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

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

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


 * 1) If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?
 * Fairness Given that disputes are inevitable due to human nature, an Arbitrator should be fair in his decisions and on the personal side have the highest integrity.

Questions from Giggy

 * 1) a/s/l?
 * It's no secret that I'm male and older than most wiki users. I live on the US East Coast.
 * 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.
 * Wiki is a very big place. There is room for all who help build the encyclopedia, which requires both mainspace and project space. While there interests are different, they should be treated equally. I know that some feel arbcom has been too lenient with some admins, but to that I'll say they've been too lenient with disruptive editors in general.
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * WP:BANNED does not allow editing by banned users. Period. By circumventing that, socking to get around that makes a mockery of our process and is a slap in the face to those who the banned user harmed, which is the whole community and the encyclopedia itself. Allowing this behavior is just asking for controversy. By applying this policy as it was meant to be avoids certain wiki drama and prevents the banned user from having only his good side seen in the spotlight. If an editor in good standing wants to reinstate those edits, that's okay, but allowing editing by banned users, all of whom have been given multiple chances before being banned, makes a mockery of our policy on banning. I'm all for a second chance--if the banned user wants to edit again, he should request reinstatement of privileges. It's very similar to allowing a blocked editor to edit.
 * 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.
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Highways_2. This was the second time this had been to arbcom and the decision was extremely weak, basically asking editors to cooperate. If arbcom takes a case, they should be willing to make a decision that's more than encouraging consensus seeking. I'd have sanctioned some editors on both sides. It also took way too long to decide (see Rschen's question on this).
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Pick any of the 17 featured items I've been a significant contributor to. Especially William Hanna and Joseph Barbera because few FAs exist on animation and I think of them as a pair.
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * No. I simply feel it would not be appropriate.

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

Questions from Sarcasticidealist
I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.
 * 1) To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
 * Policy should be guide, but flexible when circumstances warrant it, ie, when following it doesn't make sense. This is the purpose of WP:IAR. Naturally, people will disagree about what those circumstances are so the reason therefore needs to be sound and justified. Modification should be via community consensus, not for convenience.
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * While I'm not on the committee, it is my understanding that there is a an email list with former arbs and one for current arbs only. I feel this is fine as long as the one with former arbs, which is the one we call can send emails to, does not include former arbs who left under a cloud. This allows the former arbs, who have experience with arb matters, to provide valued input. Since they obviously have the trust of the community, or they wouldn't have ever been elected, I don't see this as a problem. Having the current arb only list allows the arbs to privately discuss the most sensitive matters.
 * 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?
 * Many admins do not participate in recall, although they agree to its principles, because of the potential for vindictive recall requests (see answer to Maxim's 2nd question). Given the very high level of emotion present in and adversarial nature of RFARs, I think this is not a wise choice. I would resign if I lost the support of the community and I think most, probably all arbs, have the integrity to do so.

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

Questions from Celarnor

 * 1) What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
 * That it would extend articles or topics involved in the case, but that generally non-parties will not be specifically sanctioned. The committee needs flexibility to handle situations but must delicating balance it with the rights of all users and needs of the encyclopedia.
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * The one most obvious and important to me is integrity (see answer to Ultraexactzz). This encompass behavior, honesty, fairness, forthrightness, and avoiding even a hint of impropriety. Those upon whom the community has entrusted additional duties, such as admin, crats, CUs, arbs, and oversighters must be held to a higher standard. Doing so is to the betterment of the community, its users, and the encyclopedia.

Question from LessHeard vanU
This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction.
 * 1) Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom needs a mechanism to deal quickly with desysop cases; the nature of which does not fit into lengthy arb cases. Two of the changes I feel should be seriously considered are subcommittees for ban appeals and a dedicated process for desysops.

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

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * About 20.

Question from WilyD

 * 1) During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:
 * A. 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?
 * These are very similar questions but I will deal with them separately. Yes, admins can at times be deserving of a block over regular editing issues. I have only once had to block an admin and it was concerning disruption on an arb case. Myself and several others talked to the admin first but the admin would not desist. So yes, it can happen and be justified. I do not feel admins deserve special consideration in such a case. I will say that I’ve found most admins open and amenable to discussion if you approach them first and try to commence dialog.


 * B. 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?
 * Yes, same basic reason as first question. Admins have gone rogue in the past and if the situation warrants, they should be blocked—a series of bad blocks and no response to concerns is one example. While admins can unblock themselves, I’m sure the community and any arb would not look favorably upon them if they did so.

Questions from PhilKnight

 * 1) In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are certain Scouting articles I'd recuse from - the ones I've heavily edited, but I don't see a need to automatically recuse from all Scouting articles. There is a very small number of editors I'd recuse from, but I think it is not appropriate to name them in this forum.
 * 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?
 * Assuming, as you imply, that the first editor was actually pushing that POV as opposed to academically discussing it, I'd talk to the blocking admin and probably unblock the second user with a stern advisory that because someone is a spade doesn't mean it's wise to call them a spade.

Questions from Thatcher
1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?
 * This call is the one most likely to stop the vandaliam and swiftly so. The short hiatus could have been for any number of reasons, so that is not clear cut. I think this is a good call, neither right nor wrong. I recently had a similar case when I ran a CU check and contacted the admin offline and that took care of the situation, so I'd strongly suggest contacting the admin privately first-it could even be done without pointing the finger at him and s/he'd for sure get the point if he was guilty of this vandalism. The company IT security staff would be interested in this, I had a case this week of that and referred the company to the WMF lawyer, which the lawyer was grateful for.

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.
 * While the checkuser may be familiar with that topic, that does not mitigate the need to maintain admin/checkuser integrity. He should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and possible bias on his part and contact another CU and ask that CU to run the check. His familiarity with the topic would be put to good use in providing the evidence needed to show a CU check is warranted.

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?


 * While wikipedia can not directly control off wiki actions, this particular off wiki behavior is an indication of the user's character and while the case should not be decided solely on that point, it should be given due consideration. WP:BANNED clearly states a ban applies to the person not the account(s) and that the banned user is not welcome to edit wiki at all and hence the Smythe account could have and should have been blocked already. Here, the offwiki actions should cease before the user is unbanned. The banned user should request he be unbanned through standard means and show evidence s/he is truly reformed before being allowed to return to editing. A formal ban would not have been made without chances for reform already being made and without just cause.

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?


 * There is another factor that would likely be at play here in a real case--the split delaying the decision so long it does no one any good. A middle decision would likely please no one either, nor would a decision all on one side or the other. Arbcom should not post a proposed decision until there is general agreement among them that it will be accepted. I feel this way as I feel it is important for arbcom to present a unified front to the community, looking like they can't decide a case makes them look ineffective. In this scenario a likely way to resolve it is for each side to compromise on a point so a sound and effective decision can be made.

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


 * I think it's important for all editors, not just arbs, to avoid burnout and take breaks as needed. If I decide to skip a case, I'd let my fellow arbs and the clerks know. If I miss something in the email list or disagree with a decision that I'd not participated in, I might voice my opinion to my fellow arbs (if elected) but I would not do so onwiki except in exceptional circumstances. I like to work on articles very much but there is no doubt my time for that would be curtailed and I'd need to try to avoid any dispute on articles I'm involved in.

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?


 * No I have not publicly disclosed that info, although some people do know my RL name. I would not care much if that were known-so it would not impact my arbcom work, but I'd prefer it not to be known., I of course would object if that info were used to harass me.

