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

Question from Ultraexactzz - responded
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?
 * Open-minded.   Risker (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Giggy - responded
Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.
 * 1) a/s/l?
 * Over 35, female, and Canada
 * 1) What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.
 * I'm not sure that the divide is really between mainspace vs. project space editors; instead, I would suggest the more significant divide is between idealists and pragmatists, and that idealists tend toward the mainspace while pragmatists tend toward the project space. The larger community is populated overwhelmingly by idealists, most of whom are never seen in project space because they are busy developing and improving articles, or designing content-related templates, or writing software patches to make it easier to read or edit articles, or greeting new editors. The pragmatists tend to be problem solvers and organisers—addressing vandalism, creating structures, patrolling new pages, assessing articles, analysing processes to identify and address weaknesses, and plenty of them work quietly away in the background, too. Most of the time, the two groups work more or less separately, or their interactions are supportive. The clashes come when one group gives the impression of imposing their views on the other, or someone's actions are out of step with more social expectations that develop over time. A classic example where the two collide is in adding a cleanup template to an article: The idealist says "don't just tag it, find and add the missing reference/improve the spelling/wikify, or at least specify exactly what the problem is", whereas the pragmatist says "There's a problem here, and I can't fix it, but if I flag the article then someone who knows how to fix it will be able to find it and make the fix." Both are right, but each has failed to understand or respond to the other's reasoning. It seems to me that the most useful way to address these clashes is with active communication—by which I mean genuine discussion on talk pages (not through edit summaries), and a willingness to listen to and act upon each other's concerns. It's important to note that there are plenty of idealistic pragmatists around (the WP:MOSNUM dispute and the Sarah Palin protection wheel war are good examples), and anyone who has taken an article through a featured article candidacy has learned how to be a pragmatic idealist. I do believe that almost everyone who seriously participates on Wikipedia contributes with an eye to the project's overriding purpose, but with 10,000 or so regular editors, conflict due to varying perspectives and priorities is going to happen.  Risker (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * It all depends on the banned user and the nature of the edits. I have seen some edits that might ordinarily have appeared to be innocuous, even appropriate, but were made with the deliberate intent to harass someone. The person being harassed need not be a Wikipedian, either.
 * 1) Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.
 * I think the Committee's decision on the SlimVirgin-Lar matter was a missed opportunity to visit the issues related to CheckUser policy. Officially, the English Wikipedia CheckUser policy is simply a mirror of the Meta one; realistically, the policy is interpreted much more broadly on this project than on most other projects. This would have been an excellent opportunity to determine that the interpretation of the CU policy would be more restrictive and in line with sibling projects. It would also have been an opportunity to create a project-specific ombudsman role that would include auditing of CheckUser actions and reviewing concerns voiced by editors. The Committee has not been afraid to address issues in novel ways before (q.v., Footnoted quotes), and should not have been on this occasion.
 * Some examples of differences between English Wikipedia's CheckUser policies and those of other projects: German WP requires that checks only be done at the request of a third party, and any relevant blocks done by a third party. Spanish Wikipedia requires a written on-wiki request. Italian Wikipedia CheckUsers are appointed for a six month period, and must go through a reconfirmation process to retain permission.
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Let's see, how many of your articles have I copy edited? ;-) Seriously, I doubt I am the best person to assess which of my contributions are best, but some that I am proud of are the two featured articles that were the result of collaborations, the good article that I developed at the request of a RL friend, my contributions to the early episodes of the BADSITES saga, and my habit of respecting (and even appreciating) those with whom I may disagree on a specific subject
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * No, I will not be voting. I think the community will make these decisions just fine without my ~ on anyone's vote page.

Thanks for your questions, Giggy. I have expanded my response to question #4 somewhat. Risker (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Sarcasticidealist - responded
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?
 * In an ideal world, our policies would be both prescriptive and descriptive, and quite strongly binding. This is not an ideal world. Policies are regularly edited on the spur of the moment to reflect the day's threads on WP:ANI, with no attempt at broad community consensus. They're also poorly written in many cases, and contradictory in others. Given that, I am hard pressed to say that they are or should be binding or prescriptive.
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * The one advantage of keeping former Arbitrators involved is to provide some history; however, it is my understanding that there is a very extensive archive available for the reference of current arbitrators, and it's my personal experience that human memory often varies significantly from what is documented to have occurred. I have observed some former arbitrators participating in on-wiki dispute resolution which I perceive may be related to something discussed on the ArbCom mailing list, which indicates that some of them are actively assisting the Committee in its activities. Nonetheless, my preference would be for the mailing list to be restricted to the current committee.
 * 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?
 * Unlike an administrator, whose term is self-determined (barring involuntary removal of permissions), arbitrators are selected by a much larger segment of the community to serve a specific and time-limited term, and the Committee consists of only 15 people. I believe the more difficult commitment to make is to devote three years to the work of the Arbitration Committee, given the number of arbitrators who have elected to step down. I believe that the community is ever closer to assuming the reins of the Arbitration Committee selection process, and would prefer to see a consistent standard applied to all arbitrators rather than a hodgepodge of inconsistent and unenforceable personal standards.
 * Thanks! Risker (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Minor amendment made 04:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Celarnor - responded

 * 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")?
 * Members of the community regularly attempt to extend the effects of Arbitration Committee decisions well past the scope of the original case; given this longstanding history, it is unsurprising that the committee has responded to this community practice by drafting decisions structured in such a manner as to encourage the community to interpret policy in a specific way. I do not think it is possible to prevent the community from interepreting ArbCom decisions as "standard of practice", and so it is better for the committee to write decisions with that likelihood in mind rather than protest that each decision is limited and discrete.
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * I believe Committee members should ensure they keep abreast of major policy discussions and technical changes that can affect the way in which editors work within the encyclopedia; however, with limited exceptions, I view any participation in such discussions as being personal rather than representative of the committee. I think it's important that arbitrators also continue to participate in the core activities of the encyclopedia, although it is reasonable for them to step from a labour-intensive activity (e.g., featured content writing) to less time-intensive activities such as new page patrol. The obligations of committee members is written loosely enough that each arbitrator interprets his or her responsibilities slightly differently, although the core functions are relatively clear. Risker (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from LessHeard vanU - responded
This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction.
 * 1) Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the Arbitration Committee is the only group tasked to desysop, I think that every request to do so should be examined carefully. It strikes me that requests of this nature, where there is no other venue in which to adequately address the issues, should be considered priorities.
 * This may be a useful place to point out that removal of sysop permissions absolutely should not be the big deal that we have allowed it to become. They are provided after the community has assessed that the candidate has demonstrated good judgment and sufficient understanding of policy to use them appropriately. Subsequent poor judgment or repeated policy violation or gaming, whether or not the administrative toolkit is used raises some questions.

Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.
 * Thanks for the question.  Risker (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo - responded

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * About 15-20 hours carrying out tasks directly related to Arbitration Committee functions, with additional hours participating in other community discussions. Risker (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from WilyD - responded

 * 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?
 * Any editor can be blocked for a range of policy violations, including edit warring, 3RR violations, and other reasons itemised in the blocking policy. Many administrators have fallen afoul of these basic policies and have been blocked in the past, and they are presumed to know and understand these policies. Nonetheless, it is entirely appropriate to provide warning before blocking. As with any well-experienced editor, a personal message rather than a templated one is preferred for warnings, but the standard block message should be used for actual blocks because it provides all of the necessary links for appealing a block.
 * 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?
 * This isn't a black and white situation. Clearly, any admin can block an apparently compromised administrative account (or a compromised account of any editor, for that matter); the compromise will most likely be noticed because of questionable use of the admin tools. The same applies to a pre-existing Arbitration Committee ruling. It is a different story where the term "misuse of administrative tools" is more subjective: blocking an admin for protecting a page s/he had edited a month before is probably not going to fly. The blocking policy doesn't include much other wording that might apply, except with respect to BLP issues; a discussion of whether the threshhold for disruptive editing has been crossed might be appropriate on Administrators noticeboard with blocking being the consensus decision.   Risker (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from PhilKnight - responded

 * 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)
 * I anticipate recusing in relatively few circumstances. These would likely include:
 * Direct involvement in the dispute being brought forth, whether as an administrator or editor
 * Disputes relating directly or indirectly to my real-life profession. (This affects less than 1% of the cases accepted in the history of the Arbitration Committee.)
 * Other cases where I believe that I will be unable to review the evidence objectively and impartially. It's difficult to predict the circumstances under which this would apply; however, as I have no strong affiliations with particular philosophies or belief systems (on- or off-wiki), I don't see this as a common situation.
 * 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?
 * This is a fairly standard blocking situation. Once the blocked editor is able to demonstrate an understanding of the difference between characterising the person ("you are a racist") and characterising the edit ("that is a racist perspective/comment, and here is why"), and undertakes to change his manner of communication, he can be unblocked. From the content perspective, additional experienced editors can help to defuse the situation and return the discussion back on track, and emphasise our content policies and how they apply in this situation.   Risker (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Thatcher - responded
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?


 * I think this is the right call, for now; the objective is to stop problematic editing, not to punish people. If further problems develop in the future, a more direct approach is required. If the vandalism is the kind of thing we usually refer to as vandalism, then this is an adequate solution; I'd expect that future edits post-block from that IP will be observed for a period of time to ensure that other problematic edits (personal attacks, attempts at vote stacking) do not occur.

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.


 * I'd choose (b); if I felt that a block or checkuser was required, I would ask an uninvolved admin/checkuser to assess the situation.

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?


 * I think I'd start out by asking why the CheckUser was run in the first place; presumably, Smythe was editing in some kind of disruptive or suspicious manner, in which case it is unclear why the account was permitted to continue at that time. I'd be inclined to keep the Smith account blocked until there is clear evidence that all disputes with user Jones are resolved. I presume that the blog is well-known, possibly even linked to Smith's userpage; under those circumstances, I'd be inclined to block the now-acknowledged Smythe account too.

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?


 * I think it's reasonable to conduct some internal polling during the process of drafting a proposed decision, and sometimes there will be a broad range of views. I believe that there have been several occasions where such a split has nearly paralysed the committee. When it becomes clear that such a split has occurred, but that it is likely a middle ground can be found, the proposed decision should be written with the three options for sanctions included, and arbitrators vote based on their first, second, third choices. It's a roundabout way that will probably result in the middle ground being taken, but it serves to demonstrate to both the editors involved and the community at large that the range of sanctions has been considered. I think when it's clear that a "middle ground" decision is going to be the result, it is especially important for committee members to vote in a timely way. Arbitration decisions are supposed to calm a situation, not become their own little Drama Central.

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


 * I'm used to working with highly active mailing lists; it's not unusual for me to receive over 100 messages a day in my multiple personal/business email accounts. Should I be appointed to the committee, I will be changing the focus of my article space work, reducing the frequency of carrying out labour-intensive projects and focusing more on new page patrol and small-scale but important article improvement (e.g., finding sources for unreferenced statements in BLPs, or otherwise addressing tags). Should I be appointed, I expect that there will be a case or two a year that I will not participate in; even arbitrators have a real life. I think it is just as likely that a case I participated in will have provisions I don't entirely agree with, though; most decisions are "split", it is the unanimous decision that is rare.

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


 * I have not publicly disclosed my real name and employer; however, if I was appointed to the committee and subsequently that information was to come to light, it would not have an effect on my service to the Arbitration Committee. As I have mentioned in my response to MBisanz below, my employer is aware of my participation in Wikipedia.

Thanks for the questions. Risker (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad - responded
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).


 * Should I be appointed to the Committee, I would expect to start off with B and C; after taking a short while to familiarise myself with existing practices, I would add D and E. I expect that I would be drafting partial decisions at the workshop level from case to case fairly early on, although I would want to have several months (or cases) of experience before drafting an entire decision.


