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

General questions

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

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


 * 1) There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
 * As I stated in my opening statement, the core issues that need to be changed are transparency and efficiency. Many users running seem to agree with me on these two points, so it's pretty obvious that they need work. of course, there are sensitive matters that would need to be private, but if there's something vital to an understanding of a case that's being kept in private, but doesn't need to be, then show it. If it makes the community more understanding and less peeved at you, then it shouldn't be an issue. As for speed, it appears that ArbCom has moved from many smaller cases to a few hugs cases over the years. Naturally, a huge case (C68-SV-FM, Piotrus) is going to take longer to come to a decision on. However, to make parties wait 4+ months is unfair to the innocent. Having voting open 1.5+ months makes arbcom look lazy. We're appointed to do a job; that's what we should be doing. The core idea of arbcom is working; cases are going in that should be, cases that have no need for arbcom are staying out. Really the only way to fix speed issues is for new arbitrators (aka me hopefully) to come in and handle what needs to be handled.
 * 1) Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?
 * I'm of two minds about this issue. Sometimes ex-arbitrators provide valuable insight to a case if it's a follow-up to one they've had, but to load the mailing list with ex-arbs could be intimidating, and it might seem to an outsider as if they are controlling some issues. Now, I have no clue what goes on in the mailing list, but I presume it's like the MedCom mailing list, only with the addition of sensitive information and ex-arbs. I would think that controversial cases wold have a lot going on, both with Jimbo and with former arbitrators. As long as they don't try to bully the current committee into doing something, then i don't mind it too much, though as an outsider I'd prefer fewer ex-arbs on the list.
 * 1) Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.
 * a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?
 * b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?
 * For the first one, it is rare for an arbitrator to be generally well-liked and well-known. Basically, we have to do what is right for the encyclopedia, and there may be times where we can only hope for the community's understanding. The issue of privacy is tough as well, as I'm sure there may be times where I'd like to tell a user why I can't do something, but can't due to privacy reasons. So long as we specify that something cannot be made public due to major privacy concerns and don't try to hide it and pretend it's not there, we should be okay.
 * 1) Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?
 * I have no reason to burn out. I had an overloaded schedule at uni this fall, and I was still churning out edits with little difficulty. If THAT didn't cause burnout, arbcom's not going to leave a mark. Plus, any wikibreaks I've taken have been due to rl rather than wp.
 * 1) Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
 * Dealing with norms and policies and trying to make them really work properly I would consider to be a community matter, more than anything.
 * 1) If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
 * My mandate would be to handle a lot of the hands-on, on-wiki work, such as voting on cases promptly, and drafting proposed decisions. (which i've done before; i'd help kirill and nyb to relax a bit) Of course, my mandate would be some reform, which I would work with my fellow new arbitrators (quite a few have real good ideas) with what they have in mind.
 * 1) How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?
 * Because of where and how I edit, it shouldn't affect me too much. My article writing comes in spurts, which means I could simply churn up articles during a break in the caseload. As for administrative actions, I would be much more cautious in where I get involved. Likely I would just revert back to handling less controversial issues (TfD/UCfD, for example), and of course any involvement in other DR will be completely stopped. The question's basically asking if I have common sense, which I do, don't worry :) Wizardman  17:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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 07:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself.  On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki.  On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days.  Which definition do you prefer?
 * The definition seems to be a mixture of both. If users contribute a large amount to the encyclopedia, they are going to feel as if they are valuable to the encyclopedia, and they are. Policy applies to everyone, so if they're harassing users and being a menace, it doesn't matter if they've written 1 or 100 articles, they still need to follow guidelines.
 * 1) Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
 * Can people be incivil and reasonable? I find that pretty doubtful. reasonable behavior is behavior that's not destructive, which is what civility is in a way.
 * 1) Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
 * You can't just "find" good contributors who can churn out FAs with little difficulty.
 * 1) Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right.  It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly.  But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back.  Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented.  In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
 * It's best if arbcom looks at these on a case-by-case basis, since there may be some where something got lost in translation, and others where there was no reason for them to have been editing.
 * 1) Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR.  All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests.  Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use?  If so, what should those be?
 * I, for now, lean inclusionist in what cases we would hear. Of course I'd use the same guidelines, but if I'm not positive I would lean towards acceptance; if we can't find anything in our jurisdiction, then that's fine. Arbcom does a decent job in whether to accept/reject cases; it's on requests for clarification that need work.