Questions from Newyorkbrad
1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
 * (A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * (B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
 * (C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;
 * (E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).
 * I feel well prepared to be an arb due to my background as an arb clerk and admin work in SSP/CU cases. I am ready and willing to help in all these areas but will probably concentrate on A, B, C, and F (I’m already a CU and know how to use the tool).

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 really like your changes here Arbitration policy proposed updating, and posted to that effect on itʼs talk page on 11 Oct. I especially like the posting of all voting, use of clear English, reliance on wiki practice and policy, and overall clearing up of matters. I agree full RFAR cases need to be heard by the whole committee but somethings like ban appeals could be farmed out to a subcommittee. I like your proposal more than FT2ʼs.

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.
 * I think it's neither good nor bad, it is simply what it is. Hopefully it means there is more harmonious editing going on though. I've also noticed a trend in the last year or so that there are fewer cases, but the ones that do arise are more complex. Perhaps this is a partial explanation of why cases take longer, but I am pretty sure it's not the main reason. I also think that this year the arb's standard/bar for what constitutes a case they'll accept seems to have risen. It could also mean that the community is better at handling issues before they get to RFAR. A lot of this could, however, be coincidence as there is no way to predict what cases come to RFAR nor how frequently they come.

Questions from Mailer Diablo
1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?
 * Flagged revisions. This is a personal opinion and not something arbcom could do on its own. See answers to Treasury Tag's questions for more.

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?
 * Arbcom needs the tools to effectively and swiftly handle cases that make it to arbcom but it should not make policy; including having the ability to handle a problem with a policy until community consensus has a permanent fix.

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)
 * Wiki is Internet based and its users will make liberal use of other Internet tools. This will never change. Communication via IRC and other means is inevitable. If we were meant to only use talk pages to communicate, we wouldn’t have wiki email capability. The problem is when these tools are used for canvassing, back stabbing, etc. The tools aren’t the problem, it’s the way they sometimes get used. Personally, I could care less what others say about me off wiki. While IRC is an off-wiki venue, like it or not, Jimbo and arbcom have asserted authority over IRC in the past—probably because IRC has become so problematic. Ever wonder why they haven’t done so with Skype, though they did with Wikipedia Review via the Provoubiac and desysopping Everyking cases?

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?
 * All new arbs have the best of intentions, but then reality hits them on day one. Therefore, I will not promise “I will do XYZ”, but rather “I will do my best to do XYZ”. Everyone wants to make arbcom faster but so far everyone has failed. If elected, I’ll probably figure out better why on day one. It generally easier to make smaller changes rather than one big one to a process. I support Brads proposals (see his question section) and I think my track record on wiki shows I’ll do my best to do what I say I’ll do.

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

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


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * Sad. Few, if any cases should take 3 months--which happened all too often this year, especially not one so relatively easy as this one. While there were some difficult cases going on at the same time as this one, I can not see that as an excuse to sideline this case, which is the impression I get here.
 * 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 an excellent way for users with interest and expertise in a topic to come together to improve articles in that topic. This does not give them extra power nor does it put them above wiki policies, which they still need to abide by. The project members still need to seek and abide by community consensus.
 * 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)
 * No, see answer to preceding question. While the child project may be within the scope of the parent project, the parent project does not have any special authority over it, and vice versa. Users in the parent and child project(s) should work together to find common standards that will lead to higher quality articles.
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * While WP:CANVASS does not specify the form of canvassing, ie, it covers just about everything, it does allow for neutrally worded friendly notices. For example, I've found that if a WikiProject posts a note akin to "Article XYZ has an ongoing AFD", the community is generally accepting of that. It should be noted that Jimbo and Arbcom have asserted authority over IRC in the past.
 * 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?
 * If the edits are in good faith, more tolerance and attempts to work with the editor are in order as opposed to a case of pure vandalism. Protective measures are warranted in the case of a good faith who is unresponsive to community concerns and is a overall negative to the encyclopedia. In my experience a good faith editor will genuinely try to improve.
 * 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?
 * This is disruptive nonetheless and hence a problem. Several attempts should be made to work with this editor and if everything fails, then blocks are in order as a last resort.
 * 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?
 * "Intelligence" leapt out at me here. Perhaps "capacity" would be better usage. The user should be talked to in a calm and polite manner and worked with, but if that fails, point out this project may not be the best use of their time.
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * I think it highly unlikely 5/6/7 would lead to a ban, but I guess it's possible. A ban is justified when a user is a significant net negative to the project and the community's patience in working with them is exhausted. To make a ban stick, the community consensus should be very strong. If even one admin is willing to unblock a banned editor, the ban probably won't stick.
 * 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?
 * See my opening candidate statement where I talk about ethnic warring and POV pushing. This is the single biggest problem on Wikipedia right now and I get a strong sense from the community that the general community is extremely weary of users that cause these problems. This issues permeates all over the project, making things very difficult for us all, to the point that multiple arbcom cases have tried to deal with it. This problem is exceedingly difficult to deal with as users on both sides of each of these disputes are fervent in their beliefs and that anything that does not reflect that is perceived by them as wrong and must be changed. In the case of the many wiki ethnic wars, this problem is exacerbated by the fact that the ethnic dispute has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years and wiki is a modern forum for the dispute to be carried forward.

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

Questions from Maxim

 * 1) What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
 * The community holds admins to a higher standard, and rightfully so. Wheel-warring in virtually all cases should result in 1) a very stern admonishment and advisory that further such actions will result in desysop or 2) an outright desysop. Circumstances will vary from case to case.
 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * Here it's important to keep in mind that any admin who tries to enforce policy is going to tick people off. It is important that admins feel able to act in accordance with policy without having to worry about unfounded accusations against them. Arbcom serves an important role in this regard as it's members are usually experienced admins who have taken their share of flak and hence can sort valid complaints against admins from unfounded ones. Alternative panels are worth expoloring for this role to support this arb committee.
 * 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)?
 * Adminbot approval was discussed at length before BRfA was implemented for this, which I played a minor role in. I fully support all bots, including admin bots, being required to get BAG approval and I've been helping BAG accomplish that task. I think bots are fine as long as the code is well written, it has BAG approval, and the bot operator is quickly receptive and responsive if that bot runs into problems.

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

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?
 * As there were only a couple of root causes to all that, I can see why they did it. And while the case was handled in an atrociously slow manner, how much that was a cause of the slowness will probably never be known.

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?
 * That arb said he was uncomfortable with Brad’s “formulation” of that finding, not that he found those users not valued. Then that arb went on to say those editors had been in too many vexatious incidents for him to support that finding. From that I think it’s too much of a leap to claim partiality by that arb; we should not read too much into it. In general, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, you best know if you’re impartial, not someone trying to deduce your thoughts and feelings. To answer your other question, if an arb can not be impartial, s/he should recuse.

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?
 * I think the mandate/guidelines/constitution should come from the community. The arbs should always remember that. But lets keep in mind that the arbs are the ones who work with this every day. So, to summarize, the community should set the principles and policies and arbcom should set the procedures and process.

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’ve wondered why Jimbo keeps this reserve power on the English Wiki and not others. Probably some combination of it’s his native language, the biggest wiki, and there are too many wikis on WMF for him to worry about at that level. I’m not opposed to the idea of direct elections but that’d be a paradigm shift that Jimbo and the community would have to work through.

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?
 * Arbs should most definitely have a clear mandate from the community to serve on the Committee. Immense trust is placed in them so they should have a clear majority of support. Jimbo has said that already and the election system pretty much ensures that. What would be interesting is, using this year as an example, 7 seats are open but less than 7 get a majority support vote. What would happen?