 * I believe arbitrators must be able to personally review CheckUser results and Oversight logs that are being used as evidence in a matter before them, and that to have access to that information, they should be required to complete the same personal identification process, and be publicly identified as having access to the information. I expect that, as one of the few women who would have access to these permissions, I will be called upon to assist in privacy- or personal safety-related RFCUs and oversight requests.

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


 * I believe that the two proposed revisions reflect more accurately the current practices; however, I think that FT2's version goes a bit beyond current practice, particularly with respect to inactivity and resignation. Otherwise, the content is very similar and the difference is more in content organisation and formatting. As these proposals have now seen the light of day for over a month, I think it is time to merge them together, clarifying where wording variations need to be resolved, and seek broader community input for a period. I have made some comments on Newyorkbrad's proposal, and had made some wording suggestions in FT2's version at the time he was drafting it, so most of those are already included in his text. Overall, I think it is a workable proposal. I think it would be more honest and realistic to create a two-tranche system with two-year appointments. It would be a good idea to formalise a process for replacing members of the committee who step down, or who do not participate in an on-wiki case for a specified period (I'd suggest 3 months, particularly if terms are limited to 2 years). It might also be appropriate to gauge community response to a (yet to be written) formal process for arbitrator recall. A well-crafted arbitrator recall process may pave the way for a community-based administrator recall process that works to the satisfaction of both the administrative cadre and the community as a whole.

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.


 * The on-wiki caseload has been lower this year, but this is partially because the committee has turned down 75% of the proposed cases, as my colleague Cool Hand Luke has pointed out. In fairness, I think only a handful of those turned down were serious enough to be considered appropriate for arbitration, and several were resolved by motions, which I think is a much more effective way to address a narrow issue. The core question is whether the reduction in Requests for Arbitration is (A) because the community is handling things on their own more effectively, or if (B) the community's faith in the committee's ability to resolve things has eroded to the point that arbitration is no longer considered worth the time and effort. While I think there is some truth to (A), the frequency of requests started to tail off more rapidly after the OrangeMarlin case and related activities, and the community was actively pressing the committee to resolve the C68-FM-SV matter rather than accept new cases as that particular case sat for weeks without any on-wiki attention from arbitrators. Requests have picked up somewhat in recent weeks, but that is in keeping with the pattern of past years. I suspect the committee still has some distance to go to assuage the concerns of the broader community.

Thanks for the questions. Risker (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo - responded
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?


 * In the spirit of ignoring all rules, instead of implementing or abolishing a policy, I would change the policy on policies to lock policies approved by consensus, requiring some set level of consensus to make changes to any policy. It is not uncommon to find significant changes to have been made to policies by a single editor (or as a result of a single situation), without discussion or evidence of community consensus on the talk page. This can be a significant problem when one is accused of failing to follow a policy that had been changed without there being any form of community notification; it would also prevent the periodic edit-warring and contentiousness that occurs when changes are disputed.

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?


 * The arbitration policy is clear that it is not the committee's role to create, amend or abolish policy; instead, its task is to interpret policy as it exists or is practiced. It's a little less clear when it comes to aspects of policy that are ambiguous; I believe in those cases, it is within the committee's scope to identify the "preferred" understanding of policy. I will note that the proposals to amend the arbitration policy, both written by current members of the committee, do not propose to change this, nor do I personally think it should be changed.


 * The Wikipedia philosophy of improvement by consensus discussion works relatively well in the smaller confines of deletion discussions or article improvement (recognising there are exceptions to both these examples). It has proved less successful in discussions that involve perhaps hundreds of editors; significant change to policy or practice has been largely stymied by what some feel is an impossibly high standard of consensus. It is in this climate that the Arbitration Committee has demonstrated a willingness to amend policy by providing open-ended "arbitration enforcements" that permit administrators (and in some case, any editor) to act in ways that are either not covered by existing policy, or actually contradict current policy. To this point, the community has largely accepted this practice; however, as these decisions affect an ever-growing segment of the encyclopedia, they are having unforeseen effects on the content of the encyclopedia, as well as the intended effects on editing climate in affected topic areas. If the committee is going to continue to approve such remedies, it needs to ensure that the remedies do not create barriers to article improvement by respected editors working solidly within our content editing policies.

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


 * I had questions myself about this, so in August I opened an IRC account, and this is what I found. Most Wikipedia- and Wikimedia-related Freenode IRC channels are uncontroversial and operate within a very limited scope (e.g., #wikimedia-tech, which is used by developers to have real time discussions when solving a technical problem, but is otherwise pretty empty). Those that have a broader scope, like #wikipedia-en, have a much stronger social element to them, but still provide the intended question-and-answer support. It is #wikipedia-en-admins that is most controversial, mostly because of its lack of transparency. I found it was usually a good place to get an answer to a technical question, and it is definitely a social environment. From other users of this channel, I have been told that behaviour is improved compared to a year ago, and even more dramatically improved from two years before. I observed that users who repeatedly violated channel rules (regardless of which channel was involved) were kicked out of the channel (or otherwise prevented from commenting), often at a point before a similar sanction (blocking) would have been applied on-wiki. After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that the threat of the Arbitration Committee assuming authority over the channel has likely had some effect here. The use of IRC as a combination social and communication tool is so ingrained into the project after all of these years that it's a fallacy to say that they are completely separate from the project. While I don't think it is really a problem for the Arbitration Committee to be part of the hierarchy for addressing issues in en.wp-related channels, I would hope that there is sufficient finesse in addressing issues to limit effects to the problem area rather than spreading it around. If someone acts up on IRC, that should be addressed on the channels; if they act improperly on-wiki, it should be addressed there. Only when an IRC behavioural problem comes onto the encyclopedia should it result in sanctions in both places.

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?


 * One of the key undertakings I am giving is to analyse any proposed remedies that go beyond user-specific behavioural sanctions to assess the potential impact on the encyclopedia as a whole. I do not believe that, when the committee was first established in 2004, anyone expected the Arbitration Committee to be faced with some of the highly complex matters that have come before it over the last few years. The committee has addressed many of these complex matters with non-user remedies, which I expect will continue to be required; I think it's important to take the time to identify the reasonably foreseeable effects of such remedies before approving them. This is a good time to assess what the effects of the non-user remedies issued to date have been, and whether they have achieved the desired results; that would be a specific focus of mine. I will also undertake to make the effort to discuss any votes I make as a member of the committee, something that I have appreciated very much from arbitrators who have done this, and wished to see more of from those who have chosen not to do so.

Thanks for your questions. Risker (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754 - responded
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?
 * I find four months to be an excessive length of time to resolve a case, regardless of whether it is relatively low profile (like this one) or high profile (like the C68-SV-FM case)
 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * Wikiprojects are subprojects where editors with common interests can organise and focus work on a specific topic or range of topics, in order to develop the content of one particular segment of the encyclopedia. I do not believe that they can enforce any standards outside of the communally agreed-upon ones, although they can develop and encourage certain formats or layouts.
 * 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)
 * Well, as I do not believe that individual wikiprojects have the authority to insist on certain formats or impose certain standards in a general sense, I cannot see that they have the authority to impose them on child wikiprojects.
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * Whether or not a message constitutes canvassing relates to the content and intended target of the message; the means by which the message is distributed is less important. It is possible to canvass using newsletters and IRC, certainly; some of the canvassing done is relatively benign ("This month's project is Article ABC, come join us").
 * 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?
 * Any editor should feel free to revert true vandalism. Good faith but horrible edits are a little trickier, but often also need to be removed; for these, I would suggest "undo" or simply editing out the problematic information. When correcting such edits, it is really important to take the time to explain the reasons for the edit, particularly if it involves a new editor. On occasion, an editor will remain insistent on adding content "their way" whether or not it meets core content policies, or there is consensus for/against adding the information; sometimes the editing behaviour becomes so tendentious that article protection and/or editor blocking is required. Once again, communicating editing policies and clearly identifying what exactly is of concern is very important. I have encountered a few situations like that, and I've found that writing out the exact nature of concerns really does help for all parties.
 * 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?
 * Of the group of issues you've described, the one that concerns me most is the ignoring of consensus. Repeatedly completing a certain edit against consensus is likely to lead to edit warring and/or be an example of tendentious editing, either of which can lead to sanctions. Smart aleck remarks tend to be in the eye of the beholder, so I am less likely to be concerned about them. And editors are free to ignore what administrators tell them, although if administrators (or other editors) are warning about policy violations, users ignore them at their peril.
 * 1) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * I take exception to your turn of phrase; there are many people who are very intelligent but just don't "get" how to edit the encyclopedia. I think efforts should be made to genuinely assist the editor in developing wiki-editing skills if possible. If the person is speaking English as a second language, perhaps assisting them in participating in a wiki based on their native language will prove interesting for them. Some people take a while to "get it", so investing a bit of time in helping them is worthwhile in a lot of cases.
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * Community bans are a last resort to address a single user's consistently or repeatedly problematic behaviour. They should be rare. Of the scenarios listed in #5-7, I see the potential for a community ban if the problematic behaviour is happening repeatedly and consistently with very few mitigating factors, but I would not want to see a community ban until solid efforts have been made to get the editor working within WP policy.
 * 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?
 * We're very big, which makes it difficult to come to agreement about things. We have conflicting priorities at times. We have a hard time being consistent. We are still trying to determine where on the notability continuum many of our articles fall, and at what point on that continuum it would be acceptable to delete an article. That's a start; there are more issues, of course, many of which are addressed on this page.

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

And thank you for your questions. Risker (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Maxim - responded

 * 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?
 * The policy says it all: Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. I believe this establishes the right balance. As an arbitrator, I would give serious consideration to requesting an emergency desysopping if an administrator continued a wheel war after a warning. Depending on the particulars of the situation, a full case might not be required to address the situation; it may be able to be dealt with under the newer "Motions" process. My observation is that most administrators who have been involved in wheel wars have found there is little tolerance for it, and have not repeated such behaviour; therefore, any relevant desysoppings would likely be for a set period rather than permanent.
 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * In theory, it is a logical idea; if the community can select who gains the permissions, the community should be able to decide who should no longer have it. I think the strongest argument against it is the great difficulty we as a community have had in establishing new, well-thought-out processes. I think we often rush to impose community-based editor sanctions (long term blocks, in particular), many of which wind up being revisited at some point. I would not be in favour of the community desysopping for a set period; once done, it seems to me that a new RfA should be required. I have seen a couple of proposals for a community desysopping process, and there seem to be useful elements in each; but until we can get a significant buy-in supporting one particular process, I think this has to remain on the shelf.
 * 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)?
 * I will admit to being something of a Luddite when it comes to automated tools and bots, yet the issue of adminbots caught my eye earlier this year and I took some time to learn about what they did and how they did it (thanks to some colleagues who took the time to explain it in terms that I could understand). I've come to the conclusion that carefully selected adminbots can serve a useful purpose on Wikipedia; since the operators of such bots have already successfully passed RfA, I don't see a need to have their personally operated bots go through. The administrators involved understand that they are fully responsible for the actions of their bots and, as far as I can see, have been responsive to any concerns about them. On the other hand, I have low tolerance for anyone running an adminbot who cannot be bothered going through BRfA, and believe that their bots should be treated as we would treat any other unauthorized bot.
 * I have observed that most administrators who use high speed tools to carry out admin functions do so with the same diligence that they used to carry out the tasks manually. Some automated scripts have significantly improved the way that some administrative tasks are carried out (e.g., the scripts several admins use to close AfDs). To be honest, I am more concerned about non-admins using some of the high-speed automated tools a bit too enthusiastically.

