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

=General questions=

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


 * 1) If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?
 * "Decider". (I was restricted to one word) -- Cat chi? 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Giggy
Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.
 * 1) a/s/l?
 * ... -- Cat chi? 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Both are necessary in developing a well structured and well written encyclopedia. Any such dispute would have to be handled on a case by case basis. My focus would be to take measures to prevent further disruption by discouraging disputed edits and encourage dialogue. -- Cat chi? 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * Any mass edits should be done with care. Just because someone is a banned user doesn't mean all of their contribution entirely consists of garbage. Of course I am not talking about vandalism only accounts here. -- Cat chi? 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * The Episode and Character (2) RFAR in my view was less than satisfactory. For starters wording was flawed. Wording was focusing on "TV related articles" when the actual disagreement was more broad including TV related articles, video games and etc. Granted both sides of that disagreement had valid points but the measures taken by arbcom did not quite end the ongoing disruption. -- Cat chi? 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * The people I consider as the five best contributors would find it offensive to be characterized as such. They are only here to write a free encyclopedia. -- Cat chi? 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * No. I will not. I evidently have COI on who gets elected. I see ethical issues for someone to be voting for or against other candidates in an election he or she is also a candidate. -- Cat chi? 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Sarcasticidealist
I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.
 * 1) To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
 * This actually feels like a hard question but in fact the answer is easy. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Rational people shouldn't have a problem with that. In the cases where weather or not following a policy isn't as clear as it should be, it may be best to get indulge with a community decision. -- Cat chi? 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * Having the experience of the bast arbitrators is a luxury they did not have. -- Cat chi? 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I honestly do not believe there is a reason to make a big deal of adminship. If people want to be held at a greater standard that they are "officially" required, let them. This can be seen as a proof of their dedication to the site I guess. A Category:Arbitrators open to recall may be counter productive though. Any disgruntled party in any dispute could file a recall and that'd but an unjustified strain on arbitrators. The reason why arbitrators serve finite terms is for this purpose. -- Cat chi? 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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")?
 * The edit button is a privilege not a right. People who do not use the edit button wisely will be sanctioned to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Ultimately arbcom is not the enforcers. That job falls within the hands of the community. -- Cat chi? 17:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * I think everything is pretty much written down. Without experiencing a week in arbcom, I doubt I can give an educated answer to that question. -- Cat chi? 17:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from LessHeard vanU
This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction. Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.
 * 1) Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not going to ever base a decision over a stereotype to meet a statistical goal. I'd handle each matter on a case by case basis. -- Cat chi? 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * As long as it takes. Hopefully less than 168 hours a week. :) -- Cat chi? 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from WilyD