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?
 * All RFAR, clarification, and desyssop votes must be posted on wiki, unless privacy or similar concerns such as a pro-pedo block case make the wise choice otherwise.

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.


 * This is somewhat of a paradox. Arbcom came about as a result of Jimboʼs original authority over en wiki matters because it grew so big he didnʼt have time to deal with all the issues personally, yet the mandate/Constitution come from the user community. So Iʼd have to say a dual source for that as roots of Arbcomʼs authority. Everything else is subordinate to that. The arbs themselves serve the committee they are on. WMFʼs influence is mainly over legal and privacy issues the committee deals with.

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

Question from Davewild

 * 1) Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?
 * I think terms from 2-3 years are workable but the problem is many arbs burn out at the 2.5+ year point. The concern I have with 2 year terms is that with annual elections, half would be up for reelection every year. That may be a bit much. Which option I'd support would heavily weigh the community consensus.

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

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

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?
 * A2. This is a consensus-collaborative based project, which works best in a harmonious, cooperative environment. Being a rude, obnoxious, etc does not help that. Therefore, I support civility to that end. I strongly feel that doing good does not give one the right to be incivil or condescending to others. Basic human decency and respect for one another is what we need. Disagreements will arise, but we don’t need to encourage or allow being a jackass about it. Treat others as you’d treat your mother. Option A2 also had clear community support.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?
 * It's not so much that I oppose these, see response to 2a below.


 * 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?
 * B3. This is more problematic as there are widely varying views on what is and isn’t considered civil, compounded by the fact some do feel that “he does good edits, so let him be a jerk”, which defeats the role purpose of civility rules. The community clearly views civility as important but is at the same time uncertain what to do about it. Given this and my personal view, I’d leave the civility rules in place and also recognize that civility could also be dealt with in some cases as disruptive and tendentious editing. I foresee no permanent solution to this problem as I doubt people will ever agree on what is and isn’t civil.

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

Questions from TreasuryTag

 * 1) What is your opinion on the concept of flagged revisions, in particular: will it help to ease or reduce the sort of dispute that comes the way of the Arbitration Committee? Or is it irrelevant to the ArbCom's work? If this is near-identical to another question you have already answered please reference where on the page that question is. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this. Say arbcom does not decide content, so there would be no place for Arbcom to review edits, of course individual arbs could review them the same as any other "reviewer". I think it would probably reduce the number of cases go to RFAR slightly.


 * 1) What is your opinion on the proposed abuse filter? Will it affect the ArbCom's work? If this is near-identical to another question you have already answered please reference where on the page that question is. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this. A lot of people spend time fighting vandalism that could be better spent on writing articles, mediating disputes, etc.
 * I support this. A lot of people spend time fighting vandalism that could be better spent on writing articles, mediating disputes, etc.

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)
'' This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. –  iride scent  01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ''
 * 1) Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?
 * Only if Jimbo had a really, really, really good reason for not appointing those who had more votes than I did. His explanation for overriding the community consensus would have to be very convincing.

Questions from Lar
Note: 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.


 * 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 don’t support opt in or out. A BLP subject is either notable or not notable.
 * (b) Default to delete in an AFD makes sense to me, it is in line with the “do no harm” provision of BLP.
 * 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) BLP is there for two main reasons: common decency and legal reasons to protect WMF.
 * (b) Yes in this regard they have stepped into policy but I feel this is the one area that warrants that, largely for the reasons in item a. Let’s use a real case that happened here on en wiki. A singer, still alive and singing, had a medical urinary problem and had a problem with that onstage. Some editors put that in her article—come on, let’s have some common decency here. Some editors promptly removed it-Yeah.
 * 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?
 * Yes it has outgrown it’s model from its early days and we need to rethink some things, including arbcom. This basically a growing process. Just how we need to change should be done by community consensus, but out model of governance needs a serious looking at.
 * 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?
 * See answers to the first questions of Mailer Diablo and Treasury Tag questions, plus it’s harder for us to change because we’re so big.
 * 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)
 * (combined answer) Wiki permits, even encourages, an avatar-like existence. It is a basic construct on WMF. This does not equate to secrecy, though it is similar. The problem with outing is that it can and has led to harassment and even death of death threats towards users. This is SERIOUS business. Stalkers of wiki users have been jailed too. Involuntary outing should be dealt with accordingly, which we can do if it is done on wiki. This is more problematic if the outing is offwiki. Action should follow serious disruption remedies, long blocks, bans, etc.
 * This answer has drawn some criticism on other discussion boards, and I share in the concerns raised by others. Specifically, could you please provide evidence for your claim that outing (I assume you refer to it in the WP context) has lead to deaths. Thank you. Giggy (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant to say "threat of death". When I was going through checkuser vetting and we were being reminded, in clear terms, of the need for privacy concerns, I was to told by the CU and arb doing the vetting that "possible loss of life" was an issue due to real world concerns. "Possible loss of life" is a quote from my records as I saved that. To answer more directly, I don't know of actual deaths from outing--I'll do some research to see if there are any, but I do know of death threats, stalking, stalkers being jailed, etc. The fact remains these matters are still serious business. My apologies for my original wording.
 * I support a user’s right to anonymity.
 * As I said before, involuntary outing can be a very serious issue. Even voluntary disclosure can result in things like harassment. Therefore, I think all invol outing should be dealt with by whatever tools we have on a case by case basis. Oversighting is probably usually the first thing to do. The outer should be dealt with as we would any other disruptor.
 * I said elsewhere off wiki actions can’t be dealt with directly by wiki. Whether off or on wiki, teporting outing on wiki does exacerbate the problem so reporting to arbcom or an oversighter is via email is a good way to handle this.
 * No to both. Everyone has the right to anonmimity. No I don’t plan to ID myself. See answer to Uninvited Compnay’s q7 too.
 * 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?
 * Partially answered with item 5. Wiki should warn users about the possibility of stalking and take steps to prevent it and help prosecute stalkers and be decisive in doing so. Such acts are hardly conducive to the collaborative environment WMF operates. Editors should realize what they do is open to any Internet user and act accordingly.
 * The foundation should be as proactive as possible in protecting user anonymity. And educating them in the dangers of public revelation of identity and hwo do deal with it if it does happen, whether that disclosure was voluntary or involuntary. However, it is incumbent upon the user community to report that outing.
 * We have tools such as oversight, blocks and bans. WMF should provide legal advice, at a minimum, in serious cases of outing/stalking.
 * We should have victims as much as possible and make them feel welcome and cared about by the community. An atmosphere where users feel unsafe is not good for the project nor its members at all.
 * We can not condone this. The stalker should be banned and legal help to the stalkee provided.
 * Stalking is harassment but not all harassment is stalking, so this can be a gray area. Contribs, statements, pattern of behavior all need to be looked at. Stalkers often use socks too. The level of this checking needs to be done as warranted by the case in hand.
 * 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?
 * See answer to Giggy’s 3rd question on blanket reverting.
 * 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? )
 * Constructive criticism is good. Criticism in hate or spite is bad for everyone. WikiReview has its good and bad points, some good ideas have come from it. However, it has more than its share of whiners. Personally I only look at it when someone gives me a link. Anyone participating in these offwiki sites that discuss should be aware of their potential pitfalls.
 * Mailing lists and email have long been made available by wiki, so I see nothing wrong with it per se. However. Outside means should not be used for canvassing, collusion, etc. It most certainly should not be used for evidence that the colledctor isn’t willing to reveal on wiki or to arbcom if it’s of a private nature. As much as possible needs to be open to the community
 * No blog for me. I’ve simply never wanted one.
 * Be a wiki user does not abrogate our right to free speech, for all users. However, criticism needs to be done with due decorum. Criticism can be constructive.
 * No wiki criticism account for me. If someone wants one, that’s their right (see above line). As for arbs using these sites, it is fraught with perils, as some people actively try to out arbs, cus, etc, so I’d advise those users against using such sites.
 * 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)?
 * Yes indeed. I’ve said elsewhere on this page being civil or good does not entitle you to be rude and obnoxious. Permitting that breeds aggressive behavior and fills already overblown egos. Deal with the behavior, not the plumage on their user page.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Blue, I find it calming.