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

Questions from Matthew

 * 1) Briefly, please explain the role of the arbitration committee and why you (if so) believe the committee "works".
 * Arbcom is the last step in dispute resolution; this is where problem users cn be dealt with and issues resolved. The question of whether it works I've discussed on FT2's questions.
 * 1) Choose your role: judge, jury or executioner.
 * Judge; in a way, arbcom is like the US supreme court.
 * 1) What are your strengths?
 * I have common sense and judgment, and also am willing to do what is right even though others may not agree.
 * 1) What are your weaknesses?
 * Excessively long statements by people bore me. It's not that difficult to be pithy.

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?
 * Clue.

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?
 * 20/M/USA! (Midwestern United States, if more specificity matters)
 * 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.
 * There are naturally people who are better at article writing, and people who are better at maintenance issues. Conflicts between main and project users thankfully aren't too heated (I'm most familiar with seeing the wars at rfa about this stuff) The ability to work together should come from the editors themselves. This is a volunteer project, no need to get too stressed.
 * 1) What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
 * Should they be editing in the first place? No. I may keep spelling fixes, but technically the edits shouldn't be there.
 * 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.
 * My couple ideas for this answer started in late '07, so I can't use them. After reading the Highways case just now I didn't care for it, but if I had to pick one it wouldbe the Mantanmoreland case. Based on the evidence provided, I feel that the community eventually remedied what was a misstep by Arbcom in the proposed decision.
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Art Houtteman, John Baldwin (educator), Joe Nathan, Requests for comment/Elonka, and Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie.
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * I will support a couple who I personally, should I be elected, would be elated to serve with; I won't touch any others. My votes (2 or 3 at the absolute most) will be late in the election so as not to skew anything.

Questions from Sarcasticidealist
I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there. I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.
 * 1) To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
 * The Five Pillars are absolutely binding. Besides that, there is relativity. Ideally users should follow policy, but if the same policy gets in the way, then people are free to move around it. (We have IAR for a reason)
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * See FT2's second question for my answer.
 * 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'm actually not a fan of this. Arbitrators are naturally going to be disliked by groups of users because of "voting the wrong way" or problems such as that, and if recall were implemented, a good arb could be out the door. The community should be able to trust those running in the election without all the extra bells and whistles (recall) added.

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")?
 * If you mean at rfar/user:j, user:x is blocked, despite the arbitration being between j, k, and l, then thats off-limits, though any sanctions could be placed on j, k, l, or the topic(s) they played a key role in said arbitration, so long as they're listed as parties.
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * We'd still have an obligation to be good wikipedians :)

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)
 * Absolutely, I would be willing to hear more cases regarding questionable administrative conduct. Whether or not one believes adminship is or isn't a big deal, they look on as trusted users by most of the community, and especially to new users. As a result, they need to behave like trusted users. If there are questions, then arbcom needs to investigate the matter. If nothing serious has been found, then that's just as fine as finding a violation in cases such as these.

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * I'd imagine it would end up in the realm of 25-30.

Question from WilyD

 * 1) During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally).  While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations?  If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when?  If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * To answer question 1, i did once block a very established editor for edit (not wheel) warring, so it is appropriate. You have to be careful when doing it of course, then again ideally you should make sure you know when to block to begin with. For question 2, this is less clear. If they are going crazy with the tools then yes they should be blocked, but if it's bits and pieces of abuse over a decent time period, it is of more value to file an rfc or seek further opinions rather than blocking.