 * 1) During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally).  While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations?  If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * An admin is still a regular user and should be treated as such. Like any blocked user, they should use the regular appeal mechanisms. -- Cat chi? 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * If an urgent block is necessary, yes. Say if an admin decides to delete the main page, add goatse to the sitenotice, block away. Admin accounts have been hijacked like that in the past. If there is no urgent need to take action, it is best not to use admin tools at all. -- Cat chi? 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * Anything topic involving disputes I have been to. I may probably be a participant as an editor and not as an arbitrator.
 * Political topics concerning Armenia, Turkey and etc.
 * Episode and Character dispute. (the infamous dispute where there is a disagreement on which ficton related articles get to stay on the site and which ones go)
 * I can't recall what else I want to put here.
 * -- Cat chi? 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I think people should be very careful with the words they use and should consider the meanings they do not intend. Any honest mistake in admin action can be reversed just as fast. There is an appeal mechanism. Having said that extreme views aren't welcome on the site and there is a policy on this. Rather than calling someone a "racist" it would be better to bring the problem in community attention. I know this wasn't exactly what you were asking. -- Cat chi? 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * I'd say follow the evidence. Initial investigation may be conducted in private to collect evidence to decide weather or not it is worth to even bother the person in question. If the evidence suggests there is a reasonable doubt then the matter should be placed under the scope which would eventually lead to a public case. -- Cat chi? 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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.
 * For the sake of integrity and to avoid drama it would be best to let someone else conduct the check. -- Cat chi? 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?
 * I want to see this from the perspective of the user who receives the harassment. I do not believe the site is desperate to new editors. If the harasser is not able to stop harassing another he is unwelcome on the site. Weather the harassment comes externally or internally is irrelevant. If someone is genuinely making an effort to be disruptive he or she should be treated as such.
 * Honesty is certainly is a good thing and if that person was really honest, he wouldn't be using a sockpuppet account to make good edits while using a different one to harass and annoy another. No one should be harassed.
 * -- Cat chi? 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?
 * I do not know about the community as a whole but I personally would prefer to see the kind of remedies arbitrators discussed and which ones didn't win a majority. What impairs the Committee's credibility is months of silence and a sudden burst of activity resulting an unsatisfactory remedy. It makes arbcom look insincere at the decisions it passes. From the perspective of non-arbcom nothing happens for months at times. -- Cat chi? 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Wikipedia they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?
 * I think it is a matter of cases. Arbcomers should follow each case they take to it's fullest. Perhaps the issue is a technical one an OTRS like system for arbcom may do wonders perhaps. I do not intend to have a whole lot of regular wiki-work should I get elected to arbcom. -- Cat chi? 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?
 * I would care if this was 3 months ago. Now I do not care. I however will not go out of my way to share personal information with the public. I believe sharing personal information on a global network such as the internet is not wise. -- Cat chi? 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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 may play a supply and demand role by playing an active role on all of these without giving any are a majority. -- Cat chi? 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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 see a few loopholes.
 * Overall I think the role of Jimbo Wales may be delegated to the foundation (or at least whatever seat/stool Jimbo is occupying). A position rather than a name would look and feel nicer.
 * "Conduct #1" implies adminship as a metric of conduct. It isn't. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. Every user should be in their best conduct at all times.
 * "Requests #5" is hard to follow. From what I understand Arbcom can overturn Jimbo's decisions and Jimbo can overturn arbcoms decisions. That can easily enter an infinite loop.
 * I don't quite like "Case management #3". It almost encourages policy violations and gaming the system. I think what happens in a prior mediation is very very relevant to an arbcom case.
 * I don't like the sound of "Decisions #2". It implies no one should take past cases seriously. It should be reworded and clarified.
 * -- Cat chi? 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.
 * A lot of people are not satisfied with arbcom and are unwilling to bring cases. This is primarily because bringing a case to arbcom heavily out weights any benefit. I think people need a helping hand in gathering evidence and preparing a case. That is my CSI idea basically. -- Cat chi? 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * I'd rather not remove anything we have. There are some policies and guidelines that needs work, sure but they all serve a general purpose. This is a bit beyond the scope of arbcom. Arbcom doesn't draft policies. -- Cat chi? 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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 should not set the policies. That's beyond the scope of dispute resolution. -- Cat chi? 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)
 * IRC should stay informal but it also should not be governed by anarchy as it is now. Arbcom would be the worst group of people to "govern" IRC as then IRC would no longer be informal. -- Cat chi? 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * If I had my way I'd focus on the following...
 * Most of the time it feels like arbcom ignores everything you say to them, so there is a serious lack of communication. Other people stated this too. Its frustrating to us "good users" (users who are here to write an encyclopedia) to be ignored by the committee we are supposed to trust most. The feeling of desertion when you are having a tough time certainly doesn't help.
 * We expect the victims of disagreements to present evidence to arbcom. That is problematic in more ways than I care to count. I'd like to see more community involvement in arbcom cases. Of course arbcom would pay attention to these outside evidence from uninvolved people. This is basically the CSI idea.
 * Also as I see it arbcomers are typically people who rarely takes risks or get really involved in disputes which really isn't a bad thing for an average user to do. It lets you keep a cleen reputation. But because of this all arbitrators tend to "think alike". If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. IMHO a good arbitrator should have a history where he or she has gotten his or her nose dirty from time to time. If you can't taste the problem, how do you expect to find a solution? Right? A little diversity can do wonders sometimes.
 * Although a minor point, the page structure of arbcom tends to be hard to navigate. I mean if I post a case there, all I should care about is monitoring my case not all of the twelve cases. Also appeals should really have a separate page. I know there had been some failed experimentation on this but I can't shake out the feeling that it's broken.
 * -- Cat chi? 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * Unreasonably long. -- Cat chi? 19:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * a) A wikiproject is a list of articles that a list of users are interested in. Wikiprojects serve as a colaborative portal to discuss general points.
 * b) Officially it is the exact opposite. Sadly some wikiprojects tend to think themselves a sa legitimate authority no one gave them. Sometimes this only serves as the source of drama over trivial mater that can be easily avoided.
 * -- Cat chi? 19:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 one has a right to impose anything. -- Cat chi? 19:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * Canvassing can be through any means possible including project newsletters, IRC or even mail pigeons. It is the intent that counts. -- Cat chi? 19:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * First mistake is a warning, second one a short block, next one is a longer block. Depends how much the bad edits escalate. It is however important to give new editors the benefit of doubt and take the time to explain what they are doing is wrong and why. No one is geneticaly engineered with Wikipedia policies. -- Cat chi? 19:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Gaming the system is not allowed. -- Cat chi? 19:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * What you want to perhaps say is "knowledge" instead of "intelligence". It isn't required for someone to know English to edit English wikipedia. I myself edit on over a hundred language editions of wikiepdia from time to time making minor corrections here and there. It would be advisable to know English to edit this wiki but that shouldn't be required. There are many tasks that do not need the slightest knowledge of English. As for the other point. Anyone can learn how to edit this site. Patiently explaining them does the trick. -- Cat chi? 19:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * Community bans are to remove disruptive individuals from the site. #6 (gaming the system) clearly applies. Other ones are newbie mistakes. -- Cat chi? 19:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I guess you can write a book over that. I think people are slowly becoming more and more hostile towards each other. Different perspectives on on-site issues is enough to create a massive clash that is entirely avoidable. Such an environment is excellent for disruptive users such as trolls to escalate matters. Another serious issue is harassment. -- Cat chi? 19:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Use of admin tools to enact and counteract a decision constantly. Includes block/unblock wars, protect/unprotect wars, and etc. It is a matter that should be handled on a case by case basis. If there is a legal reason thats one thing, if there is no legal reason thats another. -- Cat chi? 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * It would only serve to cause drama. I wouldn't support it. -- Cat chi? 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?
 * I used to own an adminbot on commons and it worked just fine. I used the admin functional "ability to edit protected pages". And that was it. Any other admin action (delete, block, protect, and etc) probably doesn't need a bot assistance. If a bot is only going to edit a protected page it can have a bot flag, other cases should go through a regular request. -- Cat chi? 19:32, 17 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. (Arbitrators need to be 'on the ball' and able to pick up impressions fairly accurately.)


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

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 (Talk 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?
 * I am uncertain by what you mean by saying "bundling it all together". -- Cat chi? 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?
 * It is important to weight in the history of users when reaching a decision. Someone who has a history of disruption will be treated differently than a user who has a history of good contribution. Someone with a history of disruption is more likely to get indef banned. This doesn't of course mean good users get a get-out-of-jail-free-card. I am not certain what you are asking me with this question. I do not believe an arbiter would offer a good solution. Arbitrators are the arbiters of the community. Someone watching over arbcom would mean that arbcom is no longer the last step of dispute resolution. A higher-arbcom (arbiter) would face the same issues arbcom is facing now. -- Cat chi? 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?
 * Everyone should have a say on the framework of Arbcom policy. There should be a consensus behind it or otherwise no one will take Arbcom seriously. However the AC policy should not render arbcom useless. So it is a bit of both courses of action. -- Cat chi? 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.
 * I am not sure what you mean. The two examples you gave are similar. En arbcom and non-en arbcom elections are "totally owned and controlled" by the wikipedia community. -- Cat chi? 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?
 * I assume you mean "arbitrator" with "arbiter". Ideally the answer to that question is no, but in non-ideal situations such as when too many arbitrators leave the community in too little time, it may be necessary to quickly select arbitrators rather than elect. -- Cat chi? 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?
 * The arbitation committee exists to serve the community, for the community, by the community. -- Cat chi? 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * There are two lists.