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


 * 1) There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
 * I think the two areas where I would most like to see some change would be in devolving some of the responsibilities of the committee, particularly block/ban reviews, and probably CheckUser/Oversight appointments. Before devolving these responsibilities, I'd like to see a good process set up to ensure that concerns (particularly privacy concerns) are well addressed, and there is a method of ensuring that results are appropriate. (See also my responses to Al Tally below.) I think, as well, that the Committee needs to reconsider what it will and will not accept as "private" evidence. It is my sense (although obviously I cannot confirm this) that the committee has accepted evidence privately that did not involve any privacy concerns, and thus should have been at least summarised on-wiki as part of the case. I suspect that many of the things that have worked well are those things that go unnoticed, such as the addressing of privacy concerns and oversights.
 * 1) Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?
 * I have no idea what effect former arbitrators and Jimbo have on discussions occurring on the committee's mailing list, and I think it would be inappropriate to guess.
 * 1) Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.  a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?  b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?
 * I fully expect that there are those who will disagree (rather strenuously in some cases) with decisions I make should I be appointed to the committee. Some of those who disagree with me will be people whose opinion I hold in high esteem. Those with whom I have had private communication know that I am discrete and that I value confidentiality; if I believe something needs to remain sub rosa, I will hold my ground.
 * 1) Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?
 * There are no guarantees, from me or from any other candidate, that we will remain effectively involved for a full 3-year term; none of us know what the future holds, and major shifts in real-life circumstances may affect our Wikipedia commitments. I can only promise to stick it out as long as I remain an effective member of the committee, and to withdraw if I can no longer be effective.
 * 1) Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
 * I think "strongly urging" is as far as the committee can go. The Arbitration Committee itself should not make policy.
 * 1) If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
 * I don't see myself having a particular agenda, although I intend to focus energy on analysis and evaluation of the effectiveness of some past remedies (particularly variations on general sanctions) to determine if the committee should continue to utilize those forms of remedies.
 * 1) How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?
 * I may be a bit less likely to clean out the AIV page; I'd not want to startle any admins carrying out unblock reviews because the block was by an arbitrator. I expect that I may carry out fewer major article copy edits (one of my more significant mainspace activities) because some can require intensive time commitments; however, there are many other activities I enjoy within article space that will help keep me grounded.

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 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions. Risker (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from rootology - responded
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?


 * Overall, I had the impression that the case involved so much information and such an extensive history that it became nearly impossible to sort out the various effects related to each of the administrators and editors involved. There were questions of proportion and balance in both the presentation of evidence and the workshop. All of this led to one of the most protracted cases in the history of the Arbitration Committee, and it was clear the community was dissatisfied with the lack of even a proposed decision for such an extended period by their comments in other requests for arbitration. I hope that the committee learned from this situation, and I would vote against repeating it should I be appointed to the committee.

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?


 * I think perhaps if I had been in JamesF's shoes I might have simply chosen to abstain on all of the "valued contributor" sections if I was not familiar enough with the contributions of all of the editors to make that assessment. I am not certain that JamesF was being partial to particular individuals by voting as he did; however, I think it is up to him to explain his own actions. Each member of the committee will bring their own experiences and knowledge to the table for every case; I doubt there is anyone participating in the project who doesn't have some "baggage". The best that can be expected is for arbitrators to recuse prior to the initiation of the voting if they feel they cannot assess the situation impartially. I think arbitrators should probably reflect carefully on any calls for their recusal, particularly if those calls come from impartial and uninvolved community members.

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?


 * My greatest concern about this would be the same concern I have about most Wikipedia policy: difficulty coming to a consensus on what it should say in the first place; content changing on a whim based on the latest AN/I thread or the passing wordsmithing of a random editor; and, in this case, the difficulty of writing a descriptive policy when the processes being described are not yet in place. Having said that, I think the community is amply qualified to set the parameters of the committee's scope, objectives, and community expectations, provided that the committee itself have a strong voice in how it carries out those objectives on a day-to-day basis.

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


 * I think the community is quite mature enough to handle the election process on its own, and I would suggest that discussions on how the community wants to manage future elections should start in the early Spring in order to thoroughly examine various options and develop a consensus on the preferred method (some might prefer something similar to the Shulze method, or some other form of preference voting rather than straight votes). I think it especially important for the community to consider how it wants to handle the filling of seats due to resignation. As a tip of the hat to tradition, it might be appropriate to ask Jimbo Wales to certify the results of the election in the role of a Chief Electoral Officer.

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


 * No; I believe that only those candidates who receive the support of a majority of voters should be seated. Appointing arbiters who do not have at least that level of support will further accentuate any divide between the commmittee and the community it is intended to serve.

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?


 * Treat all who come before the committee with dignity and respect.

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


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


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


 * D, A, C, B. All participants on Wikipedia, regardless of their roles, must first act within the policies established by the Foundation. The Arbitration Committee then is responsible to the community. Members of the committee have a responsibility to each other and to the committee itself.

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


 * Thanks for your questions. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding. Risker (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Davewild - responded

 * 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)

I do support moving to a two-tranche system with two-year appointments, and I think that it should be incorporated into the proposed updating of the Arbitration policy, links to which are in the questions from Newyorkbrad. If elected, I would work to have shorter terms included in the policy; I am not confident that the proposed updating will be considered complete until the New Year. Having said that, I recognise that the terms for this current election are for three years, and I have committed to continuing for that three-year period, barring unforeseen circumstances.

Thanks for your question. Risker (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?
 * I don't particularly support any of them, because I do not believe it is possible to define the term "low-level civility issues" to any level that will be broadly supported by the community.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?
 * I do not support imposing civility restrictions. In every case that I have seen where they have been applied, and then sanctions imposed, they have caused more disruption than the edit(s) deemed incivil enough to trigger the sanction.


 * 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?
 * We have other behavioural policies that are more tightly worded but are often quite applicable to the situation, such as No personal attacks. They can be applied on a situational basis.