Questions from Heimstern

 * 1) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
 * There are other areas just as harmful to the encyclopedia as ethnic wars. I am sensing that the community is really getting fed up with editors who over long periods of time can not work out their differences. Topic bans would be a good early attempt at these situations, but often these editors are focused on that topic, so they don’t always work. If they can’t constructively contribute elsewhere, then bans may be in order. But be advised many of these editors are expert sock masters and more CUs may be warranted. The ones who use dynamic IPs are especially problematic. These areas of wiki are getting to be an excessive drain on the encyclopedia.
 * 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?
 * I disagree with those who say civility restrictions don’t work at all. I have seen them work. Your question has two facets: Those upon whom these restrictions don’t work—and the reason is they don’t care if they get blocked and users with differing views on what isn’t civil. For those for whom it doesn’t work, sterner measures would be warranted or topic bans if it’s a topic that gets them to act uncivil. As for differing views or what’s incivil, I see no workable solution to that, so I’m open to ideas. See my answer to roux’s question 1 also. It also relies on the common sense of the enforcing admin.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * See answer to Iridescent’s question.
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * See answer to Sarcasticidealist’s question 3

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * Article writing and admin work in SSP/AE/ANI etc
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * College degree, US Navy, computer systems admin
 * 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 the global SUL account Rlevse for WMF, that's it. I don't use other public wikis
 * 1) Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
 * A BLP issue on the Coker article. We both were fervent in out interpretation of BLP and eventually it worked out.
 * 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?
 * only if you count Boy Scouts. I already said I'd recuse from those articles I was involved in heavily
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * Scout leader
 * 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?
 * No. No. Prob let them do it. I don't care too much about it but I'm not advertising it either
 * 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?
 * My wife is User:JoJo. It's on our user pages. Also, User:B is a casual acquaitance of mine but I have not seen him in person in some time.
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * email, IRC, arb clerk and CU mailing lists.
 * 1) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * The only constituency to serve is the community.
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * Accept behaviorial ones, admin abuse, long term disruption, etc. Refuse content disputes likely to be resolved within other WP:DR forums
 * 1) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * Depends. It's been done before so in some cases yes.
 * 1) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * Each should be tailored to the case. The hardest to enforce are ones where people are good at socking or don't care if they get blocked and thrive on the attention thereof. Different remedies affect different users differently.
 * 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?
 * See answer to LhVU question.
 * 1) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * Kirill and Brad. They write really good decisions. Other than that, they all do lots for wiki and take undue criticism and are underappreciated. Flo is especially underappreciated.
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * Preponderance of evidence.
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * Honestly, I've had little interaction with them and don't pay much attention to them, except a few emails with Jimbo on really bad disruptive editors and when I ID'd to Cary for CU.
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * I haven't worked at OTRS, do not have an account. I submit tickets though. I support their efforts and thing what they do is good. Their work is critical.
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * Of course not.

Questions from TomasBat

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

Questions from Pixelface

 * 1) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
 * I have never been listed as an involved party.
 * 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 gave a lot of evidence in Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes. I also gave some evidence in Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war. Yes, I feel the evidence in both helped the cases achieve resolution and I think both cases resulted in good decisions. There may be 1-2 more where I participated in a non-arb clerk role a bit but I can't recall them.
 * 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've never filed an RFAR, but have dealt with several AE and Arb cases as an arb clerk.

Questions from Badger Drink

 * 1) It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
 * Requests for arbitration/Husnock, This case in addition to desyssop sould have banned Husnock as his conduct as an admin was egregious and the language should have been less conciliatory. Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33, arbcom took too long to decide it and impeded a community ban.
 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * This is prime example of some problems from this year--much of it committee members not communicating well. While there may be a need for secrecy in some cases, all voting and final findings should be on wiki to the extent allowed by privacy, and they should not use Latin phrases in the case—this is the English wiki not the Latin wiki. I think the outcome was okay.
 * 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?
 * That RFC was very broad and started too late to affect this year’s elections significantly. It also had so many participants that achieving consensus, especially in a speedy manner, would be almost impossible. Some people used it more to complain about arbcom instead of offering viable solutions. That being said, it’s obvious the community is unhappy with the current arbcom, and that’s not limited to just this RFC. On role of the community and arbcom, see answer to rootology 3.

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


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

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


 * I think there is a lot of merit to this proposal. It seems to be a good balance of improving due process, transparency, evidence collection and privacy. One concern is that it seems to put the burden of evidence collection on arbs, who may not be familiar with the case and hence take a considerable amount of extra time. Perhaps those involved could submit evidence and the two arbs put it in a coherent presentable form to the other arbs. In fact this could be a good task for a former arb to handle. Great idea that definitely warrants further investigation.


 * What you described is exactly what I was intending. That a "presentation" of the evidence is compiled out of all the various submissions rather than arbs searching for all the evidence themselves.-- Birgitte  SB  23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

 * 1) In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community?  As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy", which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.
 * I would need to see evidence at an RFAR as to how the community viewed a publication (links to RSN, etc), to be willing to decide on its verifiability, since ArbCom does not decide on content issues. The standards the soucre itself applies to its own material would of course affect its reliability and reputation. All organizations, whether pro or anti whatever have a degree of systemic bias.
 * 1) 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?
 * Not censored basically means that as long as content is free and permitted to legally sit on a server in Florida, the Wikipedia community can accept such content for inclusion, if it desires to accept it. By keeping a broad view and not removing things along the lines of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", we help counter systemic bias and ensure we provide a broad spectrum of articles for individuals of all cultural/religious/etc persuasions in all topic areas.
 * 1) 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.
 * “What people think”, general opinions and urban folk lore are not reliable sources for what actually is, just on what people generally believe.

Questions From Ϣere Spiel  Chequers
For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
 * I've read dozens of arb cases, usually as an arb clerk
 * 1) In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
 * Probably 90% or so. When the arbs are to be unanimous, the cases are generally pretty obvious
 * 1) In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
 * about 60-70%
 * 1) How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
 * This should be fairly efficient as handling a modification isn't nearly as involved as a full blown RFAR case.

Question(s) from LtPowers

 * There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment?  If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust?  (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with.  My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.)  Powers T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom took some hits this year for sure, but it is all fixable. Most of the issues seem to relate to transparency, communicating with community, and apparent splits amongst the arbs themselves. This does not mean everyone will always agree. Reasonable people will not always agree. Arbcom rulings need to be clearer (like all desysops have not always specified if RFAs are available or only an arbcom petition to regain the bit) and more explanation, especially for less obvious rulings would do a world of good. As I said elsewhere, I will do my best to improve arbcom but if elected I would be only 1/15 of that committee.