 * Rationale:
 * The foundation should always have supreme authority due to its legal responsibilities. For example if a ruling by arbcom is not compatible with the US Federal law, WMF should be able to overrule it.
 * I think his current status puts an unfair criticism on Jimmy Wales. It is not like he ever exercises his "power" over arbcom. I think it would be better if a WMF seat handled the task. What I am basically saying is a position not a name should occupy the role. We do need someone filling the role to quickly assign arbitrators should the need arise.
 * The community ranks above arbcom during elections. Once elections are over, the community should trust and follow arbcoms decisions.
 * -- Cat chi? 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * Not really, no. Arbcom deals with long term disputes than can easily last a year with revisits to arbcom. Some disputes go as far as four years! Keeping a team at least partially familiar with the case in question is beneficial. Arbcom members can resign if they feel they are completely worn out. -- Cat chi? 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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?
 * My views are:
 * Proposal A.1: Low level incivility should only rarely invite action
 * Everyone should meet a civility standard and should not habitually violate WP:CIVIL. It really depends on the type of incivility. If someone is swearing all the time, that should be acted up on in other cases the issue should be properly addressed through a discussion. Often there are very civil trolls that politely enrage good users to act improperly. There is no excuse to be incivil, no argument there... However polite trolling is far worse.
 * Proposal A.2: Low level incivility is a serious problem
 * Low-level civility is a problem but it is not a serious problem. There are many other serious problems that need a greater amount of attention. For example once trolling is completely eliminated overall civility will increase as a result. Habitual incivility should be discouraged but I would not want to see WP:CIVIL ruling the community with an iron fist. Either extreme (to over-enforce and under-enforce WP:CIVIL) is a bad idea.
 * Proposal A.3: Judgements on low level incivility are solely a case by case manner
 * Every decision should be made on a case by case basis. Otherwise you are allowing people to game the system. However I do not like the idea of allowing "difficult" contributors to habitually violate WP:CIVIL. Editing wikipedia is a privilege not a right. We are not desperate for editors. Someone else will always be able to write articles. People should behave civilly rather than make excuses to violate WP:CIVIL.
 * -- Cat chi? 11:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?
 * My views are:
 * Proposal B.1: Civility restrictions are an absolute last resort
 * Nothing is an "absolute last resort". People should not be pushing their luck by habitually violating WP:CIVIL knowing that they will get a a last chance.
 * Proposal B.2: Civility restrictions are rejected by the community
 * I do not believe arbcom really have to pass restrictions on people by quoting existing policy. When arbcom does so they are merely pointing out the obvious. Same rules apply even before arbcom ever says a word about it. Vandalism, trolling, incivility, and etc is prohibited behaviour.
 * Proposal B.3: Civility restrictions should remain unchanged
 * I am not certain what the current restrictions are aside from WP:CIVIL itself. A clarification on that end would allow me to provide a more educated response.
 * -- Cat chi? 11:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I overall dislike the proposition because it opens a few windows for gaming the system. That should be addressed first. -- Cat chi? 11:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)
'' This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. –  iride scent  01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ''
 * 1) Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?
 * Sure. The percentage is irrelevant to me. I am here to serve the community. Election results is a metric but not the only metric to determine who should be an arbitrator. I have no intention of declining an appointment. That said I do not care if I get appointed or not. It is not like I am seeking it for the title or the vote percentage. -- Cat chi? 11:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * I do not believe people should be slandered even if they do not mind it. We have WP:NPOV out there. If the person is nice enough to allow the slanderous version, people should be improving it as soon as possible so that it is worthy of the persons kindness. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * There is no reason to keep a slanderous version of an article in page history. AfDs are not always an accurate metric to determine weather or not an article should stay. Normally that is not a pressing issue but BLP has a legal basis. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * It is a question of policy AND content. BLP articles have content that is in violation of policy. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * When legal reasons are involved there is no such thing as too far. We should do our best to keep the site from legal trouble. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * I think BLP needs work, I am not familiar with the legal issues that prompted WP:BLP so I cannot really comment on changing the approach. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
 * I am unhappy with both voting and consensus models. Voting model doesn't work well due to meantpupetry. If ten friends in a dorm agree to be "funny" they can outvote nearly any decision. Consensus is used loosely on the site. Sometimes consensus on the site defies common logic. I do not see either model as a solution. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?
 * Flagged version is a good way to check for vandalism. I am unsure if we have the RC patrol capability to review and mark each edit yet. I just do not believe English Wikipedia is ready for flagged version. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * Yes I do. Not everyone wants their real life to be tarnished by their disagreements on wikipedia. Also putting your real info on the site makes you a target of real world stalkers and other criminals. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)?
 * I support it. Please do not change this. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * The community should go as far as necessary. Even if it means oversighting every edit or removing every bit of private info. However, this should be done without compromising from encyclopedic content. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * If someone wanted to reveal their private info they would put it on their userpage. No one needs help like that. One could be a very famous person and could also be modest enough not to take advantage of his real-world achievements on the site. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I am willing to acknowledge my identity privately to the WMF - though they already know it. I do not want to publicly acknowledge my identity for the reasons I mentioned above. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Both should be doing everything in their power to maintain peoples privacy. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * If someone is dicky enough to violate the spirit of privacy policy, in my view they are unwanted on this site. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * It could be an essay. There is no reason to terrify each new editor. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * If someone is getting stalked and hence violating the law, the privacy policy is very clear: "In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement".
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * Stalked users private info should be properly removed from the site. Anything beyond that, I do not know. We are not the police and unfortunately we cannot act as vigilantes. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Stalking should not be tolerated. Stalking is the exact opposite of our project goal. Our prokect goal is writing a free encyclopedia. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * If there is a problem editor, take the matter to DR. Don't be a vigilante as you may very well be wrong in your analysis. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * I'd support a slow paced review of each edit rather than a bulk revert. There are many ways to disrupt and tricking the system to a mass reversion is one of them. The remarkably unwelcome edit could have been hijacked at some point for example. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * People are free to discuss in any median they feel comfortable with. However on wikipedia discussions have the benefit of community input. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I do not have a blog or other vehicle to post anything. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)?
 * I do not have an opinion on either site. I am here to help create a free encyclopedia. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Case by case basis. If someone is criticizing the site or individual editor on an external site, that isn't banned. If they are trolling out there, that may have ramifications on this site. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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? )
 * No I do not have such an account. Digging up private info of any kind should not be allowed. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * That page doesn't display so I cannot give an educated response. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Gold. Long live the GDI. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

