal opinion, so is therefore extremely subjective. It's all to easy to label someone you disagree with as a POV pusher or accuse them of trolling, likely as not, they'll think the exact same of their accuser. The best way to deal with socks of banned or blocked users depends on the socks' edits, if the edits are good quality then why go to the trouble of reverting and blocking. Sure this may be upholding the letter of the Wikipedia "law" but definitely not its spirit. Now if the socks' edits are poor quality, malicious or subtle vandalism then block and ignore, don't give them the attention they crave.

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 01:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Vague enough to be open to interpretation, for instance define "the good times". One person's "good times" might be another's circle of Hell. Why would Arbcom exist to announce the good times? Surely they'd want to bring about the good times. RMHED (talk) 02:53, 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)
 * Thank you for the question, I have no scientific training or qualifications, but will attempt an answer as best I can. RMHED (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Scientific claims that can be backed up by peer reviewed empirical evidence aren't IMO a POV. Science isn't a POV or a way of finding a neutral POV. Science is about being able to empirically demonstrate a theory is correct, and any experiment that is used to prove the theory should be replicable, to enable adequate peer review. Now mainstream scientific theories obviously have a lot more peer reviewed evidence than fringe views. This doesn't mean that the fringe theories should be ignored, they too can often provide some peer reviewed empirical evidence. Though fringe theory articles should have to clearly state that they are only a theory held by a small minority of scientists and the mainstream view should be summarized as well.

Questions from Dennis Brown
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful and well expressed answers.   D ENNIS B ROWN (T) (C)  17:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1. In relative terms, do you think it would better if ordinary editors had more control/power/abilities than they currently do, as compared to admins? Do you have an opinion on the "power distribution" of Wikipedia in general? 2. You stated that you like majority control (counting votes) earlier, as consensus determination is problematic when scaled as large as the English Wikipedia. What do think could be done to prevent offsite canvasing and other abuses? Would all SPA votes count the same as yours and mine? 3. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a cabal?
 * A I think it would be a good idea if ordinary editors had availiable a quick and simple way to desysop admins they no longer have confidence in. I would favour a reverse RfA process, if at the end of the process 75%+ of the community want a desysop then it should be enacted. I would also favour the unbundling of the sysop tools in some form. Currently the "power distribution" on Wikipedia is rather unhealthy, all too often ordinary editors are treated differently from admins. Generally an admin is very reluctant to block another admin, though all too quick to block an ordinary editor for the exact same transgression. This inevitably leads to a sense of injustice and a higher than necessary level of background paranoia.
 * A. I do indeed favour majority voting when it comes to major guideline or policy changes. It has become evident that the consensus model doesn't work for these kind of changes, to carry on as we are, will ultimately lead to total stagnation. To prevent or at least minimize the effect of offsite canvassing I'd set a minimum requirement for suffrage, similar to the Arbcom elections one. I do though believe that the consensus model works perfectly well for things like AfD, MfD and DRV.
 * A. Cabals! on Wikipedia!! How absurd. Though I am a communist dedicated to the overthrow of all capitalist governments, but hey, we all need an off-wiki hobby.


 * Thanks for the questions Dennis, feel free to ask follow-ups. RMHED (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply, and I do have one additional question, regarding WP:BLP, where you and I have had "differences" in the past (and Jimbo Wales sort of took your side, I must admit).    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  19:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

4. If you could wave a magic wand at WP:BLP and make any change(s) without consequences or question by anyone, what would it be?
 * A. Well a view I've held for a while now is that all BLP's should be semi-protected. It's not the high profile BLP's where the problem lies, any vandalism or malicious misinformation is generally quickly reverted on those. The problem is with BLP's that hardly get edited after creation, it's all too easy for unsourced gossip or outright libellous content to be added with no one noticing. Who knows how many of these ticking libel time bombs there are on Wikipedia, it would only require a couple of them to explode into legal action for the Foundation to be in dire financial straits.
 * Semi-protection alone though wouldn't be enough, I'd also require all existing BLP's to be sourced within a set time frame, and any new BLP's created that aren't sourced, to be speedy deleted. To many this may seem like an overreaction and BLP paranoia, but we must remember that these are real people we're talking about. Better to overreact and err on the side of legal caution and due dilligence, than to react too late and find the problem has escaluated into a real life mess of legal action and personal distress to an individual.

Questions from Al tally
Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:41, 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.
 * A. The community should definitely be the ones who decide which users get CU/OS rights.
 * 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).
 * A. Yes I believe the community is capable of banning someone without Arbcom's say so. Though whether it would hold for long is another matter. A rogue admin is far more likely to lift an informal community sanctioned ban, than an official Arbcom sanctioned ban. This would of course though be showing contempt for the community and would hopefully result in a desysopping.
 * 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?
 * A. Yes and yes.
 * 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).
 * A. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, I'd quite like to see the community have the power to vote off the arbitrator who has most displeased them. This would happen every six months, it should stop arbs becoming too complacent and self important. At present there really isn't an effective way of dealing with the kind of concerns you mention.