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)
 * Tough to say. I personally do not get involved in many areas that are considered controversial. There's a couple RFC/U that I closed that if they came to arbcom, I would recuse, do to getting further involved after words, namely the florentino floro situation (I've seen enough of the inside that my judgment may be skewed) looks like a case on him won't happen now.
 * 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 would discuss the issue with the blocking admin, and if they did not wish to discuss it, I would bring it to ANI so more editors could discuss the matter.

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?
 * Looks like the right call to me. The short hiatus might not necessarily have been due to the block. If an IP's vandalizing, a block is an order despite the type of vandalism. Contacting the admin in this case would be beneficial though to be on the safe side.

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.
 * It depends if the article/topic is controversial. For example, I watched Brett Favre a lot during 2007, during the many socks of User:Starwars1955. After watching a few I knew his editing style pretty much perfectly. If I was in that situation, I would run the check myself, since I'd be about 90% sure one way or the other. When in doubt, the answer should be b, but I can see times where a is useful. No need to bother others for moderately obvious checks.

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?
 * User:Smith/Smythe would have to retract/shut down the blog before I'd consider allowing him to continue editing. Bans are against a person, which means by default he shouldn't be editing.

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 love this question, because it is an idea of reform I have. Arbcom does need to be more transparent, and voting is actually a way this could be done. If there is dispute whether or not someone should be banned or paroled for incivility and edit warring, put up the appropriate proposed decisions publicly. Put up the ban proposal, the 1rr proposal, and perhaps an admonishment. I presume there is some discussion of which way to lean behind the scenes, but by putting it out in the open, the community knows where the arbs stand. After all, Arbcom is 15 members, not 1. It would greatly improve the credibility, since it would show that the arbitration committee members are acting in the best interests of the community, rather than the best interests of 1 arbitrator, for example. If neither the mild, severe, of moderate proposals were to get a majority, I think the arbs would be smart enough to come together and figure out that at least one of them has to be used.

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?
 * This is why arbcom has 15 (ideally) diverse members. Some will be better at handling clarification or mailing issues, others may be better at case management. I'll balance my wiki-work with arbcom relatively well, I think. since a decent amount of what i used to do was rfc matters, i can just not worry about that, since i wouldn't be able to make decisions there anyway. If I opt out of arbcom work and it ends up being something I disagree on, it's my fault for opting out, I need to pay closer attention to the cases if that happened.

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?
 * Real name i will disclose to the WMF, publicly i haven't. I'm a student, so technically I don't have an employer. If it's disclosed, so be it. It wouldn't affect anything, just make me a little peeved for a couple days.

Questions from Newyorkbrad
1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
 * (A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * (B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
 * (C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;
 * (E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).
 * A I can handle no problem. As you know, I've written a proposed decision once before (wasn't used, which is fine, but it's proof that I do have the ability to do it). By extension I can handle B and C, since I already pay attention to goings-on there. D I could do after watching a few unfold; I learn through example. Same with F, once I get used to the checkuser tool I could do this without issue. E is not necessarily my strong suit, so I cannot guarantee immediate involvement there.

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?
 * On the surface I like the proposition(s), but I wonder how well it would actually be endorsed. It makes it sounds like nearly all cases would be done in 3 weeks. I would certainly hold myself to this standard, but I wonder how many arbs actually would. I like the NYB version overall better than FT2's version based on the way everything is overall worded.

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.
 * I think many smaller cases as opposed to a few huge cases would make the workload easier on the committee, while having them get more done. Of course we don't really have control over how huge cases get. I do think we can afford to take more cases so long as we keep up on everything, but that is the rub.

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?
 * Hypothetically, that's a tough one.. I know ones I'd modify, hm.. I would make a "How to handle BLPs" policy that was a derivative of the current policy. It would include a subjects request to delete + no consensus afd = delete clause, among other useful goodies. (Plus there's precedent on that particular clause in a way)

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?
 * Should they unilaterally do it? no. Can they recommend action and defer final opinions to the community? of course.