 * 1) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
 * It is a serious problem yes. I do not believe arbcom is doing enough. Sadly there are no easy way to resolve these. Ideally a neutral article would prevent such problems. -- Cat chi? 12:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?
 * I feel there should be a civility standard and people shouldn't reverse other administrators actions even if they feel it was a bit harsh. People violating WP:CIVIL should feel that violating it will not be tolerated and be more careful in the future. -- Cat chi? 12:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * See #1. -- Cat chi? 12:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * See #3 -- Cat chi? 12:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * I have tried almost all kinds. Article writing and maintenance alike. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * I am a qualified computer engineer. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * I only work on wikipedia and am not part of any online community besides that. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
 * I only have this username. I mentioned several on this page. See above. :) -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations?  If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
 * I do not advocate any view f any kind. I couldn't care less about every political or religious view as I am sick of it all. However I would recuse myself on issues concerning Turkey as I ran into a few problems in that area in the past.
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * I haven't held any and arbcom is not a leadership role. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address?  Do you plan to do so if elected?  If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
 * See #1. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia?  What are their user names and their relationships to you?
 * No one, aside from people I met on Wikimania 2008 or wikimeetups.
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * IRC, mailing list, wikimanias, meetups, email... -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * I am not getting a seat in the congress. I shouldn't have a constituency. It would be counter productive for a post like arbcom to rely on constituencies. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * Arbcom should accept any dispute that has not been able to be resolved by other means. Reject otherwise. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * On a case by case basis. The relevance of off-wiki content varies. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * I need to be working on a case to answer this. This question is too broad. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
 * I want to see an increase in communication. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * It would not be right for me to answer this question. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * I do not answer your question, please clarify. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * I have no feelings... They serve an important role in keeping the servers running so that I get to post this and so that you are able to read it. This may be a bit of a cold answer but ultimately that is how it works. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * I am as uninvolved as one can be in regards to OTRS. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * Like what? If there is a demand for it, my peers aprove it, and if privacy policy allows it, perhaps. Otherwise no. -- Cat chi? 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from TomasBat

 * 1) In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)
 * If the user if a human who volunteers to do what's best for the encyclopedia in good faith, yes. Sometimes what a user feels is the right thing may not always be the right thing. People have shown me the patience and I would only do the same to any new user. -- Cat chi? 12:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from MBisanz

 * 1) In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond?  If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.
 * I cannot be manipulated like that. It would not affect my job as an arbitrator. I would however pursue the issue like any regular user would. If people think harassment as a mean to get under my skin they are gravely mistaken. -- Cat chi? 12:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Pixelface

 * 1) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
 * Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and /Moby Dick
 * Davenbelle = Moby Dick = Diyarbakir = Jack Merridew.
 * I feel arbcom did not make a serious effort in dealing with Davenbelle aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Jack Merridew. There is an ongoing case as I write this.
 * Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters and /Episodes and characters 2
 * Arbcom was not able to seriously address the Episodes and characters dispute well. I am not trying to pick sides but arbcom was unable to reduce the amount of disruption. A lot of people (like me) got sick of the constant disruption arbcom was unable to properly address and stopped editing the articles in question all together.
 * -- Cat chi? 13:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 do not recall any such case. -- Cat chi? 13:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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).
 * The only rejected case was on Jack Merridew. There is an ongoing case as I write this. -- Cat chi? 13:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Badger Drink

 * 1) It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
 * See #1. -- Cat chi? 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * Evidence gathered by one person may be flawed in more ways than one. I believe instead of individuals a group of users with unrelated backgrounds should be collecting, processing and presenting evidence to arbcom. That is basically the frame work of my CSI idea. -- Cat chi? 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Question is too broad. There are far more prudent issues about ArbCom than that can fit an RfC. -- Cat chi? 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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