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


 * Thanks for your questions. Risker (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below) - responded
'' 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)?
 * It depends to some extent on the reason why one or more of the top candidates were not appointed. If the candidate him or herself declined an offered appointment, I think it would be reasonable to accept an appointment. Although I cannot imagine it happening, if one of the top candidates was to be indefinitely blocked or banned between the end of the election and the completion of the appointment process, I would probably be willing to accept an appointment. Otherwise, I would want to be fully aware of the reason that one of the top candidates was being passed over before considering an offer of appointment. I won't categorically say that I would decline such an offer of appointment, but there had better be some really spectacular reason for bypassing a candidate with stronger community support. Risker (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Lar - responded
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 support the concept of an "Opt Out" clause for marginally notable individuals. I do not believe the proposal is ready for prime time yet, though. It is largely dependent on one of our most contentious guidelines, Notability; unless we can gain agreement about where the lines are drawn between clearly notable, notable, marginally notable, mostly not notable, and not notable, an "opt-out" clause will have limited usefulness. Some other points we need to decide: what happens when the opted-out subject becomes clearly notable? what if someone opts in, but the community decides they aren't notable? Who gets to determine whether or not the subject falls into the "marginally notable" (or lower) classification? I will throw in here that I'm not all that fond of the "dead tree" standard of notability; many clearly notable individuals work in fields where biographies are rare (e.g., the sciences), and those who have become more recently notable in certain fields (including many cultural fields) may have extensive, high quality reference sources but only a hagiographic biography and no mention in scholarly sources. I'd also be interested in knowing how frequently Wikipedia has been asked to delete biographical articles by the subjects of said articles; if this happens half a dozen times a year, and every time the person is marginally notable at best, it should be pretty easy to get buy-in. If it is happening hundreds of times a year, and many of the requestors are clearly notable, we have a much more complex situation, where the notability guideline interpretation may well become a battlefield on its own.
 * (b) - I can agree with a standard that if an AfD that is specifically a biographical article about a living person reaches no consensus, it should default to delete. As to DRV, given that it operates differently from AfD, I think that would work; I've tried to imagine the possible permutations and it seems to be okay. You will note, however, that I have stressed that the article would have to be a biographical article about a person; we have BLP information in probably 50% of our articles, but I think this deletion standard is too high for any but strict biographies. Biographical information about living people that is found in other articles should be edited with WP:BLP in mind. Of the two proposals, I believe this one is the more straightforward, and doesn't require a lot of additional work before proceeding; however, it would be a good idea to look at, say, the last six months of AfDs of BLP articles to see which ones were closed as "no consensus" at the time (and thus kept), to see which articles would have been deleted. What works in theory may not actually work in practice.
 * Otherwise, I think the BLP policy is fairly good, and probably better written than a lot of our other policies. It isn't perfect (none of our policies are), but it is heading in what I feel is the right direction. I have always been something of a deletionist when it comes to BLPs of marginally notable people, so I support moving in this direction.
 * 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) It's pretty clearly a question of policy...policy about content.
 * (b) I assume that you refer to the "special enforcement provisions" that arose from the Footnoted quotes case. I think it went too far in several ways. First, any editor can remove material that violates WP:BLP and counsel those who insist on violating it; second, all of the remedies available to administrators under this clause were already available to administrators before it was written. Finally, the section that reads "Appeals of both the original action and of any subsequent reversal may be made directly to the Committee, or another body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future" means that the Arbitration Committee has set itself up to directly assess a content issue, and not just an administrative action; if a question of whether a page protection meets standards was brought before the committee, they must review the content itself to determine the answer.
 * The Sarah Palin protection wheel war case is the only time in which these special provisions were invoked. I note that it was overridden despite being invoked, too. I would rather have seen a temporary emergency desysopping of the administrators who unprotected or reduced the protection level against clear community consensus, with an RfAR addressed by summary motion, to address this issue; I think that would have been more effective in preventing future wheel wars over protection, and the administrators involved (having given their assurances they would not do it again) would have had their permissions reinstated quickly without having a cloud over their heads for an extended period.
 * 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?
 * The consensus-based approach, especially as practiced on this project, is one of high ideals and limited practicality. It relies on a combination of numbers (85-90% supports to approve an RFB, for example) and quality of argument (a highly subjective determinant). In theory, in a situation where four people make excellent arguments in favour of an action, and one person makes an excellent argument opposed to the same action but twenty other people say "per person one, whose argument covers all points" to also oppose, the four excellent favourable arguments should be the consensus; I find this problematic. I realise that consensus assessment is not usually practiced this way, but the door is left wide open for it to be so. Perhaps one of the best hints as to how we can do it better here is when access was granted for rollback permissions to be handed out by administrators. The person who set this up on English Wikipedia is an administrator on another wiki, and he assessed there to be a consensus with a lower numerical standard (about 66%) than is usual on En.wp. Maybe we are looking for too high a level of agreement in such a diverse project.
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?
 * I think we don't have enough information to determine whether or not it would be an improvement or a hindrance. It's my understanding that the only place where it is currently being used is on the German Wikipedia, where it was introduced with minimal planning and created some fairly significant community upheaval which has not yet fully resolved. (My "random article" search on German Wikipedia revealed that only two of the 20 biographies I saw were flagged, and I will note that anyone could see the "unflagged" version with one click.) Since that time, I understand that several other wikis have requested flagged/sighted versions, but their requests have not been acted upon, so any discussion on this project may be moot at this time.
 * I think the concept of sighted/flagged revisions is good, but we as a wiki need to resolve some issues before requesting that it be made available. We need to figure out who should be given authority to "sight" the articles (it shouldn't be an admin tool, probably closer to a rollback function), what kinds of articles to flag (BLPs and featured articles seem to be the current thoughts), who can review and approve new edits and how they should do it (reviewing reference sources, agreement of knowledgeable editors, etc). My concern is that our readers are likely to assume that flagged revisions are (at minimum) accurate; unless the article is verified before being flagged and then each subsequent edit is verified before being included, we may be setting up false expectations for our readers. We need to sort this out before progressing. And I do not think the Arbitration Committee as a committee has any role to play in this discussion, although individual arbitrators should certainly be encouraged to participate in the decision, and if the community elects to go this route, then I think the Arbitration Committee should take that into consideration when making decisions where the issue is relevant.
 * 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)
 * Generally, I support the concept of permitting pseudonymous editing (I include editing without logging in as pseudonymous, as I do not see IPs as being truly anonymous). The overwhelming majority of our edits (both useful and problematic) are made by pseudonymous editors, and development and cleaning up of the encyclopedia is unlikely to continue at anything near a sufficient pace to satisfy our critics if we require only real-name editing. If someone forks English Wikipedia (or the community as a whole decides to fork the project), then requiring real-name-only editing would be an option, but I do not think we have a choice otherwise, because it is a core WMF principle.
 * I do not believe that either the WMF or this project does enough to make clear the personal privacy implications of editing Wikipedia; in fact, there are special pages and related templates that are regularly used to implore IP editors to create a username, and they speak mainly of the "benefits" without adequately outlining the potential for problems. I recently reviewed the issues of privacy, confidentiality and discretion myself, and wrote this essay as a review of current practices and issues. Once someone has posted something about themselves on-wiki, I am very hesitant to sanction another editor for referring to that information, particularly if it had been on-wiki for weeks or months. I think it is usually reasonable to delete personal information posted by an editor at his or her request, even to the point of oversighting particularly problematic information (e.g., the usual list of oversightable edits, accidental IP edits, anything personal about a third party such as the editor's wife's name). Everyone should always keep in mind, though, that it is impossible to unfry an egg, and once the information has been released, it can never be considered undisclosed. Editors themselves need to take some personal responsibility as well; changing accounts to reduce the likelihood of outing, and then promptly returning to the same topic areas and making the same content arguments is the wiki equivalent of waving a red flag in front of a bull, and again I would not be too excited about sanctioning an editor who pointed out the new account. At the end of the day, whether editing under one's own name or under a pseudonym, I believe we are all "findable" if someone works hard enough; using a pseudonym or editing using IP addresses only reduces that likelihood but does not eliminate it.
 * I am somewhat flummoxed by what to do when editors post something off-wiki that clearly links themselves to their Wikipedia account; it seems to me to be taking advantage of our high regard for pseudonymity to then claim that the information shouldn't be referred to on the project. On the other hand, I've seen cases where people have been mistakenly associated with Wikipedia accounts by third parties, so I am not supportive of referencing such information on-wiki. I think, however, that sanctions can only apply for on-wiki activities; off-wiki activities can be an aggravating factor, of course.
 * As to myself, I edit pseudonymously with a username that I only use on Wikipedia, which I created at a time when I was dealing with serious real-world personal security issues. For me at that time, editing Wikipedia any other way really was a "risk" - part of the reason for my choice of username. Those issues have been resolved very recently, but "Risker" is how I am now known on the project, and I don't plan on changing that. I don't intend to publicise my real name, but if someone asks me if my name is XXX YYY, I will answer truthfully, whether the question is sent privately or is posted on-wiki.
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * I think it would be fair for there to be a mention that some of our editors have been harassed and encouraging people to think carefully before deciding to share personal information when editing Wikipedia. It's not clear to me whether that is a WMF issue or a Wikipedia issue, especially now that SUL is widely used; in the past, I would have said it was a project responsibility. I am not certain that much can be done to prevent real-life stalking. I think it is well within the WMF's privacy policy to offer to provide police or other regulatory bodies with whatever information we have in our database with respect to a known stalker (e.g., dates/times/IPs when a harassing email was sent through the wikimedia interface) at the request of the editor being harassed or stalked; however, I don't think that the WMF should be directly providing psychological support to the victims. A poor job in victim support can be more harmful than beneficial; it would be better to assist the victims in locating and accessing a qualified support organisation within their own community where possible.
 * I would hope that others who have been stalked in real life prior to their coming to Wikipedia would already be aware of the security issues of participating online; people must assume some responsibility for their own decisions, particularly those who are already addressing personal security concerns. On the other hand, some of the people who have fallen victim to both off- and on-wiki stalking are not those who choose to participate here, but the subjects of some of our articles. I do not think it is at all acceptable to permit editors to use Wikipedia as a base for their harassment of either subjects of our articles or other editors. I realise that some of the harassment that has occurred is such that it would be very difficult for an uninvolved individual to spot. After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that it is appropriate to take some extra steps in the revert, block, ignore cycle to keep others from unintentionally repeating the harassment by reinstating edits that are not thoroughly checked out, and by blocking accounts with some form of flag to alert administrators reviewing unblock requests that there are special circumstances. I won't take credit for this idea, as it is a variation of something that has been posited from time to time, but I think it is workable.
 * I have long said that the term "wikistalking" was inappropriate, because there is an enormous difference between reviewing someone's contributions and even making their life somewhat miserable on Wikipedia, and the stalking that involves telephone calls to friends, family and employers, emails to people, and following people in real life. The first, which has recently been renamed wikihounding is a nuisance and at worst can turn an editor off participating. The second can be symptomatic of a genuine physical and psychological threat. Having been on the receiving end of both, I can honestly say that there is no comparison between the two.
 * 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?
 * Please see my answer above for some ideas on how I would handle the "remarkably unwelcome" editor, whom I would generally characterize as one who is editing Wikipedia with the intention to cause harm to one or more specific entities (generally, harassment of a person, but potentially also a business). After some careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there is merit in reverting all edits; the downside is that it may feed the ego of the remarkably unwelcome editor to know that they are causing some level of disruption, but the upside is that an independent editor will review the contribution and (hopefully) only return it to the article once it is fully vetted for appropriateness, verified, and found to be within the scope of the BLP policy without giving undue weight to an aspect of the subject. Care has to be taken not to revert back to a version that violates policy itself, though; some skill is definitely required, and it needs to be done in a way that the reversion does not cause harm.
 * Problematic editors who add good content are a greater challenge, because reverting their edits has the potential to cause more harm to the encyclopedia than good. It is this point where the needs of the project and our audience (the 160 million readers a day) may need to take precedence over the social aspects of encyclopedia-building. There are certain "problem" editors whose work is such that I would have a very hard time justifying its reversion. I would never be inclined to blanket unrevert, though; I believe that each of is responsible for any editorial decision we make, and I would not "unrevert" anything that I could not personally stand behind.
 * 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? )
 * There's no way to ensure that all criticism will happen on-wiki, and to expect it to happen reveals a concerning degree of utopianism; I've even been known to make a disparaging remark or two at the family dinner table, not that anyone else around the table actually cared. I don't have a blog, though, and have no interest in writing one, especially not about Wikipedia. I don't have an account at Wikipedia Review and don't intend to start one, although I do read some of their threads, particularly the early posts in threads relating to articles, and I am well aware that my responses to this particular series of questions will be analysed in depth in that forum. Some of what is posted there is useful and well considered; some of it is simply gossip. I don't have a problem with anyone choosing to participate on WR, regardless of what permissions they hold, or whether they are arbitrators. I did participate in Wikback, which I felt started out as a relatively good forum for thoughtful Wikipedians to propose and comment on a range of ideas and concerns with less structure or "noise" than is normal within the confines of the encyclopedia. There were several factors that I suspect led to its demise; one was the rather heavy-handed sanctions handed out by its moderator (compared to almost every other forum I have ever read or participated in), but another, I think, was that people realised that there was limited opportunity to implement any solutions that arose there because whatever consensus was arrived at was unlikely to result in an on-wiki consensus sufficient to take action.
 * 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)?
 * I will note in answering this question that I have been unsuccessful in several attempts over the last week to open the link to this essay; however, I have read it in the past. My first thought is that this is an essay, based on the experience of a specific internet user, that highlights what that person feels are commonly seen issues. My second thought is that, outside of the internet, vested contributors are considered to be those who have made an investment into a project or entity and have developed a personal interest in its activities and outcomes; most of the world values vested contributors. While I agree with several of the points the author of this essay raises, I believe it leaves out an awful lot about vested contributors, focusing on the negative and largely ignoring the positive. Wikipedia could not survive without vested contributors; the encyclopedia relies heavily on people to assume a degree of ownership of the project to make major improvements in articles, to write software, to clean up vandalism, to clean up backlogs and prevent damage. Anyone who has taken the time to read this page, or has an interest in the election, is a vested contributor. I think it is about time we stop using the term "vested contributor" as a pejorative, and start looking at it as a positive.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * While I am best known for my work within the blue-green and shades-of-grey spectrums, I have also had very positive experiences with jewel and earth tones, and even primary colours on the occasions when our paths have crossed. I believe that I could remain open-minded to just about every colour, with the exception of orange. Orange and I have had disputes in the past and, should I be appointed to the committee and should a case involving orange be brought before it, I will likely recuse. :) :)   Risker (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While I am best known for my work within the blue-green and shades-of-grey spectrums, I have also had very positive experiences with jewel and earth tones, and even primary colours on the occasions when our paths have crossed. I believe that I could remain open-minded to just about every colour, with the exception of orange. Orange and I have had disputes in the past and, should I be appointed to the committee and should a case involving orange be brought before it, I will likely recuse. :) :)   Risker (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern - responded

 * 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?
 * This has been a troubling issue for an extended period, and many of the proposals you mention have been tried in various permutations. I think it is time now for the committee, with the help of disinterested members of the community, to analyse how well they have worked so far, because I am not persuaded that they have been entirely effective. If a dispassionate review shows that there has been improvement in article content and a reduction in interpersonal conflict, then we know the Arbitration Committee's enforcement provisions are working; if we are seeing a degeneration in article quality, or if there has been no significant reduction in interpersonal conflict, then it strikes me there is little point in continuing to pursue the same course of action. One idea that has occurred to me is an editorial restriction on the percentage of editing within a certain topic area, but I would like to see such a proposal be well considered by the committee and the community before imposing it. There may be other ideas from both the community and the members of the Arbitration Committee that should be given consideration as well.
 * 1) Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?
 * The civility policy is probably one of the most unhelpful policies we have. The nastiest, most insulting comments I have seen on-wiki have been those that would be completely acceptable within the civility policy, and I say that despite its recent overhaul. Civility is an abstract concept whose definition varies widely between individuals, circumstances, and cultures. There are 1600 administrators on this project, and I can pretty well guarantee you that there are 1600 different interpretations of civility as a result. I have found that other more tightly worded behavioural policies (e.g., No personal attacks and Harassment) are at least as effective in addressing problematic editorial behaviour on a situational basis. I do not support civility sanctions on the "any administrator may" basis for any editor; I have yet to see them produce the desired effect, while their use has created more disruption than the edits for which the sanctions were imposed.

Thanks for your questions. Risker (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare - responded

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * I would not feel comfortable with accepting appointment if I had received more "oppose" votes than "support" votes, so if I were to receive anything less than 50% +1 supports, I would decline appointment. Each year, the "cut-off" point for appointment has fallen, so it is hard to say where that cut-off will fall this year in order to fill the current openings on the Committee.
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * Unlike an administrator, whose term is self-determined (barring involuntary removal of permissions), arbitrators are selected by a much larger segment of the community to serve a specific and time-limited term, and the Committee consists of only 15 people. I would support community-developed, consistent standards applied to all arbitrators, although I would not support an arbitrator recall system dependent on a hodgepodge of unenforceable personal recall processes.