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)
 * IRC should be treated like WR or the mailing lists. It's a place to go and discuss things, but don't do anything there you wouldn't do on here. That would be an administrative matter rather than an arbcom matter, so no.

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?
 * Some arbcom reform is needed, most of it I discuss in my speech. The main way to reform arbcom is to vote for the proper people, which I think would be me and 6 others. I'll do it by doing simply what i feel is right, which would be increased transparency (i'm not the biggest mailing list fan anyway), and prompt decision making. I will likely do more, but I don't know what "more" will be, as I've done radical things as an admin I wouldn't have thought of 2 years ago. I'll stay true to my word because I am not in the hands of corporate lobbyists, and have none working for me. ;) Besides that, I have no reason not to be honest in what I do. Groupthink is deadly on arbcom, having split decisions sometimes would actually make arbcom look better, if that makes sense.

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?
 * Horrible. The Case started January 2. Voting started January 25. This is a fine time gap for evidence and workshop proposals. Voting between January 25 and APRIL though? Seriously? That shows laziness, it could have been decided on in mid-late February as opposed to April.
 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * The purpose of a wikiproject is for users with similar interests to get together and collaborate on groups of articles. They can set guidelines for article layout certainly. I know for the baseball wikiproject, we've had debates on how to utilize the infoboxes and the like, but we try to come to an agreement. I haven't worked on a wikiproject where standard "enforcement" has been an issue, like highways has been, so I can't say entirely one way or the other. i'd lean towards wikiprojects can't really "enforce" anything, just set guidelines.
 * 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)
 * If loosely parent-child, definitely no. If closely related, less definitely no. When two similar wikiprojects disagree on something that's admittedly tough, but a consensus needs to be reached.
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * If someone is canvassing a position, the medium is irrelevent, it's still canvassing. (Short answer: yes)
 * 1) a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
 * Vandalism is reverted, good faith edits I try and fix myself, though if the edit really messed something up, I'll undo and let the user know about it (nicely of course - NO templating). A block or protect ideally shouldn't be in order, but if they make the same edit without discussing it despite the concerns, it may come to that.
 * 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?
 * It's one of the problems of wikipedia. How do you deal with an annoying user who you can't actually deal with? I'd try and talk with the user, but if they blow me off I'd open the user's conduct up to discussion. (i doubt another jimbo-miltopia block is happening again anytime soon.)
 * 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?
 * Try and teach them to edit, if that fails, point them to (language) wiki or test wiki.
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * Long term disruption, subject is overall a negative asset (a pain in the ass, if you will ;) .) to the project, and/or is sockpuppeting. New users aren't banned, so 5-7 don't really apply. I'm on the willing side when it comes to bans, though it of course has to be justified.
 * 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?
 * With the community? Hm.. The most serious problems are civil POV pushers (if someone's nice about it it's hard to find a way to get rid of them), annoying users who stay on the civility line barely (so they can't really be disciplined), and people who use Wikipedia like Myspace.

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?
 * I oppose wheel-warring.
 * Seriously though, wheel-warring is a troubling issue, as it has been a big subject for arbcom to tackle. I take a pretty strong stance towards wheel warring. An act without discussion, and acting the same way twice in a short period is wheel-warring. That being said, it has to be looked at on a case by case basis, since there may be valid reasons for bending the rules, yet there may be a very invalid reason for being borderline.
 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * If a good process can be developed without the loopholes of good admins who work in tough areas being removed and others, then I would be in full support of this.
 * 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 don't mind using semi-automation, since you at least know what's going on with it while you're using the admin tools. With a bot you have no clue what could happen if it messes up while it works. One thing I can say: If an adminbot messes up, it is the responsibility of the admin, and the admin should definitely be admonished if it shows up unknowingly. In all honesty I do not have a strong personal leaning on adminbots, though I will not take bot issues lightly.