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

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. So I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?-- Birgitte SB  19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it should be arbitrators who are the ones collecting evidence. After collecting evidence as you point out you often end up slightly biased to "find what you are looking for". When that happens the more admins qualified to review your evidence, the better.
 * I think my CSI idea addresses this. People collecting evidence for arbcom should of course be impartial so as to avoid conflicts of interest. I sincerely believe evidence speaks for it self no mater who collects it. It is however possible for a single individual to overlook key evidence. The more people that get involved with evidence gathering the less likely it ends up running into problems.
 * Also unless privacy policy does not allow it, evidence should be presented publicly. This may cause a limited amount of drama like any arbcom case but not posting it publicly not only creates twice as much drama but also suspicions towards arbcom which ultimately harms community trust towards arbcom.
 * -- Cat chi? 14:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't really suggesting that arbs collect the evidence. I imagined that the parties who brought the case to arbcom would submit most of the evidence privately.  I am suggesting that these various submissions are collected in a comprehensive presentation and then various editors given the parts concerning their own actions for review.  As I said above, most public cases do not generally contain a comprehensive presentation, but the wiki-philosophy of "many eyes" instead acts as a a quality control on incoming evidence.  This is not true in private case, where a different type of quality control is then needed.  Since we are only talking of private cases here, I was imagining that evidence would often include emails or other sorts of things that led to the privacy requirement, rather than standard public diffs which simply speak for themselves. Also let me emphasize that these suggestions are given as bare minimum standards.  If you read the diff I gave you will see I support a greater standard review than this whenever possible.  However I do believe that when the level of review sinks below the standards I suggested (which has happened in past cases), the reliability of resulting decisions is questionable.  As they say garbage in, garbage out.  There must be some reliable checks on evidence going in, in order to have confidence in the decision coming out.-- Birgitte  SB  20:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! Sorry about that. I agree with what you are saying though it isn't a question. :P -- Cat chi? 20:18, 19 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.
 * Sources used on wikipedia may contain "false info". Often articles cover what is sourced not what is the truth. It is a tough matter that should be addressed on an article by article basis. -- Cat chi? 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?
 * The intent of WP:NOT is to prevent censoring of wikipedias content. For example we are not going to remove content on our site that the Chinese government censors through firewalls. We simply do not have the luxury to side with any political, religious or other beliefs. -- Cat chi? 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.
 * No we cannot. It needs to be from a peer reviewed source. You can conduct such a survey and publish it on a scientific journal. Only then could you use it on the site. Sometimes conflicting views do exist and WP:NPOV addresses this. -- Cat chi? 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions From Ϣere Spiel  Chequers
For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
 * 2) In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
 * 3) In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
 * 4) How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
 * Your question seems to be a paradox. -- Cat chi? 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question(s) from LtPowers
There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment? If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust? (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with. My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.)  Powers T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * People are indeed loosing their patience and trust with arbcom.
 * One of the major factor is due to a chain reaction:
 * Arbcom does not have the time to collect evidence.
 * Poor quality evidence generally collected by one of the involved parties with an obvious vested interest is shoved into arbcoms face. These people generally do not even know what kind of evidence is admissible.
 * Arbcom sees the universe by looking through water. Heavily distorted.
 * Arbcom is unable to come up with resolutions to disputes.
 * I think the solution lies at the very start. The people collecting the evidence. Anyone of course should be permitted to collect evidence but also a group of editors (CSIs) should collect evidence on behalf of the community for the community. This would give a better perspective to arbcom and would be a step in the right direction.
 * -- Cat chi? 14:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Question by Mr.Z-man
You have run for adminship several times, and each time, the community did not trust you with the admin tools. Do you think the community would trust you with the admin tools now? If so, why have you not run again? If not, why, and why should the community trust you with much more sensitive tools such as oversight and checkuser? Even if you don't request the tools, you would still have some limited access to the output through the mailing list/private wiki. Mr.Z-man 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look. In my statement I talked about how rfa "became a popularity contest " and is no longer a "mean to give an extra tool to good and responsible users" (Q4). As for your other point, I stated somewhere (could be IRC or a wiki page) that I will not ever self nominate again. No one nominated me in the past two years (roughly), it is as simple as that. I also have no pressing needs for admin tools right at this moment. Also adminship isn't a rank of trust. I think such an approach to adminship may not be the best one. -- Cat chi? 04:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Question by Swatjester
You have a reputation for a lack of maturity, especially on IRC, and irrational behavior on Wiki. To quote from your editor review, another editor described the situation: ''When you changed username, you insisted on changing the links from your old signature to your new one, instead of using a redirect, it wasted time, wasted the servers and everyone but yourself found it pointless. Then, here we are again, something doesn't go your way and you create a poll on whether or not you should leave, then cause a stir when someone deletes it. The community has tried to tell you on numerous occations that you have caused disruption, yet you continue despite the concern.'' What evidence can you provide that you have a) moved beyond that, and b) that you have the requisite focus and maturity to serve on the Arbitration Committee? &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On IRC everyone is rather playful (including you, me, admins, arbitrators, checkusers (we even have a Ceiling_Cat in #wikipedia), and even Jimmy Wales himself). IRC is there merely to pass time for the most part. IRC is meant to be anything but serious.
 * If you have something specific to ask me, feel free to do so but please do so in your own words. Your quotation without the relevant context doesn't make a lot of sense to me as I am not sure what half of that is specifically referring to.
 * You are basically asking me if I am mature enough or not and expecting me to prove it with evidence. I am not sure how you expect me to do it. How would you answer to such a question if you were asked that? Its strange... I guess you could use my conduct on commons.
 * Also statements talking in behalf of "the community" should have a strong basis and should go well beyond the opinions of one or few users.
 * -- Cat chi? 08:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * White_Cat asked me to comment here about his behavior. I don't think he's behaved substantially better or worse in IRC than any of the other Wikipedia regulars. Raul654 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My question is not answered. I'll repeat it. What evidence can you provide that you have a) moved beyond that, and b) that you have the requisite focus and maturity to serve on the Arbitration Committee? If you're having trouble figuring out how to answer it, a) asks for evidence (either positive or negative) based on conduct, and b) calls for a determination on what level of focus and maturity the ArbCom requires, and then asks for examples. (Arguably, a candidate for ArbCom shouldn't need that explained to them, and should be able to answer the questions asked on their own). &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  09:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * a) Passed beyond what?
 * b) I always had the focus and maturity to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Frankly I do not even like what you are implying. This sees to be more of an accusation than a question. Why would I even be a candidate if I did not have the determination. I guess you should base your judgement on weather or not I am serious enough based on the answers I give to the questions asked.
 * -- Cat chi? 13:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I still see no answers from you. My questions are very simple. a) Have you moved beyond immature disruptions like modifying large numbers of archives to change your signatures after being asked not to do so, and please provide some evidence to show that you have (or in the alternative, present a lack of evidence that you have not.) b)Do you have the requisite focus and maturity to serve on arbcom? Please provide examples showing such focus and maturity.

I can't believe this is so difficult that it is taking you multiple attempts to answer the question. If, as you suggest, I'm supposed to be basing your judgment on how you have answered the question, I'd be forced to conclude that you have no judgment as you have failed wholly to answer them after multiple repeated requests. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  02:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only answer to clear questions and your's were not clear. Frankly I was hoping that I was misunderstanding what you were asking.
 * a) When I done what you stated, I merely wanted to fix my signature. Modifying large numbers of archives to change ones signatures is done regularly every day by other wikipedians even today. It isn't classified as "immature disruption" by vast majority of the community and I'd consider such characterization unecessarily hostile. Vast majority of the community does not loose sleep over trivial edits such as the updating of signatures much less mass revet such edits on sight. Having said that, I haven't "updated my signatures" for over a year and am unable to post diffs of edits I have not made.
 * b) I have the maturity not to respond to insults like the one you are throwing at me.
 * I cannot see how the questions you are asking me are relevant to arbcom at all. Furthermore I'd be intrigued to see how you would be answering the questions. After all none of them have a "good answer".
 * -- Cat chi? 08:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions by Jc37
I think you already know the ways in which I respect you, even if we may disagree about certain things at times.

That said, your candidate statement seems more than somewhat combative.

Do you intend to succeed in this candidacy? Or is this merely reaching for a soapbox with which to express your discontent?