=Individual questions=

A quick one from AGK

 * 1) You already have the CheckUser flag. If appointed, will you seek the OverSight flag also? AGK 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most arbs eventually get CheckUser and the OverSight flags. Consequently, if elected, I expect I'll get OverSight at some point, but it's not something I plan to seek right away. I initially would be more concerned with learning my new duties, if elected.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

1. There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
 * I’ve discussed this already in my statement and other answers, but as a summary I see three things arbcom should work to fix:
 * Transparency. All votes should be on wiki for RFAR/clarifications/desyssops. Reveal what can be revealed without violating laws or privacy.
 * Efficiency/speed. Things take way way too long. Everyone wants to fix this but everyone seems to fail. Possible fixes are deadlines on evidence submission and the straggling arbs who rarely and/or slowly vote. These seem the biggest hurdles on RFAR cases.
 * Stronger enforcement of policy, especially regarding disruptive editors. Weak decisions only please the disruptor, not the productive encyclopedia builders.

2. Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?
 * I mentioned elsewhere that the experience, insight, and collective memory of ex arbs could be quite useful. I think there is a mail list that have access to and a mail list only current arbs can use. If the two lists are used so that the input of ex arbs and Jimbo is separated from current arb authority, I think that is fine. While Jimbo can override Arbcom he rarely does, if ever. I’m sure that is at least partly because he is so busy.

3.Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice. a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts? b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?
 * Arbs are here to serve the community, encyclopedia, and users. As long as I make my decisions with that in mind, in accordance with policy, what I feel is right, in line of maintaining integrity, I can sleep well at night. And if that offends some people, so be it. Arbs, admins, etc can never make everyone happy.

4. Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?
 * I will devote the same amount of time to wiki as I already do—which is a lot; it’s just a matter of what parts of wiki get my time. I will take breaks when needed.

5. Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
 * Arbs tend to be very experienced users and admins and often have bits in addition to +admin before they become arbs. The experience and there experience as arbs can be put to use outside the role Arbcom currently plays. Perhaps Arbcom could be more proactive in plugging in remedies in places where the problems you mention occur.

6. If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
 * Serve the encyclopedia the best that I can. Also, here I’ll mention that I think en wiki has outgrown its clothes and needs a new set.

7. How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?
 * It would make me even more careful about getting into disputes as I may one day have to be a sitting arb on that case. If I did get too involved in such a situation, I would have to recuse if a RFAR did arise. Of course, I could still partake of non arb activities, writing articles, commenting on !votes, etc.

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 00:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you leave Wikipedia in a huff and then return?

 * 1) In addition to this, would you recuse yourself in cases involving myself? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I got very frustrated so I left but missed wiki and came back. I learned from the experience greatly. Wikibreaks are highly recommended for everyone when they need them. I would recuse from a case where you were a main participant, but that if you were only a side-party I would just recuse from voting on any remedies that would impact you. Scout's honor.
 * good response. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about civility and POV-pushing
What do you think about Civil POV pushing? Can it be demonstrated to exist, and if so, how? Should it be punished, and if so, how harshly? Is it as big of a problem as people who are uncivil or no? ScienceApologist (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But the issues raised here can often be dealt with from preexisting policies such as WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SPA, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, etc. I agree WP:CIVIL covers overall behavior, not just impoliteness. Being civil does not give one the right to push a point beyond the bound of policies such as UNDUE. Nor does it give someone who is writing good articles the right to be rude. Such action would be very difficult to prove in an Arbcom situation because of the principle of WP:AGF; however, like all POV pushing, would be addressed firmly in the Arb-sphere. As far as incivilty v. the POV-pushing problem, those are separate animals and should be dealt with as such, not as one problem, even though they often intertwine. Both appear to be the sort of thing ArbCom will need to continue to address.
 * I don't really find this response to be adequate. There is some direct criticism and suggestions for the arbitration committee and the situations on the ground. Your claim that the issues can be dealt with from preexisting policies does not address the points raised on this page directly. Would you care to try again? Is there any part of that essay with which you disagree? If so, why? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an issue, but it is an essay describing a phenomenon, just like Don't draw misleading graphs and An uncivil environment is a poor environment are essays. I agree in concept with the page, but as an Arb would not enforce its remedies where community consensus, evidence, or other existing policies contravened it. Much of this essay is a sythesis of pre-existing policies. Like many essays it provides good common sense advice, but that advice must be taken in the context of each situation with the facts and circumstances of each particular case. For example, its point 4 about revert wars can be handled under disruption and WP:3RR. Three points further down the one about "dubious reliabilty" is covered by WP:RS. The first suggested remedy is covered by WP:SPA. The one below that is covered by WP:SOCK. I think the Homeopathy decision was a good one.

This "it already exists in other places" business doesn't really cut it for me. A suggested remedy that is covered by WP:SPA is a suggested remedy with the entire weight of an essay behind it. I'm not sure that you answered my question. Do you disagree with any part of the essay? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Davewild

 * 1) In your candidate statement you say "The transparency of the committee needs to be greater", however in your answer to Thatcher's 2nd question you have said "Arbcom should not post a proposed decision until there is general agreement among them that it will be accepted. I feel this way as I feel it is important for arbcom to present a unified front to the community". Do you feel these are compatible? Do you not feel that if there is a split in the committee between those who want stricter or milder sanctions the community should be aware (particularly if this split happens over several cases), and can then make decisions at the yearly elections whether those who are stricter or milder should be (re-)elected? Davewild (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think these are compatible. But I certainly need to clarify what I was talking about in both cases. When I said "The transparency of the committee needs to be greater" I was referring to cases such as when they vote to take an action and we don’t even know what the infraction or arb voting was. When privacy or other concerns dictate the deliberations can’t public, I see no why the community can’t get at least a digest version of the case, let’s say a desysop, so we should at least get something akin to “User:XYZ is desyssoped for multiple cases of socking” and they should also post who voted for/against/abstained/recused. This would not violate privacy, let us know the gist of the case, and tell us how they stand on it. This does not mean we need to know every gritty detail of their deliberations, which is more what I was referring to when I said “"Arbcom should not post a proposed decision until there is general agreement among them that it will be accepted. I feel this way as I feel it is important for arbcom to present a unified front to the community". It’s a waste of effort to post a PD that has no chance of getting accepted, ie, “general agreement” should be attained first. In cases of disagreement, alternate solutions could be presented. Voting should be public. A split in the committee and who the “enforcers” and “another chancers” are is relatively easy to discern by who writes what in the PDs and who does vote, doesn’t vote, or ignores various remedies. Significant splits in arbcom seem to have a way of becoming known via these and various other means so I think we know what we need to know at election time.