Thanks for your questions, sorry for the delay in responding. Risker (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from UninvitedCompany - responded

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * I have edited mainly in article and Wikipedia areas of the project, as can be seen on the Wannabe Kate tool. Much of my article work is full-article copy editing, where I will often work on an entire section in a single edit, using preview rather than saving each individual change. I don't upload images (I did it once just to understand the process) but will edit tags to assist other editors, and I am definitely not a template person so I leave them in the hands of people who know what they are doing.
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * As a very broad-brush statement, I work in an administrative capacity where I am a subject matter expert, and my education is commensurate. I don't edit in areas related to my educational or professional background, nor do I rely on either in my Wikipedia actions.
 * 1) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * I have not participated in any other on-line projects. I have participated in a few forums on very specific subjects, most related to my profession.
 * 1) Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
 * I cannot recall any non-routine involvement in disputes.
 * 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?
 * No significant allegiances. I do not participate in topics directly or indirectly related to my professional activities.
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * See question #2.
 * 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?
 * Please see my response to MBisanz's question here.
 * 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?
 * Almost everyone I know uses Wikipedia as a quick reference source; I am fairly certain that many of my close relatives, including those living in my household, have made occasional edits, although I suspect these were mainly as unregistered editors. If they are registered users, I do not know their usernames, and only my husband knows mine.
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * I have participated in IRC discussions and the Wiki-en-L mailing list. I read the Foundation-L mailing list. I will sometimes exchange emails or use Gmail chat in exchange with others, although in many cases it is social conversation instead of something related to Wikipedia.
 * 1) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * I don't see myself representing any particular constituencies; I have friendly relations with editors and administrators from many areas of the encyclopedia. If elected, however, I suspect that some female editors with privacy or harassment concerns may elect to approach me in a sort of woman-to-woman manner, and I would certainly provide them with what support, advice and assistance I can.
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * I agree with the committee not accepting cases that are entirely content-focused; outside of that, I think each request for arbitration must be considered individually, and the committee should have some idea of what it thinks it can do about it, before accepting.
 * 1) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * This is a very broad question, and there is no single answer to it. I find wars to be problematic behaviour, and there is no doubt it affects conflict on-wiki, but I don't think Wikipedia can do much about that external situation. Wikipedia-related problematic behaviour (e.g., that carried out by the wiki email interface or on one of the semi-official mailing lists) is more likely to be actionable than that in a completely unrelated venue such as a personal email not using the wiki interface. Each situation has to be taken in its unique context.
 * 1) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * All of them can be effective in the right situation and under the right contexts. I have some concerns about some of the ways that sanctions containing the phrase "any administrator may" have been used, although sometimes they have been very effective as well. Perhaps the committee (or for that matter, interested editors) should review situations where such remedies have been used to figure out what administrative actions have had the most positive effect on the article(s) involved, and consider incorporating those actions into future remedies.
 * 1) Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
 * I would like to see better control on the pages of cases accepted at RFAR, in particular a significant reduction in non-relevant information submitted as evidence or inserted as commentary on the workshop page. I'd also encourage members of the community who have no involvement in a case to participate in evidence gathering and presentation; while they may not be familiar with every nuance that someone involved in the dispute will be able to provide, I think this could lead to a more neutral summary of pertinent information and will in turn assist the committee to make better decisions. I have absolutely no plan to use my role as a member of the committee to drive changes in the project as a whole; any changes I propose or support would be based on my personal views.
 * 1) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * In the interests of collegiality, I think I will pass on this question. If I have a concern about a specific individual, I will address it with them directly.
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * I don't think the committee necessarily needs proof for much of what it reviews, what it needs is sufficient evidence to make a decision on a balance of probabilities.
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * To be honest, I don't really spend much time thinking about them at all. As the Foundation has grown, there has been an increasing disconnect from the projects themselves. Likewise, the projects have taken on a life of their own in many cases. I suspect the effects of this have struck English Wikipedia more than any other project, simply because en.wp is the first project and had very significant influence on the Foundation and its board for many years. I do admit that I'd like to see the Foundation do more to tap into the resources of the broad Wikimedian community, and perhaps actively seek out employees who have invested volunteer time on one or more of the projects.
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * I have had few interactions with the OTRS team, so cannot speak generally. I've found that the few times I did interact with members of the OTRS team, the interactions were pleasant and positive; I believe they led to a satisfactory resolution in each case that I was involved in.
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * I presume this means "Will you publicise information from the archives" or words to that effect. I do not have any plans to publicise such information.

You've covered a lot of ground here; please let me know if I've left some gaps. Thanks for your questions. Risker (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from TomasBat - responded

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


 * I believe that helping new editors is one of many ways in which to help develop the encyclopedia; there are a lot of potentially great editors around who simply need some assistance in understanding the "Wikipedia way". One need not violate core policies to reach out to those new editors. A good natured and very specific explanation of what action one is taking and the reason for that action can be very helpful: for example "Hi, I have undone your addition to the James Bond article because you haven't provided a reference source that says all the actors were midgets. We usually require references for information that can be challenged....(links to relevant sections of policies, invitation to discuss further on talk page of article, etc)." The encyclopedia is protected, the editor is treated with respect, and good faith is assumed.

Thanks for your question. Risker (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from MBisanz - responded

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


 * I would ignore it. My family is aware that I edit Wikipedia; I discussed my candidacy and its implications with them, and they were very supportive. My employer is aware that I edit Wikipedia, and I discussed the potential for harassment with the appropriate individuals before I made my request for adminship. My employer is committed to taking whatever actions are necessary to protect its staff from harassment in the workplace, and has actively assisted staff in taking steps to stop personal harassment, including filing abuse reports with ISPs and supporting both criminal and personal prosecutions.
 * Should there actually be any harassment, I would not hesitate to involve police, my ISP, and any other authorities as appropriate. I did so some time ago when I was receiving slash porn in the email account attached to my Wikipedia account; that was resolved to my satisfaction. Risker (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Pixelface - responded

 * 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?
 * I have never been named as an involved party in an arbitration case.
 * 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?
 * I provided statements in the IRC and Tango cases. I provided evidence in the Tango case (seen here) and evidence involving private information for the Geogre/WMC case, the latter of which was sent to the committee's mailing list. I commented on workshops in several other cases. I believe that it was worth my time in each of the cases that I participated in, regardless of whether my statements or comments were reflected in the final decision. I am confident that the two times I submitted evidence, it was considered in developing the proposed decision.
 * 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).
 * I have never filed a request for arbitration.

Thanks for your questions. Risker (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Badger Drink - responded

 * 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?
 * The OrangeMarlin situation is the one that stands out in my mind as being the biggest problem case; I think probably the most appropriate recovery there would have been to quickly unblock OM and apologize. Any case that took more than 8 weeks to resolve is, in my books, problematic.
 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * I think almost everyone in the community was disturbed by this situation, starting from the out-of-the-blue block Arbcom findings and working through all of the fallout. I can't see anything that was done well in this case. About the only touch of class was that one of the arbitrators stepped up to the plate to agree to "mentor" OrangeMarlin in order to get the case cleared off quickly.
 * 1) This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
 * Bombastic or not, I think the community came up with a lot of good ideas during this process. In particular, I think devolution of some responsibilities (e.g., requests for changes in banning/indefinite blocking sanctions) is a good way to reduce committee workload and control, and increase community involvement. Shortening the service term has something to be said for it, and might well attract a wider range of qualified candidates. Some of the ideas about addressing so-called private evidence and increasing transparency were very good. Some of the suggestions that came from this were incorporated into the proposed redrafting of the arbitration policy; I think there is still more than can be done, particularly the devolution of responsibilities.

Thanks for your questions. Risker (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from BirgitteSB - responded
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)


 * This is an interesting proposal, Birgitte, and could be one of a number of different ways in which the Arbitration Committee could move to address non-public cases. I must disagree with a few of your underlying assumptions, however. I am not convinced that the "scrutiny of the larger community" effectively sifts through the various evidence presentations in all public cases; it is very case-dependent, and much related to the nature and volume of evidence. I rather doubt that very many uninvolved community members have read and analysed all 510,424 bytes and 33 separate submissions of evidence on Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence, for example. The idea of developing a comprehensive case presentation intrigues me, and I wonder if it might not be a good idea to have something like this for many cases, not just the private ones. It strikes me as reasonable to provide each party with at least some information about what issues are under examination, to the extent it can be done without breaching Foundation privacy policy. It is somewhat difficult to comment more fully on this proposal, as only sitting arbitrators are fully aware of how they are carrying out this process now, and the nature of the evidence which has or has not been shared. In summary, I think your proposal has some very good points, but there isn't sufficient information available to me about current processes or the specific cases where non-public decisions have been taken to assess whether or not it is likely to be effective.

Thanks for your question. Risker (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Kristen Eriksen - responded
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.


 * Discussions on content (including whether proposed content edits meet the verifiability policy) are generally outside of the scope of the Arbitration Committee, and are normally addressed through various content dispute resolution processes, including the Reliable sources noticeboard, content requests for comment, and third opinions. The Arbitration Committee is only likely to address content-related issues when they are associated with editorial behaviour issues, such as repeated use of sources deemed less than fully reliable by editorial peers, or repeated problems with incorrectly interpreting reference materials. I don't see a role for the committee itself in determining the acceptability of a particular reference source.

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?


 * I believe the intent of that section of WhatWikipedia is not is to state forthrightly that Wikipedia contains information that some people will not like; as long as the topic is encyclopedic, it may have an article, possibly including images, that will offend some people. The world is a big place; it wouldn't surprise me to hear that someone has managed to be offended by just about every one of our articles at one time or another. Given that Wikipedia averages about 7 million hits an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it's pretty clear the general public has found Wikipedia to be an acceptable source for many things. The academe is not the target audience of Wikipedia, nor is it for any other general encyclopedia, and I don't think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to aspire to be considered a "reliable source" for academic work.

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


 * The weight assigned to any particular reference source is determined by the group of editors working on an article, and is not an appropriate area for Arbitration Committee review, although I am certain that many editors who hold positions on the committee have participated in such discussions. Speaking as an editor, I would ask how one determines what popular opinion is, and request some reliable, scholarly sources to support the anecdotal information on what popular opinion is for the subject. Given that it does seem to be a fairly pervasive opinion, it would probably be notable, but would require reliable sources to be included in the relevant article.

Thanks for your questions. Risker (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions From Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  - responded
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?

Hi, WereSpielChequers, and thank you for your questions. I'll answer them all in one paragraph, except for the last one, if that is okay.

The Arbitration Committee has handled roughly 375 cases since its inception in 2004; over the last 18 months, I've reviewed at least the case summary page for about 300 of these, and reviewed the entire case file for about 50 of these. I agreed with the final outcome of about 80% of the cases all told, but my opinion comes well after the fact and often with additional information that wasn't available at the time of the decision itself. It's a little difficult for me to split them out into "unanimous" and "split" decisions, in that most cases would have at least one principle, finding of fact or remedy that passed but did not receive unanimous consent.

As to your last question, it strikes me that there are already several procedures in place to address this situation, particularly the "Clarifications and other requests" section of the Requests for arbitration page. There have been several situations where essentially the same facts and participants were accepted for arbitration as a new case. I am not persuaded that these cases are always handled well, especially given the number of clarification requests that have received only minor comment, but I do not foresee a major change in the process itself. Risker (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Question(s) from LtPowers - responded

 * 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)

It seems pretty clear that at least a segment of the community has lost faith to some degree in the Arbitration Committee; if that were not the case, we would not have seen the RfC on Arbcom earlier this year, or the extent of negative commentary on the talk page of the proposed C68-FM-SV decision, which remained mainly blank for several months. I will note that most of the commentary in each place comes from perhaps 250 editors in total, out of about 10,000 editors who participate in the building of the encyclopedia on a regular basis; there's no good way to gauge the thoughts of the broader community, many of whom haven't even heard of Arbcom, let alone developed an opinion about its activities. I suspect that a good chunk of the dissatisfaction with the Arbitration Committee finds its roots in the continuing organic development of the community, which is radically different from what it was when the committee was established in 2004; it strikes me that the community has changed a lot and has a greater willingness to manage many of the issues Arbcom was initially established to deal with. On the other hand, most of the "growth" of the Arbitration Committee has been in its bureaucracy and (to a lesser extent) the scope of authority which it has assumed or had thrust upon it. As well, there have been times when it has appeared that members of the committee have not been particularly engaged in the arbitration process. The committee is starting to move in a direction more aligned with the community, I think, though it still has a good way to go. For example, on the whole the committee is less likely to accept a case based on the current day's ANI topic. Fairly clearcut matters are being dealt with using motions on the RFAR page, which I think is in line with the community's desire for straightforward and timely responses. The community has been invited to comment on two variations of an updated arbitration policy, both of which have included several elements identified in the Arbcom RfC. (I will note that I speak generally here and not about what is happening on the RFAR page today.) Moving forward, I think the most important next step is for the members of the committee to be visibly focusing on the cases the committee accepts, and communicating regularly with the community. Given that we are now in the transition period, we may not see this change until early 2009, when new committee members are up to speed.