I don't want to presume, so I guess I'm asking for clarification. - jc37 11:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My candidacy statement was not intended to be "combative". It is more of a challenge towards the community. Us as a community is facing a crisis as the only working WP:DR process (RFAR) is slowly but surely is becoming no more helpful than RFCs. I think it is important to admit a problem before attempting to fix it. My discontent is sadly from experience. Rather than sulking and complaining, I want to proactively seek a solution. My candidacy is intended to be just that. I may not necessarily win a seat on arbcom and I would be satisfied if I can just get people talking over this real problem.
 * Let me explain, I have been involved with a total of five rfars to date. All five involved the same user. Let me give a short chronology (see that link too).
 * My first case was against three users and Davenbelle was one of them. (2005 case). Arbcom barely gave a slap in the wrist.
 * My second case was against a single user:Moby Dick, a Davenbelle sockpuppet. (2006 case). Finally a real slap in the wrist but still nothing serious.
 * In 2007 a User:Diyarbakir was blocked indefinitely for being a Moby Dick (Davenbelle) sockpuppet after I proven that he was stalking in an identical manner.
 * My third rfar was against a group of people - the infamous "Episode & Character dispute" where two groups of users revert warred to redirectify or restore articles. Among the users was Jack merridew who redirectified the majority of anime articles I contributed to. Jack Merridew later turned out to be a Davenbelle sockpuppet although I did not know that during the case. (2007 case). What's most frustrating with this arbcom case was Arbcom made no ruling to really discourage mass redirectication or restoring of the articles. Barely gave a warning. Overall the entire case was a waste of everyones time. It failed to resolve the dispute or even hint a solution.
 * My fourth rfar was against a group of people - the infamous "Episode & Character dispute" for a second time. Among the users was Jack Merridew, a Davenbelle sockpuppet. Unlike the 2007 case, this one wasn't a complete waste of time. (2008 case). During the case I (coincidentally) realized that Jack Merridew was infact Davenbelle. I quickly collected evidence to prove this. Arbcom rejected the evidence stating this was irrelevant to the Episode & Character dispute. Evidence suggested otherwise. For example contribution of User:TTN (who was banned for 6 months) and Jack Merridew was parallel.%26.77 or 750 out of 2802 edits by Jack Merridew were to pages that TTN also edited. Ultimately I was prompted to file a new case in regards to Jack Merridew.
 * My fifth case was against User:Jack Merridew, a Davenbelle sockpuppet. Despite all the evidence I provided, arbcom rejected even hearing the case. Later on I managed to get a community sanction on him on 31 Mar. There was an unblock discussion on 5 May for Jack Merridew and he was unblocked briefly as a result. At this point he engaged in minor stalking in Wikimedia commons and on meta.
 * After roughly 6 months after the community ban discussion (31 March) and 5 months after the unban discussion (5 May) arbcom is discussing weather or not to unban Jack Merridew. Mind that arbcom did absolutely nothing to ban him in the first place. The only times Davenbelle was banned was due to community sanctions rather than as a result of arbcom hearings which supposed to be the last step.
 * All this material above is a brief summary over a single user who has dedicated most of his time on the site to merely make my life miserable. So it should be a slam dunk case. The fact that it isn't says a lot about the current state of inadequacy of the DR process. Of course my dealings with Davenbelle is a mere example. There are countless other examples where arbcom was less than helpful.
 * -- Cat chi? 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So your hope is to see the "top level" of WP:DR act with more teeth than continually doing what you see as wrist-slapping? (I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't want to mischaracterise your words.)
 * And based upon that, did you see the SV/FM/etc. case, and if so, what are your thoughts on it in light of the above? - jc37 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is less about arbcom having teeth and more about arbcom playing a more active role in resolving disputes. If I had my way I'd focus on the following...
 * Most of the time it feels like arbcom ignores everything you say to them, so there is a serious lack of communication. Other people stated this too. Its frustrating to us "good users" (users who are here to write an encyclopedia) to be ignored by the committee we are supposed to trust most. The feeling of desertion when you are having a tough time certainly doesn't help.
 * We expect the victims of disagreements to present evidence to arbcom. That is problematic in more ways than I care to count. I'd like to see more community involvement in arbcom cases. Of course arbcom would pay attention to these outside evidence from uninvolved people.
 * Also as I see it arbcomers are typically people who rarely takes risks or get really involved in disputes which really isn't a bad thing for an average user to do. It lets you keep a cleen reputation. But because of this all arbitrators tend to "think alike". If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. IMHO a good arbitrator should have a history where he or she has gotten his or her nose dirty from time to time. If you can't taste the problem, how do you expect to find a solution? Right?
 * Although a minor point, the page structure of arbcom tends to be hard to navigate. I mean if I post a case there, all I should care about is monitoring my case not all of the twelve cases. Also appeals should really have a separate page. I know there had been some failed experimentation on this but I can't shake out the feeling that it's broken.
 * I am not sure what are you referencing with "SV/FM/etc" remark. A link would be helpful.
 * -- Cat chi? 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. - jc37 03:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh that thing... I'll provide my quick analysis. I am reading that document backwards (bottom to top). I can go through a greater amount of detail if you like but I really do not want to cause a ruckus (somehow). My analysis below will be based on the page you linked. Nothing here is an accusation and I may not be always "politically correct".
 * For starters, evidently that case had taken way too long. But that really is pointing the obvious.
 * "Contentiousness and demoralization" section talks about a problem rather discretely. Often people imply a kind of alliance between "wiki friends" where otherwise uninvolved people join a dispute strictly to advocate a friend. I observed this on the dispute concerning Jack Merridew (Davenbelle). The group of editors that are trying to mass redirectify/merge Episode and Character related articles came to the aid of Jack Merridew and defended what he was doing and did their best to convince others that Jack Merridew was in fact not Davenbelle... This did not work as I kept my cool (relatively) and collected indisputable evidence. I think my CSI idea would prevent such "allied assaults" or at least decrease the effectiveness of such meatpuppetry. I strongly believe people should't need to forge alliances to discuss matters. Well meaning people can always discuss and come up to a common agreement. Of course that is if one side isn't merely nagging the other or is only interested in pushing a certain point of view. In such cases WP:DR should be able to resolve the problem. Experience editors should do their best not to escalate matters.
 * "Viridae" section implies Viridae had stalked JzG a bit. Viridae should probably made better use of WP:AN, though I admit WP:AN is often less than helpful. One thing is certain, no one likes to be pursued. People shouldn't be made to feel like they are being pursued.
 * "SlimVirgin" has a lot of subsections.
 * B: Attempts to invade peoples privacy, no mater the rationale behind it, should not be AT ALL tolerated even slightly. If people want to reveal their own personal info, they can do so on their on userpage. I can understand why anyone could easily become paranoid over such continuous attempts.
 * E: I don't think arbcom should have bothered with this. Really... A talk page reminder on when "this is a minor link" should be used would have sufficed. People aren't required or expected to follow Help:Minor edit. It's advisable to follow it but nothing worth loosing sleep over. This probably adds to SlimVirgin's stress level.
 * "JzG" The user is your typical overly stressed wikipedian it seems. Now thats of course not an excuse to violate NPA on a "frequent" basis. I think there is way too much text and sections addressing the users conduct there. B through E ramble about the same thing. It could have been presented in a less cryptic simple way. That way it wouldn't add to JzG's stress level.
 * "FeloniousMonk" This user seems to be using admin tools on articles he has a conflict of interest. A very bad practice. Again there are way too many sections talking about the same thing.
 * "Cla68" This users story seems to be a complicated case. Behaviour described in the E.2 subsection is out of the question. No one should even think of publishing personal information of editors. Respecting other peoples privacy is the absolute minimum respect I expect and require people to show each other. As for other points. It would be better for a group of people to expose deception rather than individual users. I do not know if applies to this case but some people tend to be annoying just enough to bother people but not enough to warrant a ban. Such conduct in my view should not be tolerated. Thats just gaming the system.
 * I hope my response was satisfactory. I merely spoke what I thought. I haven't analyzed the evidence in great detail as you merely asked me for my thoughts. You are welcome to move this thread to the arbcom election "Questions to the candidate" section. I'd be more than happy to answer any more questions.
 * -- Cat chi? 08:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you would like it moved, please feel free.
 * As for me, I suppose that I had (naively) thought that these would be more simple questions, but in hindsight, under the circumstances, I can see how they were a bit more complex than I intended. So my apologies for that.
 * I consider your responses to be "clarifications", so there really is no "wrong" answer. Thank you for spending a fair amount of time answering. I appreciate it.
 * If I might be as so bold as to offer a suggestion...
 * And just as you noted above, this may not be "PC" advice or comments, but I sincerely hope it helps.
 * While I understand your concerns over past actions, and feel that that probably does give you some added insight to the process, using those examples to the exclusion of all others may give others the impression that this could merely be someone looking for redress of past injuries. And while I do think that it is a little of that, I think it's likely quite a bit less than how you're currently comporting yourself.
 * And while I don't know how that "plays" for other "vote"rs, for me, I cringe whenever I see candidate statements talking about "redress", or suggesting that a body of volunteers who're likely attempting to do the best, that they should be considered in any way "screwups" or "worthless". (I'm not suggesting you have, I'm just making a broader declaration.) Though I'll admit that seeing such comments usually makes my choice easier through selective elimination. (Well that, and the fact that the seemingly successful strategy seems to be to vote for those you prefer, and vote against everyone else.)
 * One last thing, and it's kinda blunt, so my apologies in advance, but not sure how else to say it succinctly. There are currently 7 seats open. Because of that, I think you may stand a fair chance. But if it was fewer, I'm not so certain. It may honestly depend on if there are further candidates.
 * Of course, this is merely one editor's opinion (mine), so of course, feel free to accept it (or dismiss it) with the grain of salt it deserves.
 * Anyway, you've got more people to "impress", and more questions to answer, so I'll try to avoid taking up more of your time. I sincerely hope this helps. - jc37 09:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With your permission, I am now moving a copy of this thread to the "questions to the candidate" section. Feel free to ask any question you like. -- Cat chi? 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Stifle
All (or almost all, I'm not 100% sure) previous electees to ArbCom have been administrators. How will you manage ArbCom duties without admin tools? Stifle (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There had been non-admins that get elected to arbcom before IIRC. In either 2004 or 2005 I am not sure. If an urgent action needs to be taken, any available admins can do it. Temporary injunctions typically let any admin to take action and very rarely if ever are arbitrators the admins that enact temporary injunctions. Arbitrators do not really need admin tools for their role to manage tehir ArbCom duties.
 * If there is a specific case you have in mind that an arbitrator would need to use admin tools, feel free to state that. But even in such a situation, another admin can handle the task...
 * -- Cat chi? 10:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was immediately thinking of looking at deleted pages. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Will Beback
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
 * I only have a bot account aside from that I have no other accounts. I refuse to use other accounts. My candidate statement may be of value (#Q4) -- Cat chi? 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?
 * Sockpuppets regardless of the intent to create them should not be used to cause disruption of other kind including for comic relief. Again, my candidate statement may be of value (#Q4). -- Cat chi? 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?
 * Unfortunately technical limitations are at play. Use of proxies makes it impossible for us to tell if a user is a returning one. My CSI idea would help in that area. No matter how well one disguises his or her identity with careful analysis of the evidence it would reveal the truth. Once people realize they won't be getting away with sockpuppetry, they would eventually get bored of their misconduct and start doing something productive. -- Cat chi? 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from harej
Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify? I am not exactly sure what the intended question is. -- Cat chi? 03:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Milop Den
What do you think about Jayjg, his POV pushing and former work in Arbitration Committee. --Milop Den (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A key characteristic I want to see in arbcom is them basing their decisions on evidence. Due to the complete absence of evidence to support your accusations, I will have to decline to answer to this one. -- Cat chi? 12:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Al tally