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


 * 1) Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself.  On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki.  On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days.  Which definition do you prefer?
 * See answer to Lar number 9 and my answer. He links to VestedContributor and your definition seems to pretty much say the same thing. Either one is fine with me. The key seems to be that it means someone who feels their good contributions entitles them to be "above the law" others must follow. Wiki policies apply to everyone, no one should be held to a lower standard than the rule of law, but admins, arbs, crats etc should be held to a higher standard of behavior and integrity. Being a vested contributor does not mean you get a free pass.
 * 1) Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
 * My take is that Wikipedia should avoid importing legal concepts whenever possible, we are writing an encyclopedia, and should avoid the creation of a systems that are unduely adversarial. To that end, i personally think civility should be defined by the treating people with common decency and respect, ie, what level of behavior is acceptable for encouraging the creation and maintainence of content.
 * 1) Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
 * I expect the same from everyone, 12 year old or PHD in astrophysics. All are equal on wiki. While expert retention is a serious matter, it is only part of the problem of high level of knowledge required to become an editor. I think things like Kim Bruning's "dump a pile of content" comments are ones the community should look at. B it would not be something arbcom would address, since arbcom does not make policy.
 * 1) Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right.  It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly.  But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back.  Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented.  In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
 * Interesting view. First, I don’t agree there is a consensus for allowing them to edit. However, there is a cadre of editors who feel that way. If by taking to arbcom, you mean they should appeal to arbcom to have their ban lifted before being allowed to edit, yes, that is okay. Currently, I trust the community consensus in the matter to handle such situations, whether at arbcom or in other forums.
 * 1) Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR.  All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests.  Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use?  If so, what should those be?
 * Arbitration_policy that is a good starting point, but with an obvious caveat that arbcom should occur when all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted.

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

Question from Stifle
Do you anticipate any conflicts (of interest or otherwise), if you are elected, between your bureaucrat duties and arbitrator duties? Stifle (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as time to do crat duties, I don't foresee conflicts as crat duties are not very time consuming. The crat areas are bot flagging, renames, and +sysop/+crat. I don't see renames and bot flags being a potential issue at all and since I don't +sysop/+crat someone I have or might have a COI with, I don't foresee a potential for conflicts regarding that and arbcom either, but it's possible. If I became an arb and a conflict arose with a crat action and my arb duties I'd certainly look at the situation and recuse if there was a conflict.

Questions from Will Beback
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
 * I only have the Rlevse account ever. Note my wife is User:JoJo
 * 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 think alternate accounts that are not disruptive, not used to hide things, etc are okay if they are disclosed and open, preferably by being on both user pages. As a crat, I would only +sysop the account that had a successful RFA unless the community clearly endorsed both having the bit. Undisclosed accounts should be avoided in virtually all cases, that's socking. But if they do exist, undisclosed accounts should be disclosed to arbcom/checkusers to prevent mixups and otherwise avoided An example of a legitimate alternate account would be someone who doesn't want to use their password to their main account hacked at a public access point, especially if they are an admin but there'd be no reason to hide that. Joke accounts should not be filing RFARs, making policy changes, etc.
 * 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 think WP:SSP2 is a great idea and wish it'd already been implemented. I see many SSP cases that should have a CU run but if the RFCU isn't filed (which is duplicate work) it probably won't get done. SSP is usually way backlogged while RFCU is generally more caught up. I support more highly trusted users having the CU bit too, that'd greatly help in this area. More admins would help too and the low number of recent RFAs concerns me. From my large involvement at SSP and RFCU, the most problematic disruptive users are those who don't care if they get blocked and/or coordinate with disruptive users off wiki and/or use large pools of dynamic IPs. These cases are very difficult to prove and either we block on behavior or let them abuse wiki freely--which is not a desireable alternative. These problems are largely born of our "open to everyone" philosophy, which makes totally preventing these problems impossible. If we are firm with them and quickly repair their damage and don't give them the drama they want, they may cease their ways.

Question from harej
Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "good times". This could mean all sorts of things, including a party atmostphere, peace and harmony, etc and so on. I'm going to define it as "an atmosphere in which editors of wiki work together and cooperate to build a better encyclopedia" and answer it in that way. So, I answer thusly: In an indirect way, yes. While it is not the committee's direct tasking to promote good times, it is an indirect inevitable consequence of the highest rung of the dispute resolution process. In other words, arbcom's existence helps to preserve order in the community and provide a peaceful setting for the composition of an encyclopedia, which makes it a good time.

Question from Rspeer
Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well remember the WP:SPOV was rejected in favor of WP:NPOV, I think holding the idea that NPOV is tops and that the existence of scientific disagreement prevents the application of SPOV in its place. Also keep in mind that science is an investigative method. I don't see this varying with the topic of the article.
 * NPOV simply means that every article includes all pertinent and rational views. This does not mean we include every view. I think the core of a science article should be the consensus of current scientific thinking. For something like physics, this is easy. For something like psychology, it’s not so clear cut but should reflect the mainstream scientific view. As an editor, I would look towards what sort of representative viewpoint is being taught to college students as the major representative viewpoint and what is plastered on poorly copied flyers stuck on street lights as the fringe content. As an arb though, I cannot judge content, because while the viewpoint of science is fairly clear, in other fields like ethnic disputes, there is no controlling expert opinion, even in the halls of academia, there is great divide. (added, copied from my response on my voting page)
 * NPOV does not mean /every/ POV, it means the neutral POV. Let’s use the old example that you don't really need to mention the present day flat earth society in the article on Earth since the neutral POV is so large as to exclude that fringe topic to its own article. The thrust of an article should be its core and not get too sidetracked to other things, though linking to them is sometimes okay. The core thrust of a science article should be the mainstream scientific consensus and view. On a subject like math this would not be disputed much but subjects like social science are less straightforward and then there are fringe theories that aren’t even worth mentioning in a main article. I think this issue has to be handled case by case, some alternate theories are worth mentioning, some aren’t. (copied from my vote page)

Question from Jehochman
How do you feel about bureaucrats serving as arbitrators? Would this represent an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of a few? Jehochman Talk 15:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so because the roles of arbs and crats are distinctly different. Crats deal with bot flags, RFA/B, and renames, vastly different from the dispute resolution nature of arbs' work. Becoming either one requires a high degree of trust by the community. Off the top of my head, I only recall one former arb who was also a crat, User:Raul654 and one current arb who is a crat, User:Deskana. Two crats are running this year, User:WJBscribe and myself. There are 25 active editors who are crats, so it's not like crats are running in droves to be arbs. There are 15 arb seats. Only 1 current arb is also a crat.

Questions from Ncmvocalist
1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not vacate a case other arbs had heard without a detailed presentation of facts and review of the confidential evidence submitted at the time of the original case. I do not believe in a rush to judgment. Having said that, based on what I do know about that case, I think it highly likely I’d support vacating it but I can not say that for certain. I am also inclined to support since the case has no immediate affect and is adversely affecting the user in question.  There are lots of "unusual" cases over the years, such as NSLE. Each case needs to be handled on its own merits. As for the current motions, I’d have preferred a new subpage for a more thorough discussion of the facts. Vacating a case or finding does not necessarily mean it was wrong, even if there were procedural errors.

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) 13:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The RFAR clarifications section is a far better way to do this rather than reopening the whole case. This would suffice if no new significant issues have arisen. However, it would most likely be problematic if there were or if new parties needed to be looked at deeply; which would likely require a new 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) 13:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been many ideas on improving the arbitration process. I really like the ones in Arbitration policy proposed updating, which were drafted by Newyorkbrad, who is a lawyer. He is superb at this part of arbitration.

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) 13:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A--It is disruptive. As with all types of disruptive behavior, as I said elsewhere, it’s a huge drain on editors, who could better put their time to article writing. I’ve spent a lot of time in both article writing and dealing with disruptive behavior, so I’ve seen both sides of this.
 * B--One reason is that if others see the edits by the disruptor as good, they tolerate a higher level of disruptive behavior than they would otherwise on the grounds that article improvement override disruption concerns. I can see this to a point but eventually the disruptive behavior will go past the point of diminishing returns and exhaust the communities’ patience. Also, some areas of the relevant polices are poorly defined and the community doesn’t always agree on what they mean. The classic example is what is or isn’t civil behavior.
 * C and D--I see C and D as essentially the same question if you don’t mind. As I said in B, one significant part of the problem is that the community does not agree on what behavior should be tolerated. This is mostly because we have people from all over the world with differing views, cultures, and backgrounds. If we focus on the behavior and its negative affects more and less on policy, though we need to keep that in view, I think we can be more effective in this area. In other words: How disruptive is this? What is its net affect? What remedy is most effective here? Note not all users respond to the same remedies the same way.