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) 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Well my initial thoughts are that the first law could be problematic, what do you mean by "An Admin may not injure another Wikipedian"? Do you mean literally physically injure or more likely, emotionally injure? If the former then yes of course I agree, if the latter then no, as this could lead to all sorts of problems. Admins have a responsibility to be reasonably civil, fair and communicative, they cannot be held accountable for causing emotional injury to somebody who may already be unstable in this regard. Admins are not therapists, they are not here to nurture and soothe hurt feelings. Having said all that though, I do think that admins should always endeavour to treat 'ordinary users' decently and in a way that they themselves would want to be treated.
 * Please do ask any follow-ups if you want more clarification. RMHED (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from the wub
In reference to your statement "If you want to see the shit hit the fan, then vote for me !", the shit seems to hit the fan with a depressing regularity even now. What new innovations would you bring to shit-fan interactions? the wub "?!"  13:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A. Well the last really impressive shit to fan interaction was the OrangeMarlin secret trial. Now I can't promise to reach those high standards straight off, after all FT2 has much more experience in these matters than me. I can though promise to endeavour to persevere and hopefully one day I'll reach the gold standard of shit to fan percussive intimacy.
 * Or to be serious, "the shit would hit the fan", because I would do my utmost to change the way Arbcom operates and interacts with the community (see my answer to LtPower's question). I'm certainly not a conventional Arbcom candidate, I have strong opinions on the way things are currently done at Arbcom and on the way the Foundation board does things, or rather doesn't do the things it should. It would be groundbreaking for a non-admin to be on Arbcom, and I certainly wouldn't become part of the cosy cabal of complacency that currently runs Arbcom. RMHED (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Pixelface
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions: Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * A. Significantly more than it currently does. I'd like to see at least 25 arbitrators.
 * 1) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * A. I think the current three years is fine if the number of arbitrators is increased significantly. If not, then to prevent burnout I'd say reduce the term to 18 months.
 * 1) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * A. Depends if the lobbying spills over into undue badgering. By and large though an arbitrator should be open to a certain amount of lobbying. Though anything that is directly salient about a case, should also be copied over to the relevant case page.
 * 1) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * A. Yes, who knows where a thoughtful or innovative new angle may come from. After all, if the edit is obviously contentious then it will be quickly reverted and discussion can take place on the talk page.
 * 1) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * A. Yes, they have the same 'right' to edit Wikipedia as any other user. They do not have any greater right to decide policies or guidelines though. Any changes they make would need the same degree of community wide acceptance as anybody elses would require.
 * 1) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * A. No, the Arbcom serves the community and ultimately the community must decide how Arbcom functions.
 * 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"?
 * A. Notability is not an absolute requirement it is a guideline, albeit a widely accepted one that is very seldom ignored. So, there is currently no requirement that a subject must be notable, ultimately, the community via an AfD or AfDs resolve these matters.
 * 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?
 * A. I think the statement does conflict with WP:NOT and WP:Notability, though I don't really see it as a problem. The statement IMO is fatuous, it has the ring of being produced by an advertising creative who's in the wrong job. I'd much rather imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has access to clean water.
 * 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?
 * A. It would depend on the user's reasons for nominating the articles for deletion. If the reasons are based on policies or guidelines then it is clearly to a degree at least a content dispute. The disruptive methods employed though also indicate it is a behavioural dispute. Before accepting an Arbcom case of this kind an RfC should usually be attempted. This at least gives all parties a chance to resolve matters within a formal setting, only if this fails should an Arbcom case be accepted.
 * 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?
 * A. Wow, that really is an extreme scenario. I doubt very much that the 200 bundled AfDs would be following the correct deletion procedure, as all 200 articles would need an AfD tag on them. For the sake of argument though let's assume that they are. In this kind of extreme situation there is obviously severe ongoing disruption, the user has very clearly expressed their intention to continue on this path, so yes I think it would ba appropriate to accept an Arbcom case. To quickly prevent the disruption, I would push for an immediate motion prohibiting the user from nominating any more asteroid articles or using automated tools for deletion nomination.
 * 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?
 * A. No, I can't see what useful purpose this would serve. I also can't see how it could possibly be enforced, Jimbo or Arbcom certainly don't have the power to compel such disclosures.

Question from Marlith
What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years?  Marlith  (Talk)   03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A. A credible encyclopedia that doesn't defame people. Though I don't believe Wikipedia will survive much beyond 5 years, at least not in its current form. RMHED (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * RE: So you are afraid that the encyclopedia might fail if you don't take control of where its headed and make drastic improvements.  Marlith  (Talk)  ' 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In its current form failure is all but inevitable. Wikipedia as an offshoot of the Wikimedia Foundation is doomed, as WikiMedia has no effective long term finance strategy, beyond asking for donations. They are an internet minnow and the piranhas are circling. RMHED (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)