 * 1) Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
 * A popular vote may be problematic in some ways. RfA has turned into a popularity contest here on English wikipedia unlike other wikis. Details of that has been discussed to death and CU/OS deals with very sensitive information after all. I however agree that such discussion should be publicly done. I have mixed opinions about this. I want to support public elections/discussion in choosing CU/OS but knowing how terrible of a metric RFA has become I do not feel I can support it. -- Cat chi? 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
 * I think a situation where community or arbcom overrules one or another only promotes trolling. I think decisions by arbcom or community should be agreeable by everyone. If the decision has strong basis backed by evidence, I heavily doubt anyone would wish to overrule it. Of course when the evidence is kept a secret people may not see the rationale behind the decisions and this has been a problem with closed-door cases arbcom processed in the past. -- Cat chi? 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
 * I think the experience of former arbitrators has a positive impact on ongoing cases. Right after each election the community may find itself dealing with seven or more rookie arbitrators. CU/OS privs have uses aside from rfars. For example I'd support more people having checkuser privs to deal with the kind of serial sockpuppetary we are dealing with. Often RFCU's take forever. Oversight access isn't in need as much as checkusers at this point. I can agree with that. However when we do need something oversighted we almost always want it oversighted at once so you want an oversight or two available at all times. Weather or not I'd keep the tools would depend on the circumstances of my resignation. But I'd be in favor of keeping the tools for the reasons I mentioned. Of course for that I'd first have to be elected. :P -- Cat chi? 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).
 * It is important to define what we are referring to as the "community". It would be impractical for me or any arbitrator to surrender their tools every time a group of editors complain. We do deal with troll meatpuppetry. As for genuine complaints by the community, I would recuse myself from using such tools at once until the matter is clarified. After all there are plenty of others that use the tools. I am not dying to have the tools and I'd rather not be keeping them if me keeping them would damage the community one way or another. -- Cat chi? 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess what you are primarily asking is about accountability and transparency of arbcom. I support both of these wholeheartedly but like I mentioned above I have a level of reservations. -- Cat chi? 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Ling.Nut