Unless to clarify anything above, I have no further questions for the candidate. Thank you for your time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Al tally
Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
 * I think greater community involvement is great but arbcom has access to private data that the community does not. Naturally, this would affect the selection of CU/Os, so there should be a collaboration between the community and arbcom. Two options are the community proposing a slate that arbcom makes a final selection from and the other is the reverse of that.
 * 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).
 * I don’t see the old CSN and arbcom alike at all. CSN was a group of admins who worked on that board and basically acted as if they were “the community” by banning people, whereas arbcom members are elected by the community with consensus. I don’t think the community should override arbcom. Users get to arbcom because the community’s prior efforts at DR failed and consensus could not be reached. Banning by the community is an accepted vetted process that already exists, though I’ve seen that happening less this year.
 * 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?
 * Former arbs means just that, former arbs, it does not mean former something else per se. They can still contribute productively as a CU or Os. These are trusted individuals with experience so their retaining the tools is beneficial to the project. User:Sam Korn is an excellent example of that and he’s a very good CU. My understanding is that there are two arb lists, one with the former arbs and current arbs both and one for current arbs only. I feel this is okay as, similar to the above, the former arbs have experience and insight that can be helpful to the committee. Former arbs should not have access to the current arb mail list. If I resigned I don’t think I’d resign the CU bit as I became and CU before I became an arb and I’d probably keep the Os bit as long as I was using it productively. I’d definitely listen to feedback and concerns of the community on this too.
 * 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).
 * I am the same as any other user and if the community or any member thereof has an issue with me I’d hope they first bring it up to me first. I have to disagree that RFAR/arbcom is not an option for redress about an arb. Arbcom is not the solid unified block some think it is; this year has proven quite the opposite. Of course, RFAR/arbcom is not the only option. After addressing a concern with me, AN, RFC, RFAR, and Jimbo are all options. Actions that utilize bits are all logged, they can not be hidden from others with that bit.

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit
Two questions related to the balance of power between ArbCom and admins. Pcap ping  16:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you think that the special civility restrictions enacted by ArbCom in several cases have been successful? If not, what would you do propose instead?
 * As I've said elsewhere, restrictions are very problem for disruptive editors who are determined and/or don't care if they are blocked. This area, along with the various ethnic wars on wiki, are the toughest ones to solve. There are no easy answers--usually because either they are recurrent issues that it appeared the community was unable to resolve on its own and/or each side is convinced it is correct. If restrictions are not working, then something else must be tried...topic/category bans are more clear cut and directly relateable to the content and therefore may be more successful.
 * 1) Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of an ArbCom case (WP:AE)? If the answer is no, what should be done about admin A?
 * As seen by the ongoing case at WP:RFAR, undoing a major action such the incident concerning WP:AE, especially with no discussion, is a bad move bound to bring massive drama. As for the admin in question, that would be on a case by case basis, but if that admin has had recurrent admin issues, that the community was unable to resolve on its own, then a desysop would likely be warranted.

Question from Ling.Nut

 * I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
 * Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
 * Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The user can redirect it wherever or set it up however, but they must make some way for people to communicate with them onwiki, otherwise it is a significant collaboration issue.
 * The essay isn't about talk pages; it's about CREEP. Everyone's answer focuses on the talk page issue... so be it... That particular bit of CREEP isn't codified and I was dragged to ANI because of it. Anything worth dragging someone to ANI for is important enough to be codified. Note that I disagree with the premise, but if it had been codified I would never have knowingly violated the rule. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 23:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up questions from FT2
Thank you for your first answers, broadly on yourself and Arbcom.

These are some questions about your skill at Wikipedia dispute resolution:

(Note:- in a lot of cases, a remedy may potentially be "multi stage"; that is, take a step, see what effect it has, return to it if needed. This may include watching or warning first times, taking a tougher line later, or deciding it's an acceptable risk if they act up again, since action could be taken in future if needed. Although mild, it's a valid approach. I'd be fine if you use it, and what you do when it fails.
 * 1) Flexibility:
 * a) What experience do you have at a range of Wikipedia dispute resolution "styles", and in estimating how users may react to a given response? (This is a fairly essential skill in deciding whether to play hard or soft, direct or mediated, give another chance, discuss further, draw a line, or "try something new" in a case.)
 * I have been involved in over 800 SSP and RFCU cases, dozens if not hundreds of arbcom related matters, likewise with AN/ANI, etc. I've found that each case is unique and different remedies do not work the same for each user or situation. For example, topic bans often work when blocks or civility paroles don't. I feel I'm a good judge of character and all this WP:DR-related work of mine has taught me a lot about what remedies work where, when, and with whom.
 * b) Please outline your track record at choosing remedies that are effective, but not overly-excessive, in a sample of difficult cases.
 * Sri Lanka is one of wikiʼs areas of ethnic warring. While they still have their problems, I think theyʼve made more progress than most of the ethnic areas on wiki. This is largely due to the efforts of those at WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Back before User:FayssalF was an arb, he and I helped them work out their final dispute resolution agreement. I was involved with them for some months afterwards. Talk and consensus was the first step, article 1RR restrictions, and escalating blocks followed. The work at this project can be a model for other areas of ethnic stife on wiki. For my efforts, I was made an honorary member and given their custom Sri Lanka barnstar.
 * c) Please show some cases you gave a seemingly difficult user a chance to reform (when others were skeptical), and where you drew a very hard but fair line on a problematic user.
 * There is a user whose name starts with M at the heart of a SSP case. Under an old name he was socking pretty badly but had seemingly stopped and then started using the new M account. The debate at that SSP case was basically "he's block evading and we can't trust him vs he's making a clean start, so let's give him another that chance". I took up the case and spent several days looking over the evidence and input. User M had been a productive editor since starting with the new M account. Despite all the false claims of "I'm not a sock, I'll be good, etc" I'd seen at SSP, something in M's statements made me feel he was sincere at his clean start, so I closed the case without blocking him. To this day M has been productive and has not been blocked (not under his clean start account, that is).
 * d) Please highlight a project space matter where there was much divisive opinion but where other administrators (on both "sides") listened to you, and you helped focus or resolve it.
 * See item C.
 * 1) Conduct under pressure:
 * a) Please point out a case you took a stand that was not universally popular, knowing you could face retaliation or rebuke.
 * My Dec 30, 2007 blocks of both User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist for 72 hours each. Between the two of them, several unblock requests were filed but neither block was overturned or shortened.
 * b) Please point out a matter where you were badly attacked, accused, or heavily provoked, but remained in line with "best practice" conduct, yourself.
 * This was less than two weeks ago and is sort of still smoldering so I won't name names or other details, but I took a routine admin action, well within policy, and was called drunk, insulting the whole community, etc. My response was "(name), I'm sorry you disagree with me and I respect your opinion."
 * c) Please point out a dispute where you faced people trying to redirect the matter to a side-issue (soapbox, hobby horse, etc) and your response was to avoid the "invitation" of distraction, and to keep the focus on the main target.
 * Several times I've worked in the various ethnic war areas here on wiki. These often have various sorts of red herrings that stray from the real issue, which is usually two sides trying to push their own version of history and not being willing to cooperate. I try to focus on that and get the various factions to cooperate.
 * d) Please point out a serious dispute which occupied your attention for between 2 weeks and several months, and which shows your sticking power and handling in the context of protracted disputes.
 * See item c. Specifically The Troubles, Sri Lanka, and Armenia-Azerbaijan areas.