Thanks for your question. Risker (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Al tally - responded
You were listed on MBisanz's unofficial subpage until he removed you. It said "per off-wiki" as the reason you declined to run. Was this right? Why did you change your mind?  Al Tally  talk  17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The notation on MBisanz's page was correct. He (and several others) asked if I would consider a candidacy some months ago, at a time when it was not prudent for me to contemplate running. I had hoped that having my name on the "declined" list would reduce the calls for me to run; instead, I was getting more personal messages encouraging me to reconsider. Since my initial plan didn't work, I asked MBisanz to take my name off his list entirely.


 * Despite the encouragement of many of our colleagues, and my belief that I can bring a different perspective to the table, my reasons for declining to run at that time were largely related to a serious off-wiki personal security matter that has required police attention for many years. That matter was resolved unexpectedly only two weeks ago, and I have good reason to believe it will not come back to haunt me. That put me in a position where I could give the idea consideration.


 * Ultimately, I decided to put my name forward because, notwithstanding the many excellent candidates, I think the Arbitration Committee needs greater diversity in its membership to best draw on the range of skills, knowledge and personal qualities that are found within the community as a whole.  Risker (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Will Beback - responded
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
 * User:Risker checklist is an alternate account where I watchlist pages from Unwatched pages (admin access only). I don't watch any articles that have BLP material in them using this account, and check the watchlist a couple of times a week to pick up on unreverted vandalism. User:Risker on the road is an alternate account where I will temporarily copy over my regular watchlist when I know I will be logging in to a potentially insecure computer, in order to protect my administrative password and privileges; I do not edit with that account. Both are mentioned on my userpage under the heading "Useful and interesting stuff".


 * 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?
 * I would prefer that alternate accounts be used for specific purposes. One of those purposes may well be "fun"; it is a longstanding tradition within the community, and I'd hate to think we take ourselves so seriously that we cannot find some humour in our camaraderie. All of the humourous accounts I know of have been disclosed (either directly or by informing Arbcom members/CheckUsers) or extraordinarily obvious; I have, however, run into accounts that were problematic and were subsequently revealed to be undisclosed alternate accounts, including alternate accounts of Wikipedians in good standing behaving in an unacceptable manner.


 * 3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?
 * I like your nomenclature: "ghosts" seems a far more appropriate term for these accounts than "socks".  There is no good answer to this question; the simplest way to prevent them from returning is to require registration linked to a real life identification, but that is antithetical to the philosophy of both the encyclopedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.  To return to my own personal editing philosophy (which, ironically, I articulated on-wiki one year ago today), our readers do not care one whit who adds information to articles; they care only that the information is correct. Block on behaviour and failure to follow our core content policies. It does not matter how nice they are in pushing their point of view, but at the same time we have to ensure that we are not ignoring a verifiably significant point of view simply because previous editors who we've had problems with have tried to add content related to that point of view. These accounts tend to be pretty obvious and don't usually require CheckUsering; the only advantage to CU is to identify any additional socks that have not yet been found.

Thanks for your questions. Risker (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Ncmvocalist - responded (including new questions)
1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see each case as unique, so yes, I see this one as distinct from other cases. I do not have any difficulty with the concept of the Arbitration Committee vacating a case if that is the appropriate action; in this case, I think it probably is. Of the currently posted motions, I would support 1.3, with 1.0 as a second choice. I think there are already too many alternatives, meaning that it will be difficult to get any of them approved; therefore, I would not develop an alternative motion.


 * Thanks for your questions Risker (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a few more I'm afraid. However, unless it's to clarify anything below, I have no further questions for the candidate. Thank you for your time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

2. The community have, on occasions, found it difficult to have poorly written or handled ArbCom decisions reversed, even today. What mechanisms (if any) would you propose to remedy this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the recent change to having motions to address a lack of clarity or other problem in a prior case have served everyone well; some more so than others. The prior tendency to "clarifications" generally didn't clarify things very well, and often left things in more of a muddle than they were before. There will be rare occasions where things have to start over again (e.g., Highways 2, Episodes & Characters 2). One thing that I do not feel has been productive is revisiting prior cases within the confines of a new, peripherally related case.

3. One of the major concerns with certain past and current arbitrators is their failure to handle ArbCom tasks in a prompt or timely manner. What steps will you take to help move things along? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a dose of real-world thinking might be useful here. My business calendar has dates in it going into 2010, and every day for the next week is carefully organised (including allocation of time to deal with unplanned events). I intend personally to handle as much of the committee work as possible in the same way, ensuring I have allocated sufficient time to address the already-established work with enough "spare time" to pick up on unplanned events. Deadlines aren't a bad thing (many of us work with them daily), and I think it reasonable to include some for cases that are accepted by the committee.

4. (A) What is your stance on tendentious problem editing? (B) Why do you believe the community is, at times, passive in dealing with this issue? (C) If you are appointed as an ArbCom member, what steps (if any) will you take to help ensure this issue is actively dealt with by ArbCom? (D) What proposals would you make to deal with (or remedy) this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (A&B) Tendentious editing is extraordinarily annoying, from my perspective. I suspect that part of the reason the community has a difficult time dealing with it is that, given our remarkably utopian foundation principles, there is a fundamental philosophy that everyone has something of value to add to the encyclopedia. That isn't necessarily true. As well, many editors who are tendentious in one area are perfectly reasonable in other areas; I've seen this in certain topic areas, where the same editors seem to come into conflict repeatedly, but their contributions in other areas seem to be without difficulty.
 * (C&D) I think that Arbcom can be helpful in addressing some of these situations, by first accepting the cases and being willing to examine the situations. Personal restrictions on specific articles, topics, or processes could assist in addressing specific cases. Mentoring with specific goal-setting (e.g., 15% of total edits in a completely different area) may also be helpful on a case-by-case basis. Risker (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Al tally - responded

 * 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.
 * First off, I believe that members of the Arbitration Committee require access to at least the CheckUser and Oversight logs in order to properly carry out the tasks they are appointed to carry out; I think that anyone who has access to that information needs to be publicly identified in the list of people who hold the permission for transparency purposes. Secondly, I think the community needs to figure out what they expect of checkusers and oversighters, whether they should have set terms, what checks and balances need to be put in place, before we start electing them. Once the framework is in place, I think proceeding to community election is fine. If the Foundation (the people who actually hand out the permissions) insists on recommendation by Arbcom, the committee can act as a Chief Electoral Officer and rubber-stamp the results for the purpose of officially requesting that permissions be granted.
 * 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).
 * The community has issued indefinite blocks and bans multiple times, with and without the use of the Community Noticeboard. I don't see that changing.
 * 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?
 * I don't see the correlation with stepping down from the full range of responsibilities and not being interested in carrying out CU/OS responsibilities. Having said that, if they no longer intend to use those privileges regularly to the benefit of the community, I am fine with them being withdrawn on resignation and/or completion of their term; this could be addressed in the framework the community develops to select CU/OS that I describe in Q.#1. As to the mailing list, I don't think I can give an informed opinion until I've seen what they actually do on the list. I would probably resign CU/OS privileges if I was to step down from the committee.
 * 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).
 * Probably the most effective way would be for someone to come to my talk page and say "Hey Risker, what are you doing here?", because I do feel a moral obligation to respond to concerns about my use of permissions. Other possible routes are complaining to the Foundation or to the Arbitration Committee, but I have no idea whether or not it that would be "effective".

Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the questions. Risker (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Acalamari - responded
Apologies if you have already answered similar questions above.

1. There appears to be a belief among some editors that if someone has contributed a lot to Wikipedia and/or are well-known/liked, they are exempt from certain policies, such as civility. What is your opinion on this?


 * I think that individuals recognised as committed, longterm contributors whose work has demonstrably moved the project forward (regardless of what that work may have been) will be cut some slack provided the content of the encyclopedia is not directly affected. That doesn't mean they are exempt from behavioural policies, but they are more likely to be given an opportunity to explain themselves than someone with 14 edits who starts moving pages around. Personally, I have only blocked such contributors when I have tried every other avenue to make things right, and I believe many other administrators are the same.

2. In the past, some users have remained on perfect behavior as an non-admin, yet upon obtaining the tools, they become uncommunicative, uncivil when they actually do communicate, become negative or annoying, take a hard-line stance against other RfA candidates, etc. What is your opinion on this?


 * The RfA stance isn't sanctionable in any way, though it could induce the bureaucrats to start ignoring his or her !votes if the rationale for opposing seems disproportionate. The communication issue, though, is more concerning, particularly if communication is lacking with respect to the use of administrative tools. I do not believe that administrators are exempt from behavioural policies, so blocking may be appropriate for comments that have clearly crossed a line into personal attack or harassment. If informal attempts by colleagues are not successful in motivating the admin to change his or her ways, an RfC may be appropriate. Continued lack of communication or nasty communication after attempts to correct the behaviour could ultimately lead to an RfAR.

3. In relation to question 2, under what circumstances would you agree that someone should be desysopped for reasons other than abuse of the tools?


 * Consistent, clear violations of core policies, a long and uncontested block log, persistent edit warring: all of these may be grounds for reconsidering access to administrative tools. While I won't go so far as to say that administrators must be role models, the community expects them to refrain from persistent policy violations. If they cannot meet that aspect of the administrator policy, then it's time to reconsider here.

Thanks for your time. Acalamari 17:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your question. Risker (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Lar - responded
I may revise and extend as needed (and I note that you haven't answered the general questions I posed yet but this is rather timely):

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

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

Is it not true that while community consensus is allowed for (making a sanction not "inviolate"), single rogue admins, acting alone, are not? ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere have I said that it is okay for admins to go rogue, Lar. What I am saying is that, because administrators are already fully responsible and answerable for their own actions, there is no need for a special "arbitration enforcement" clause to be inserted into the administrators policy (or anywhere else that Arbcom is inclined to put it). I'm also saying that the Arbitration Committee isn't just interpreting policy here, it is actively writing it.

We have many policies that dictate how administrators may choose to respond to specific editorial behaviours. The ones most frequently referred to in arbitration sanctions are the blocking, edit warring and three-revert rule. Generally speaking, the "any administrator may" remedies reduce the threshhold at which an administrator may take certain actions; 3RR becomes 1RR, for example, or an administrator may impose a block at the first sign of incivility instead of waiting for "persistent incivility". They do not reduce the burden on the administrator to meet standards, and to provide sufficient information about their action so that another editor or administrator, looking at the situation, will be able to understand the rationale under which the action was taken. I do not believe that taking an action and tagging it as being related to one of the myriad arbitration sanctions now in place is sufficient to excuse poor administrative judgment.

A few weeks ago, I made an error in administrative judgment; I semi-protected an article when I should have blocked the IP editor who was edit-warring. I realised my error a few minutes later, but we'd had a power glitch that shut down my computer and it took me a bit to log in again and rectify my own mistake. By that time, another admin had (quite rightly) inquired if I would reconsider my actions. I corrected my error, and noted in the 3RR report that I had blocked the IP but that the block could be undone by any administrator if the IP agreed to discuss rather than edit war. I figured since I had already had one power glitch (and one brain glitch too), I might not be available to answer any questions about any unblock requests.