 * I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
 * Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
 * Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 16:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I see it, user pages, user talk pages and the relevant sub pages are not personal property and instead public property. I would considered an overprotective attitude towards ones own userpage to be disruptive. Having said that, I also believe people shouldn't be messing with each others userspace for the purpose of annoying each other.
 * I'd say the function of peoples talk pages is for communication purposes. It is unreasonable and impractical to make your talk page a redirect to your userpage. Having said all that, such a thing is not banned by a policy or guideline directly as you pointed out and no one should loose sleep over such a minor thing.
 * It is important to avoid instruction creep. So IMHO an admin prime directive is not a good idea. "Common sense" would work better.
 * The topic you covered is a bit too broad. What specific aspect do you want me to discuss?
 * -- Cat chi? 20:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Pixelface
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * I'd say 21. The workload of arbcom is increasing each day and so should the number of arbitrators. -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * I am not bugged by the current length but I feel an even number would work better. I'd say 2 or 4 years. Anything below two years will be problematic. It takes a while for an arbitrator to get used to tasks and tools. You want to use an arbitrator for at least a year. -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * Lobbying of any kind is disruptive. I seriously doubt lobbying will affect the arbitrators judgment. Only thing that should influence that should be the evidence. -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * This is a double edged sword. I will say that edits by anyone should be welcome for minor fixes (such as typos, grammar and etc). Substantial changes should be based on solid consensus. We want stable but constantly modernized policies. -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * No. Arbitrators should participate in the discussions but let others perform the actual policy changing edits. It wouldn't be wrong for an arbitrator to do it but that may send the wrong message to some people. -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * Yes. The thing is otherwise any mob can easily nullify arbcoms function. If there is a substantial need for a change I seriously doubt arbitrators will go out of their way to ignore it. -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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"?
 * This has been a long an painful debate that lasted for years. My answer to next question answers to this one as well. -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * It really is a serious philosophical discussion.
 * Determining the notability of ancient stuff (anything older than 100 years) is hard. The problem is there isn't enough information anyone can easly access.
 * If I wanted to create a list of all attacks carried out by the pirate Edward England I'd have to do serious research as in go through countless books in many different libraries in many different languages to come up with the most basic information to prepare a list.
 * It was very hard to mass publish creative work. Many creative works were destroyed and did not make it to this century.
 * Determining the notability of current stuff (anything in the past 100 years) is hard. The problem is there is too much information anyone can easly access. Overflow of information basically.
 * It is very to collect information about the piracy that happened in the past years. You have mass media reports as well as reports from various international organizations. I have been working on the piracy off of Somalia related articles for the past week. I have complied a partial list of all attacks with trivial effort. I even managed to find images of the individual ships attacked. Some were even on commons!
 * It is very easy to publish a creative work with todays mass media. Any piece of music or video can easily make it to the other side of the planet within seconds. For example anyone with internet can watch the Daily Show even if it doesn't air anywhere near them.
 * What should be on the encyclopedia and what shouldn't is becoming a more complex issue with every passing day and I unfortunately lack an easy answer.
 * -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * I think if it is known that involving other processes will not help resolve the dispute and the matter will end up in front of arbcom anyways, it would be more prudent to involve arbcom directly. Letting the dispute dig itself into a deeper ditch makes arbcoms work harder. -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Mass action of any kind not based on solid consensus is disruptive regardless of the content in question. If all asteroid articles need to go a prior discussion can reach to the same conclusion. If not, mass action is not warranted and would be disruptive. -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Wikia and Wikipedia are two different entities. I do not see the benefit of forcing people to disclose personal information concerning Wikia. -- Cat chi? 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Marlith
What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years?  Marlith  (Talk)   03:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I want wikipedia to develop into a user-friendly online encyclopedia. Emphasis on user-friendly was intentional. Currently it is quite hostile towards anyone who boldly dares to edit the site. -- Cat chi? 21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Iceflow

 * 1) Does your candidacy for the Arbcom have anything to do with your interaction with them in mid November?
 * Not really. Arbcom was incompetent long before November... I also ran last year as well and intend to run next year and the one after that. -- Cat chi? 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) If so, do you see your potential role with the Arbcom as being to help other editors who have a problem of that nature, or as a part of the wider committee?
 * I would hope so. Unlike other candidates I have experienced the system in the most painful way possible: by being an involved party in many cases. A lot of the people voting in these elections have had no experience with arbcom and do not have a clue on how broken it is. -- Cat chi? 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you feel that you have what it takes to actually make a difference to the workings of the Arbcom?
 * To fix something first you need to acknowledge that it is broken. Then you need to use your experience to fix the problem. I think I have a pretty good start should I somehow get elected. -- Cat chi? 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to decline any or all of these questions as you see fit :)

Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Camaron
Here are some additional questions to help me and others gauge your candidacy. My apologies if identical or very similar questions have already been asked. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) The reasons given to the opposition of your candidacy include that you are "easily provoked", "risk of wikidrama is too high", and even "Highly disruptive". What is your initial reaction to these concerns? Are they fair? How would you avoid such criticisms as an arbitrator?
 * I have been accused many things.
 * I do not feel I am "easily provoked". People may think that way as I had been dealing with Davenbelle aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Jack Merridew for the past four years. That exceeds even the three year terms of an arbitrator. This had kept me on the edge all the time. People had called me paranoid and etc over all that. It turned out I was right all along and the evidence had proven it despite the communities prejudice against "me and my paranoia".
 * I do not believe there is any "risk of wikidrama" should I get elected to arbcom. First of arbcom is already a drama heaven and no one (not even me :)) can make it any worse. What I strongly support is the presence of evidence which actually does the exact opposite of wikidrama.
 * I do not have the slightest bit of clue where that "highly disruptive" comment came from. One day he should tell me exactly what is it that I am disrupting. I do not even recall interacting with that user. If I am indeed "highly disruptive" then I should be indef blocked.
 * -- Cat chi? 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) You were blocked once on 27 May 2007 for 15 minutes with the reasoning "Ignoring concerns re sig edits, redirects are not broken". Looking back now, do you consider this block justified? What have you learnt from it, if anything?
 * I did not consider that block justified at any point. However I did not feel it was necessary to escalate a dispute over something so minor and ridiclously insignificant, I did not continue modifying my sigs to date. That said, people modify their sigs on a regular basis from time to time. No one bothers them because no one cares about such insignificant modifications. It only became an issue over a year ago when I dared to modify my own sigs. Suddenly people went out of their way to mass revert my edits... The only thing I think I did learn is how ridiculous some people can get over the most trivial edits I make. -- Cat chi? 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your answers White Cat. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)