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?
 * Well, if it could have been split in two, and by extension the cases got done quicker, than I'd say lumping was harmful to wikipedia. By doing so, you had an 800kb workshop, and arbitrators had a lot to look through as a result. The Viridae-JzG issue was (to me) pretty clear cut, it could've been dealt with within a month. The other side would have taken a while naturally due to the nature of the conflict, but no need to punish the others by making them wait for a decision.

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?
 * People do have natural leanings at times, whether we like them or not. I mean, Scalia and Ginsberg I could see voting different was on something like that. But to answer your question, it is imperative that an arbitrator be impartial. If your friends screw up, you can't support them just becuase they're your friends, you need to make the right decision.

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?
 * The idea sounds good on paper, but it would be a question of the community's ability to be able to create a policy for them. As a community member I don't mind the idea, but if I were an arbitrator I'm not sure how I would feel about this.

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 don't think the community would vote in someone who would be knowingly very controversial and troublesome. Ergo, this is fine.

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?
 * Well, if you look at the first elections no one got a majority. I don't see an instance nowadays where someone with 40% might get on the committee, that seems silly. If 60% of the people don't want the user on arbcom, there's probably a good reason.

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?
 * Only 2 ex-arbs on mailing list, arbs required to vote on cases, no secret cases.
 * Only 2 ex-arbs on mailing list, no secret cases, and NO TEMPORARY DESYSOPS. (new answer) Wizardman  23:44, 27 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.
 * My top choice would be the community. Arbitrators are elected, and they should be responsive to the community. I'd say the AC themselves second is what may be an unpopular decision because Arbcom should be checking itself from the inside and making sure they are doing what the community has asked them to do (so c would still supplement a). WMF is third sinc they're just needed for legal issues, and Jimbo would be last because as enwiki and wikimedia has grown, his ability to look over them has naturally weakened. It is best for all four parties that his hold be figurehead-esque at most.

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 necessarily, but if an arbitrator doesn't feel that they can go the whole three years, they should resign when they can no longer handle it. Three years is good if arbcom is active and healthy.

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?
 * I'd support A2, and I'd oppose A1 and A3 simply because they're flat out right/wrong. The civility that's not superblatant is what really drives some contributors from the project.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?
 * I oppose all, since it makes no sense for an ultimatum to be "anger management or ban", I weak oppose 2 since enforcement is difficult, but to not have any civility restrictions sounds odd.


 * 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?
 * Ideally, everyone should be civil, but have something where we can keep a closer eye on those that are borderline incivil frequently yet contribute well. The incivil ones who contribute greatly are one of the most divisive issues on wikipedia, with both camps feeling really strongly about their side. "Picking" one or the other won't accomplish anything, a remedy in the middle needs to be made.

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)?
 * Agh, tough question. It would be dependent on the rationale provided by Jimbo and the person passed over. I'd be tempted to do it, only because I can't think of any special reason why they'd be trying to stick me on arbcom. That's one of those questions that can't really be answered unless it actually happens; I don't know how my mind will react yet.