Now, imagine if the article in question had been under arbitration enforcement. Would my error in judgment have been any less an error? Of course not. Under Kirill's initial proposal, neither I nor any other admin could have corrected that error without a huge discussion somewhere, or the direct permission of the Arbitration Committee. Brad's proposal is somewhat better, in that the "agreement" of the initial admin would be sufficient to overturn the original action (I presume I could agree with myself?). Brad's proposal still confers an additional level of sanctity to an action labeled as being under arbitration enforcement than to an administrative action taken for any other reason.

Should there be an effort to communicate with the original administrator? Generally speaking, I think that is appropriate; but we unprotect pages in droves on a regular basis without discussing those actions. Many administrators have some variation of your personal admin policy (found on your user page) that absolves fellow admins who overturn their actions. If that is the original admin's personal policy, does that constitute their agreement sufficiently for AE? What about if my power glitch had turned out to be one of our periodic 6-hour outages? Should everyone have waited all that time to reverse what was clearly an incorrect action? Would we have had to initiate a 60 kb thread on WP:AE to confirm my temporary dimness? There is nothing wrong with the current policy as written, and it does not need any special "Arbitration Enforcement" clause. After all, the admin rescinding the first admin's action also must meet standards, and be able to fully justify his or her action within the applicable policy or arbitration enforcement. Every administrator must be prepared to do so for every action he or she takes; failure to do so can lead to removal of permissions. That is the case, whether or not there is an arbitration enforcement enacted.

The community can discuss whether or not it is necessary to have some sort of special "arbitration enforcement" clause added to the administrators policy in the fullness of time; to be honest, I think the Arbitration Committee is overstepping its bounds by not just interpreting policy but actively changing it. Attaching this to another Drama of the Week is a backward step for the committee at a time when they had been moving away from automatically accepting cases or acting on the latest cause célèbre, and I hope they will reconsider.

Thanks for this question, Lar. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my thinking in detail on this important point. Risker (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(And I am indeed working on the other questions, but have noted your very precise instructions and comments to some of my colleagues so am working up my responses off-wiki before posting.)


 * The issues here are several: First, that you've claimed new policy is being put forth by arbcom when in fact there is no new policy. Not overturning blocks without some discussion beforehand if there is any reason to believe discussion is needed has been policy forever. Nothing is changed there, and I'm surprised, really, that you think something has.


 * Your example of a fairly routine block situation is vastly different than the current motion's situation. And you undoing your own action in a routine situation when you realise there is a mistake is hardly the same as wading in to a contentious situation and without discussion or even so much as a word to anyone, substituting your judgement for everyone else's. That's rogue, and that's what is not acceptable.


 * Second, I think you were ill advised to comment on this situation in this manner. I don't think there is benefit in coming in and saying "well I haven't studied this but here's my comment anyway" especially when it's couched in "Hold your horses" kind of language.


 * Third, despite repeated urging, by leaving your statement as it is, you seem to be condoning the rogue admin. Arbs are criticised, and rightly so, for not speaking clearly and plainly when it is warranted. This is a time for you to show you can and will speak plainly. Study the situation. Then add something on to your statement that clarifies your position on the proximate matter, whether there was indeed a rogue action there. Because that is (or should be) why people should be commenting on that page. Leave policy pronouncements and policy debates for elsewhere.


 * Lastly, I don't think you answered my "do you agree" question, that was a question that admitted of a direct and succinct yes/no answer, and was deliberately phrased to elide one. Arbitrators need to be able to know when simple and direct answers are best. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, Lar, that we aren't seeing things entirely eye-to-eye here. It seems pretty clear that you've been focusing on the facts of one particular situation that are narrowly specific and essentially involves three users (the blocker, the blockee, and the unblocker), while I have been focusing on a change in language and interpretation of policy that will affect every "any administrator may"-type Arbitration Committee ruling currently on the books and well into the future. I mean no disrespect to anyone involved in this motion when I say that whether or not the unblocking administrator is sanctioned doesn't really affect the way in which Wikipedia is administered over time; however, the Arbitration Committee deciding that administrator actions taken under its own decisions should be more difficult to alter than any other administrative actions does affect the administration of the encyclopedia in both the near and long term. These sorts of effects are what concern me most, and they are the remedies and decisions that need to be taken most seriously; this is exactly where I intend to focus, analysing cause and reasonably predictable effect, should I be appointed to the committee. I can assure you that I had no comment to add in respect of the motions put forth if it had simply been about sanctioning SlimVirgin. There was nothing I could add to that aspect of the discussion that had not already been said by many others. I would have been very happy to have had the policy discussion elsewhere, and in fact that is exactly what I urged in my comments; it was the Arbitration Committee itself that raised the policy issue in the middle of a discussion about sanctioning a single administrator, and so that is where it had to be addressed.

The fact that there was no need for the motion to declare the use of arbitration enforcements issued under the "any administrator may" language to have special force over and above any other administrator actions has been proven by the committee itself, which had no difficulty finding authority in the pre-existing administrator policy to render a decision and temporarily desysop SlimVirgin. I agree that the block policy has long stated that unblocks should be avoided without discussing with the blocking admin, or alternately discussing at the administrators' noticeboard. This again points to agreement with my position that existing policy already covered the issue that was brought before the committee.

I have never used the term "rogue administrator" before, and I don't intend to start now. We have a policy about commenting on the content/action instead of the contributor, and I try to follow it. I will agree that SlimVirgin's actions were unwise and sanctionable on their face. They would have been regardless of who made the block, or whether or not the block was related to an arbitration enforcement. I have taken your point to heart about the titling of my commentary and have modified the title. You may not find that I have met your personal expectations, which I would regret as I hold many of your opinions in high regard. I am absolutely certain that every current or prior member of the committee has been unable to meet the expectations of everyone involved in a matter before them, regardless of how highly they respect the views of their detractors. I have no doubt that, should I be appointed to the committee, I will find myself in the same shoes. Best, Risker (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I reject the notion that I'm focusing on one particular situation when thinking about principles, and find it to be a less than helpful characterization... that said, I have read what you say and I can't disagree with it, taken statement by statement.
 * Yet I still find myself troubled. Let me take a different tack. The heading of the page describing the Arbitration Committee (WP:ARB) has this link to a mail by Jimbo announcing the set up. In it he says "The arbitration committee, on the other hand, can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding"... That was at the foundation of the committee. He considered it binding. We ALL have to consider solutions put forward by the AC as binding as well, or else there is no point in having it, as it will resolve nothing. No one will heed anything it says. I don't know about you but I would not want to serve on such a committee. Do you agree that solutions put forward by the AC have to be binding on the community, until and unless they are changed by the AC or by Jimbo? (you get to say yes, or no, here, that's it, no more, because when I ask a yes or no question, I'm looking for yes, or no.)
 * I'm going to assume you said yes. Because if you said no, you're wasting your own time and everyone else's too, it's a recipe for anarchy, and you need to be opposed in the strongest possible terms. So then, if a solution is binding, what does that mean? It means that arbitration enforcement provisions are supposed to be enforced, or at least not dis-enforced, by individual admins, does it not? (again, a yes or no here please). If actions taken under an arbitration enforcement provision are overridable on the whim of any admin that comes along, the arbitration committee has no binding authority. It's just a talk shop. It's well and good and proper to say that there needs to be allowance for the community to say "this admin was wrong in their application of this provision... so there is no consensus that this admin acted correctly, undo the action" (either the facts don't fit the trigger, or the remedy taken by the admin doesn't fit the sanction or restriction, or whatever) And Kirill makes such an allowance in his statement.
 * But we cannot have rogue administrators putting themselves before the community. We just cannot. That is not new policy. It is merely explication of existing policy. Asserting it is new policy doesn't make it new policy. If you still disagree, work an example for me. Take me through how an arbitration enforcement provision can be abrogated by one admin without prior consensus and still have the committee retain any authority. How could it? I'm sorry I'm grilling you so (and perhaps I should be grilling others as well), but this is really fundamental to how things work here. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Rspeer - responded
In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is the scientific consensus (if it exists) a point of view, or is science a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  08:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that scientific consensus (where it exists) is usually the best-referenced and most significant point of view for most subjects; indeed, in some cases there may not be any other points of view significant enough (or well-referenced enough) to require inclusion in an article. Having said that, there are many subjects where it is important to include other perspectives to create an article that is balanced and useful to the reader. For example, many pseudoscience articles require a neutrally-worded description of the basic principle(s) of the pseudoscience being described, and its major claims, regardless of any scientific consensus that those principles and claims are bogus. The first question in the minds of most of our readers is "what is it?" not "what's wrong with it?" Risker (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Ling.Nut - responded

 * 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) 15:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I disagree with the primary premise of the essay: I believe that if an administrator has to decide between protecting the encyclopedia and "preventing harm" to an editor, the encyclopedia is going to have to come first. Many people feel that being blocked causes them harm, but if they are behaving in a sanctionable way (e.g., edit-warring, blanking content), an administrator may correctly block them. Your Point #2 I find concerning; neutrality and verifiability of content are core policies, while "doing no harm" to editors is highly subjective and really not the purpose of the encyclopedia. I don't have a lot of problems with the idea of individual liberty, although I wouldn't call it a core principle.

Thanks for your question and the opportunity to read your essay. Risker (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Good luck with your run! S. D. D.J.Jameson 18:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not too late at all, SDJ. There are certain situations where I think an administrative action of an arbitrator may need special consideration, most particularly if they are wearing the checkuser or oversight hat or in relation to an undisclosed privacy issue; however, in order to let others know that they should have special consideration, the related summaries must be clearly marked as "CU" or "Oversight" or "Special consideration, please contact me before undoing". I am not entirely persuaded that arbitrators should be enforcing the committee's remedies themselves, however; I would have no problem with an arbitrator posting onto WP:AE if they have a concern, but I have yet to hear a good reason for arbitrators not keeping enforcement at arm's length. As I have noted above in my extensive discussion with Lar, I believe that what makes arbitration enforcement provisions special is that they lower the threshhold at which an administrator can take action; however, administrators must meet the same standards in applying arbitration enforcement provisions, and also in overturning them, as they would in relation to any other administrative action. In other words, if it would be a bad idea to overturn an administrative action that did not involve arbitration enforcement, it would be an equally bad idea to overturn an administrative action that does involve arbitration enforcement.