Like the previous questions, they are intended to be searching. Feedback will also be provided. Thank you. FT2 (Talk 04:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Good luck with your run! S. D. D.J.Jameson 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would never revert a legitimate question from a member of the community during an arb election, but we get so many, I might run out of time or it may slip my mind though ;-) The admin actions of an arbitrator should be treated as any other admin’s actions should be treated. As to AE enforcement, note that in the SlimVirgin motion number one that just passed, arbcom said “(1) Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy[..] passed 7-1” This clearly applies to all admins, not just arbs, that part is the same. What is different here is the venue, not whether the first admin was an arb or not. This ruling makes the second admin’s act a violation of an explicit arbcom ruling because it was an AE issue, not an arb that did the first act. One caveat, if the case involved private info and that fact (though not the details) are known to the community, you may want to check with arb first before taking action. And of course, whether an AE case or not and arb or not, it is always best practice to check with the first admin before reverting their action and/or starting a wheel war.

Additional questions from Pixelface
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * 12-18
 * 1) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * 3 years max, poss down to 2 years
 * 1) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * It’s a wiki. I’m sure the arbs are capable of handling this properly
 * 1) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * Consensus should be reached before significant changes are made
 * 1) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * They are users like everyone else and since arbcom doesn’t make policy, I feel it’s ok
 * 1) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * Yes
 * 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"?
 * Yes, see Notability
 * 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?
 * On the surface yes, as “all” is limited by “notability”, etc. But the basic concept is sound.
 * 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?
 * The deletion is on whether it should stay is content, but the repeat renoms against consensus is disruptive. An RFC should be attempted first, then RFAR if that doesn’t work.
 * 1) Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * As I think there is no roadblock here yet, I’d encourage more community discussion, but the admin’s unblock concerns me.
 * 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 think it wise if Wiki employees disclose their connection. Jimbo, as their boss, could require it. Arb no, they are volunteers, not the boss of wiki employees.

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Tony1
My best wishes for your candidature, Rlevse. Just a few questions. "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?
 * I honestly don’t see how advertising on wiki would not violate a core principle, ie, the second of the Five pillars, neutral point of view. It seems counter to the whole idea of an encyclopedia. Do we really want Ford Motor Company placing ads by the Ford Bronco article? There are also serious unrelated business income tax implications to accepting advertising.
 * 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?
 * Please be more specific.
 * 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.
 * The “uninvolved admins” clause refers to “if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality”. Being involved in the dispute itself or acting negatively with involved users renders them “involved”. The admin caveat applies if they are acting in an admin role. For example, by interacting with those “involved” with the issue, they are involved in that they are trying to settle it in a neutral manner in accord with our policies but they are not involved in the sense of the “uninvolved admins” clause. The “best practice” clause means “when in doubt, pass it off to another admin”—of course, one who is definitely not involved.

Tony  (talk)  14:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Slrubenstein

 * 1) In a recent ArbCom case, a project page was created with an unprotected talk page.  Later in the process, the talk was archived - in effect, the page was blanked - and the page protected, foreclosing any further discussion (see this discussion.  Looking towards the future, what policy would you propose concerning the purpose of talk pages, the protection of talk pages so as to prevent talk, or the blanking of talk pages by ArbCom?
 * Arbcom talkpages generally don't need editing by IPs and sockpuppets, so I think semiprot is no big deal but also that semi prot should only be used when really needed to prevent disruption. I feel arbcom case pages should only be blanked when legitimately needed for privacy reasons. This should only been done after the case has been closed, not to curtail discussion of an ongoing case, which is what I think you’re alluding to. If this need can be foreseen at the beginning of the case, the arbs should tell everyone to submit evidence privately. As for the design of the case pages, the community should take part in that. There is an interesting proposal that so far mostly the clerks have participated in for a new workshop page at: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard. If a case will be heard privately, preemptively redirecting the talk page or putting a template notice on it might be good ways to avoid such problems. It should be up to arbs to give instructions on such things, not clerks, since they are not elected by the community.
 * 1) Do you find the word "troll" useful in describing a certain kind of problem at Wikipedia?  Is labeling a user a "troll" always a personal attack?  If the term is useful, how, in your experience, does one recognize a troll?  What is the appropriate response?  Does ArbCom have a role?
 * If WP:TROLL fits, I don’t see anything wrong with using it per se, it certainly shouldn’t be used lightly or carelessly—if it is used appropriately I would not call it a personal attack. So caution is warranted here. Often other approaches besides calling someone a troll immediately will work. To me, a troll is like someone who throws a grenade into a room then runs away, or throws bait into a situation hoping someone will bite on it—that’s a troll, as opposed to an out and out vandal. Keep in mind many trolls and vandals love the attention; so for these kinds Don’t Feed The Troll. Arbcom can help here when the community’s efforts in dealing with the troll are unsuccessful.
 * 1) Should WP:DE be made a policy?  Why/why not?
 * I’m fine with this being a behaviorial guideline, and I like it. Should it be a policy? I’m not sure as the intent of this guide centers on identifying behavior.
 * 1) Some people have claimed that a hierarchy, or hierarchies, of authority are developing at Wikipedia.  Do you agree?  If so, do you consider this a necessary feature of the community, or a problem for the community?  More specifically, in what ways do you see members of ArbCom as leaders or as servants of the community?
 * Dominance hierarchies occur naturally in every community of more than two people; the people closer to the top must always remain humble and act in the best interests of the people at the bottom, or even those unaware that there is a hierarchy at all. Trying to prevent class systems from forming via community-guided governance reform is bound to end in disaster. Arbs must always remember it they are the servants of the community and must be responsive to it.
 * 1) ArbCom was originally formed to be the ultimate stage of resolving edit conflicts at articles.  Since then, its mission has expanded.  Do you believe it has expanded to reach the appropriate limit of its powers?  If you believe that its mission has not expanded enough, or has expanded too much, please provide specifics and explain how you would deal with this.
 * As several people have noted this year, there have been fewer but more complex cases this year. I would not expand ArbCom's role into policy-setting or other areas as the community definitely seems to not want that at this moment. The community definitely doesn’t want Arbcom to make policy. While I feel ArbCom usually operates within its mission, I think they have become overburdened with cases, desysops, private requests, unban requests, etc. I do not think more arbs is the answer, that’d just make it harder as there’d be more people to get to agree on something. I think we, the community, need to look at ways to shave off the workload by perhaps methods such as using former arbs and other experienced and trusted community members to handle things like unban requests and emergency desysops as well looking at ways to streamline arbcom processes and making them speedier. I’m just throwing these out there as there would need to be much community discussion and a consensus before changes would be made. As the arbs are the ones who work this area every day, they assuredly would have good insight into this. An idea that User:BirgitteSB asked of all the candidates is an excellent suggestion that should be explored, see Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Rlevse/Questions_for_the_candidate. I also like Newyorkbrad’s ideas found here: Arbitration policy proposed updating.

Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers, and good luck in the election, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Final question from Majorly
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)
 * Yes, yes, and yes. — Rlevse • Talk  • 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)