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


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * (a) My issue with opt out is how it would be enforced, more than anything. How do we know that the request comes from the person, for example? Is opting out hiding information that should be public, and is that okay? It may be okay to "test drive" it at some point, but the policy creates more questions than answers.
 * (b) Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie gives you my answer to this one :)
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * (a) BLP is a policy, so the latter.
 * (b) The times where arbcom has set in actions in BLP have been done in cases where they weren't needed, but the BLP actions that they did have been overall helpful.
 * (c) I think the way that things have been progressing, while slow, have been on the right track.
 * 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?
 * It is indeed uncommon for what is essentially a pure democracy to grow this big. The foudning fathers of the United States didn't trust the common person, yet Wikipedia does. As for answering the question, my answer would be that the consensus based approach, as we are right now, is fine, because the number of users actually hasn't outgrown wikipedia; it has basically plateaued. (Though the number of articles is becoming overwhelming) The question would be what could be done instead of pure consensus. A raw vote would be too susceptible to abuse, and putting it in the hands of a few hurts the principle of a wiki. If the number of participants skyrocket in 2009 or 2010, my opinion may very well change on this.
 * 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?
 * Personally, I don't like the idea on enwiki. It's not that I hate the idea in principle, but just that it would be impossible to implement on a site with 2.6 million articles. I'd say a form where GAs and FAs could be flagged may be helpful as some of them could be heavily suspect to vandalism and false info. I haven't seen a truely strong discussion on the matter, so I don't think they've "irretrievably" failed to come to a decision. Flagged revisions are a community matter, no need for ArbCom to get involved.
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
 * (a) I do. There are valid reasons for keeping identities a secret, and after all, we're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia that certain groups can edit. The problem with why I cannot oppose a falls into (c). You never know what someone is going to use any outed information for. If people want to maintain privacy and have a valid reason for it, it should be honored, though how far they should go would be a case by case basis. (d) is a tough one. If it's very blatant you could argue that they would just put it on wikipedia, and that not doing so is peculiar, ergo it could be outing. Yet perhaps they don't but don't mind it being public. It's really hard to gauge. As for (e), I do not disclose my real identity, since I don't really see a need to do so. If I wanted my name out there that's how I would have registered. I probably would not change my username upon being on arbcom. Seems like a couple of the better arbs imo are anonymous, so it's not too big a deal. For (f), the WMF should be taking a hands-on approach regarding psuedonymity when there are, as it is a BLP matter. The arbs acan only do what's given to them at arbcom. For (g), should they be truly outing someone, I'd support a ban.
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * The WMF should note it somewhere at least about consequences of what could happen. It's tough to say what the WMF can do for a victim, in all realism they couldn't do anything directly. If someone's been stalked in real life before, we should try to make special provisions for them, such as oversight if the issues are bad enough. If a stalker is using wikipedia to harass and this can be confirmed, a ban with law enforcement getting involved is best. As for (e), there's not a thin line between them, the line's pretty thick, and I wouldn't worry too much about this comparison.
 * 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?
 * For the former I'm find with reverting them all, for more run-of-the-mill issues, the edits should each be looked at to see if they're positive if there's not too many edits. If the editor has a lot of edits, some good mixed with some bad, a blanket revert may need to be done unless the good outweighs the bad.
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * (a) Some conversation can be done elsewhere, no big deal.
 * (b) I did for a little while, but it only had 2 posts that discussed a couple random articles, and I doubt I'll restart it. If I do, I'll put it at [en.planet.wikipedia.org] so the public knows about it.
 * (c) WR has its issues sometimes, but they do have valid criticism at times, and I don't mind it as a critical body. I have an account, which i don't really use, but i have posted a few times. WikBack I don't really have an opinion on. On paper the idea was good, but it just kinda fell apart, didn't really work into the culture, I guess.
 * (d) NYB does, I think most would agree he's a good user :) Just as long as we're not being stupid on those sites, it's no big deal. The best way to combat criticism is to acknowledge it and fight it head on.
 * (e) My account at WR is Wizardman. If another site that discusses wikipedia piques my interest to join, I'll use Wizardman on that. If by anonymous you mean a name different from my username (like if on WR I were omg333), I do have a problem with that. Just use your WP name on those sites. In my case it wouldn't be outing, but for someone who uses their real name, it's tougher to say, and my opinion's the same as Q5.
 * (e again) To clarify whether or not outing a wp username of a wr account is actually outing, I would actually lean towards no. My reasoning for that is that if you wish to use a criticism site, that's fine, but using your real username makes sure that you have nothing to hide, and hiding under another username may be suspicious. I understand there may be reasons for using a pseudonym, and this comes from an idealist perspective that people wouldn't attack you for critical comments on an outside site.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * I'd say that we do have a problem with them. The editors that feel they are above the rules are, well, not above them. They need to be confronted and tried to be reformed, and dealt with otherwise if they can't be. In terms of what I would do, the best option would be to talk with them and make sure they understand our purpose here. If they don't get it and feel they are right still, and they can't be reformed, then there are other areas on the web where they can use their vestments rather than here.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Green. I've taken color personality tests and I tend to get green, which symbolizes grunt work, which I'd be doing a lot of on ArbCom. Plus it looks nice.