Thanks for the question. Risker (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Pixelface - responded
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions: Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * I think 15 arbitrators is probably a good number, as it allows for a few to be temporarily inactive while leaving (I think) a large enough group to address most cases. It doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, though, if several resign early in a term, so as it stands I wouldn't be averse to a small expansion.
 * 1) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * Based on what I have seen, I think probably two years is more realistic than three years.
 * 1) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * I'd rather they do it on the user talk pages than by a less transparent means such as email. Realistically, sometimes the noise level on the RFAR pages is such that it raises questions if one's message is even being seen; and there have been some concerns expressed about lack of response by (some) arbitrators on occasion. It's not ideal, but it does have the tendency to motivate the arbitrator to revisit the discussion and address whatever issue comes up.
 * 1) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * I've expressed concern somewhere above about the current open editing practices; I've seen substantial changes made to major policies based on one WP:ANI thread, or a few-hour discussion on a talk page, or in the middle of a major discussion about the applicability of a section of policy to a specific issue. Sometimes an edit is made just because one editor thought it was a good idea. If someone doesn't revert the change promptly and force it to the talk page, we see the "nobody reverted so it is now accepted" argument. I agree that many of these edits are made in good faith, but they are not necessarily well-thought-out, and few have been discussed sufficiently to develop consensus. I wouldn't mind seeing policy pages being locked, and any edits to them requiring a documented consensus on the talk page of the policy. Even "minor" fixes and tweaks have been known to change the interpretation of policy.
 * 1) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * Under current practices, where anyone can edit a policy or guideline, I don't think arbitrators should be excluded by weight of their holding that office; however, any policy amendments made by ArbCom members should be treated the same way as those made by other editors, i.e., if there is no clear consensus to include (or remove) something, it can be challenged and/or reverted and discussed on the talk page.
 * 1) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * Tough question. Current practice is that anyone can edit any policy, with the apparent exception of this one. As I've noted above, there are some good reasons to require clear consensus before changes are made to any policy; this one, however, has some special considerations attached to it. This policy establishes some important obligations on a very small number of users (specifically, the members of the committee), who were elected to carry out certain tasks. If someone changes the policy to add obligations, or take away authority to make decisions, is it binding on those elected under a different version of the policy? I'd prefer that changes be made to this policy by community consensus, with the proviso that there should be some manner in which the members of the committee can formally accept the change; there's little benefit if the policy is changed in such a way that the arbitrators themselves find unacceptable to the point that they resign or take some other extreme action. I'll also point out the link in Newyorkbrad's questions ( and ) that lead to two proposed redrafts of this policy, which are just sitting there waiting for comments from any and all editors. Risker (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I will resume responses tomorrow.
 * 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"?
 * You know, despite taking two full days to think about this question, I am not sure I can come up with a good answer here. I confess to holding a higher threshhold of notability than average for the project, but I do think there is a need to raise standards in some areas, particularly BLPs. Having said that, I would probably be hard pressed to delete a well-written, well-referenced article on a borderline notable subject. (I know this doesn't really answer your question, but I figured you might like to have some of my thoughts on the subject.)
 * 1) Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
 * I don't think it truly conflicts; the WMF hosts multiple other projects that cover aspects that Wikipedia does not. Mind you, I don't think the Foundation's current roster of projects will meet that target, either.
 * 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?
 * 2) 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?
 * Important question: How many of the articles nominated for deletion were actually deleted? If the community was largely agreeing with him in his nominations, then I am hard pressed to say that his behaviour is outside of community norms. There are parallels here, however, in the Episodes and Characters cases, which I'm not entirely persuaded were great decisions. It might be worthwhile to recommend the larger community discuss what they want to do with the subject of asteroids in a sort of "topic" RFC; members of the Wikiproject should certainly participate. These additional factors might help to identify whether we are dealing with a problematic editor or a problematic topic area. If the AfDs are being closed as "keep" nearly universally, then it is probably editorial behaviour, and would probably need to be examined at the Arbcom level.
 * 1) Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?
 * I don't think anyone should be required to publicly disclose their relationship with Wikia; however, I do expect those who *do* have a financial interest in it to refrain from editing its article. I do not believe either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee can require any editor to disclose personal information about themselves; to do so would likely be in violation of the fundamental principles of the Wikimedia Foundation.


 * And thanks foryour questions, sorry they're responded to in two parts. 06:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Mattisse - responded

 * You defend the ownership of articles by long time editors and are tolerant of their misbehaviour, and discourage newer editors from becoming involved with the article, not even supporting a newer editor from making a suggestion on the article talk page. When Giano blanked an article on September 28 to drive me from the article talk page because I make a suggestion there, you merely reverting his vandalizm, and gently suggested that he make no more personal attacks and refrain from WP:OWN.  When on December 1  Giano again misbehaved on the Buckingham Palace article talk page, deleting my comment and calling me a "troll" for posting there, for which I warned him on his talk page to cease the personal attacks, as previously I had not warned him for this behavior toward me, you defended him. You did this despite posting on November 25 that you would refrain from further wikidrama regarding this editor because of the Arbcom elections. I posted  questions to your talk page regarding this, but you did not answer to clarify any misunderstanding I may have had.


 * 1) Is this representative of the position you would take as an arbitrator regarding problematic, entrenched editors who drive other editors from article talk pages? This seems to support differential treatment of editors, unless you support all article ownership by all editors.


 * 1) Do you think this position is in the best interests of Wikipedia to protect and enable entrenched, vested editors at the expense of newer editors, and do you think defending the ownership of articles furthers Wikipedia's goals?
 * Thank you, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, your assumptions about my actions are concerning, and largely incorrect. My practice, when dealing with any experienced editors, is to do the least amount that is likely to elicit the desired response. Reverting an inappropriate edit and making a somewhat directive comment was all that needed to be done in this case. Other editors disagreed with your concerns as well, as can be seen by the article's talk page. Last week, I had several days of extremely limited internet access; what little online time I had, I reserved for specific and limited tasks. Hence, my statement that "I've temporarily opted out of any wikidrama for the next few days so I cannot honestly say what is going on". That statement was general and not specific to anything about Giano, whose talk page I hadn't read. I also hadn't read WP:ANI, WP:AN, or any of the other more dramatic on-wiki pages, not to mention the candidate question pages of any of my colleagues. The only one I had scanned was WP:RFAR. Giano did not revert your comments to the Buckingham Palace talk page on December 1; that was another editor. Finally, I did not respond to your question on my talk page because I was offline, and when I returned I noted that Giano had actively sought you out on my page to participate in the discussion about adding an improved image to the article - not exactly the act of an editor suffering from an excess of WP:OWN.

Your questions again misinterpret a great deal, and I am afraid that they show a misunderstanding of the special challenges that relate to featured content generally, and featured articles in particular, regardless of who has been credited as the primary author. It usually takes weeks, even months, of research to develop a featured article. The right reference sources have to be sought out: arranging loans from libraries, locating and accessing journals, often purchasing books or other materials. The outline of the article is developed, gaps filled in, weight assigned to various points of focus. Images, used to compliment the text, are selected and positioned in a visually attractive manner. The opinions of other editors, often "specialists", are sought, and they collaboratively improve the article further. Manual of style issues are addressed. A peer review may take place to identify gaps and other areas for improvement. Then the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. For a period that usually lasts several weeks, other editors review and assess the article, finding more areas for improvement, checking details, and collaborating in polishing it. Finally, after all actionable issues have been addressed, the article will be awarded its bronze star, and the primary editor(s) identified on WP:WBFAN.

Now, a lot of people think that's the end of things. Fact is, though, featured articles follow their primary editors. It isn't written down anywhere, but primary editors are expected to watch for subtle vandalism, to keep the article at featured quality, to check intervening edits periodically. This is particularly challenging for heavily viewed articles, and those on subjects that many editors believe they know something about; most additions will not be at the same high quality level as the rest of the article. Failure to maintain the excellence of the article reduces the likelihood of a slot for today's featured article, and significantly increases the likelihood of someone bringing the article to featured article review. As you're well aware, Mattisse, unless the primary editor and researcher of an article is involved in the FAR, the chance that an article will retain its featured status is slim.

Why is this important? Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of stub or short incomplete articles, an another few hundred thousand mediocre ones. Less than 5% of our content is assessed at "good" or "A-level". Only a few thousand articles meet Featured Article quality. They are our symbols of excellence. And excellence matters. It matters because 2300 people a day look at Buckingham Palace, and its high quality is the face of the project to those readers. Its quality motivates other editors. It's one of our earliest articles; it was brought to featured status and then subsequently successfully completed featured article review; it's been edited over 2000 times, and just the other day had a significant improvement with a new lead image identified and recommended by one editor, modified by another, and discussed amongst several others. The Buckingham Palace article is one of Wikipedia's success stories. But it's only one. Every day, another article or two reaches this pinnacle. And all the work, the skill, the collaboration that went into reaching this level of excellence is only the beginning. The hard part is keeping it that way, and I think we should all do what we can to do help. I see you yourself have pitched in from time to time, reverting inappropriate edits. That is exactly the spirit behind Wikipedia: each of us bringing our own skill sets to collaboratively maintain and improve our articles. That isn't ownership, it's stewardship, and it's something we can all do. Risker (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Tony1 - responded
My best wishes for your candidature, Risker. Just a few questions (long responses not necessary—you've written tons above, and I admire your dedication to open discussion here). "However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as 'best practice' in some cases (although not required to). Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will 'stick', in certain exceptional cases."
 * 1) What is your attitude to the notion of introducing commercial advertising on WP?
 * Personally, I do not wish to see commercial advertising on Wikipedia; it is something that would cause me to seriously reconsider my involvement in the site. If Wikipedia had been commercially "sponsored" when I first came here, I doubt I would have chosen to edit. Risker (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Many users believe that the current "official" processes for ensuring that administrators adhere to the policy requirements of their behaviour—particularly the use of blocking—are inadequate. What is your attitude towards the reform of those processes so that they avoid the accusation that admins judge the behaviour of admins?
 * It's a tough call. The noticeboards are largely populated by administrators and those hoping to become admins, so there is a certain mindset exhibited there. I have yet to see an RfC (Admin) have an enduring effect on the behaviour of the subject administrator, likely because the RfC process itself cannot result in any genuinely corrective measures. I have seen and heard of examples where other trusted friends (admin or not) have taken an errant administrator aside and persuaded him/her to reconsider their ways; that kind of peer pressure from trusted associates is often taken to heart more constructively. Ultimately, at this time, the only process by which administrators are subjected to corrective measures with some genuine teeth is at the Arbitration Committee. I'd like to see the committee being more willing to act on concerning behaviour and to correct it more quickly. I could hope that the community would consider some form of community-based administrator sanctions, but I don't think it will be effective at this point until there is good evidence that such issues are taken seriously by Arbcom.
 * 1) Some of the policy tenets embedded in the policy page WP:Administrators are cast in terms that may require ArbCom's interpretion during your term. Can you give us an idea of how you'd approach the interpretation of this potential exception from the critical policy that admins avoid conflict of interest in their role? The text in question is green and includes a commented-out section. The hypothetical case you face as a member of ArbCom would involve a claim that an admin who has not followed the putative "best practice" has breached the WP:UNINVOLVED policy by themselves blocking a user with whom they've had a negative interaction on the talk page of the same article several months before.


 * I personally take the position that this policy was written back in the day when there really weren't all that many admins (or people focusing primarily on administrative work) and that the practice hasn't kept up with the growth in the encyclopedia or the activities of a segment of the administrative community. On any given day, there are over 900 "active" admins; while the majority of them don't spend much time on the administrative noticeboards, they're around and often willing to help out. With that in mind, I'd be inclined to suggest that major admin actions be discussed in advance when the administrator proposing the action has a "history" with editors involved or the topic area involved and that, preferably, the actions decided upon are carried out by a truly neutral administrator. I cannot emphasize enough how much disruption, drama, and heartache this would save. So, I suppose, I would say that I'd be expecting administrators to be able to demonstrate that they're exercising "best practice" not just in some cases, but in most cases.

Tony  (talk)  14:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for your questions, Tony. Risker (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Final question from Majorly - responded
It's been a long month or so, but elections are almost over, and unless things change drastically over the next 36 hours, it looks like you're one of the winners! Have a look at the other top six or seven candidates, and the current arbitrators. Do you still feel you can work with these people, potentially for the next three years? Do you still think you will be able to handle the workload? And most importantly, will you still be able to contribute to the encyclopedia? Thanks,  Majorly  talk  16:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I will agree that things are looking favourable at this point, I've been around here long enough to know better than to count my chickens before they're hatched. I'm actually quite looking forward to working with several of the current arbitrators, as well as many of the candidates; I think all of our colleagues who find themselves in the top-10 would be dedicated and clueful additions to the Arbitration Committee. I don't anticipate any difficulty working with any of them. I'm spending the next few weeks getting ahead on some RL workload to free me up in early January, to give myself a bit of extra time to find my feet with the Committee, should I be appointed. Once I know the scope, I can plan my work with the committee. And, since I find editing to be a stress-relieving activity, I anticipate significant motivation to keep working on our content, as well as contributing in other ways. Thanks for your questions.  Risker (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)