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?
 * Nationalism is a great problem on wikipedia, and creates some of ArbCom's more difficult cases. As a historian (not professional of course), I can see why people may do what they do, though that doesn't make it right on Wikipedia. Sanctions that are topic/revert based are definitely appropriate int hese cases and should be given out where needed. This should be an admin/community matter on the lower end through editing restrictions and discussions on AN and elsewhere, though of course arbcom can deal with it if it's bad enough.
 * 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?
 * Civility restrictions are those kind of things that sound good on paper, but in execution usually don't work. In my head they sound good, but again I know better then to think they work well. They should be fixed though. I would prefer to restructure how they are carried out and what exactly constitutes a violation; it would need to be pretty black and white to work properly.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * There isn't a specific "percentage" i would go for (though if he were to try and appoint me and i had 35%, that would be silly).
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * That question was asked above by Sarcasticidealist. I don't know about support, but I wouldn't join it.

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * Mostly it's been editing sports biographies, though I've done article writing regarding many figures, mostly American.
 * 1) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * Still a college student, so not much to say.
 * 1) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * Well, I have a buttload of karma on GameFAQs under the name Wizardman, and am kinda on Newgrounds as Wizardman as well. (i say kinda since i don't really go there anymore). That's pretty much it.
 * 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?
 * Well, closing the RfCs wasn't routine until i started doign that, still isn't now that i've stopped. Nothing in secret or anything like that though.
 * 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 voted for Obama, that's about as much a bias as I have. If the editors themselves at the article head to arbitration ever, I'll rule as impartial as i can, and will recuse shoudl i feel that my biases are getting in the way.
 * 1) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * I have some at my uni's student government, but not much else.
 * 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?
 * Name no, address i'm not sure why i would do that. I won't publicize if elected, though if there are threats to do so, it could be a bluff for all I know.
 * 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?
 * Only other person I know who edits wikipedia is User:Voyaging, a relative of mine.
 * 1) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * I pop on IRC at times. I don't like using mailing lists if i don't have to, and i'll never attend a meetup.
 * 1) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * I'd be serving the article writers, the administrators, the RfA crowd, the AfD crowd... that's a nice amount of people. In reality though, Arbcom serves the whole community, even though we all have our specialties, so they do carry equal weight.
 * 1) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * It would be similar to now, but I'd be accepting the borderline ones. Plus, if there both a content dispute and conduct dispute, I'd accept instead of refuse, since we can still deal with the other issue.
 * 1) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * Same as if it took place on-wiki if the situation warrants it.
 * 1) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * The harsh, no-nonsense stuff like bans and desysops (not temporary, they're useless) are most effective, though some paroles help as well. Creative remedies could be good, those are generally trial and error.
 * 1) Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
 * I would make sure that everyone keeps up the the workload however I could. When I started as an admin, I immediately went to the admin backlog and tackled mostly what was there for a couple months. I plan to work as an arbitrator in a similar fashion, while of course making sure that cases are properly moving. My plans aren't uber-specific yet, though I have some loose ideas.
 * 1) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * I'd say NYB for the same reason everyone does, but also Kirill because of his promptness in moving cases along.
 * 1) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * If someone wants clarification and there's no privacy issues, provide as best a standard of proof as possible.
 * 1) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * I don't know too much about them, but just as long as they're doing their job and dealing with the appropriate issues they need to handle, they're alright.
 * 1) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * They have to put up with a lot, and I commend them for doing so.
 * 1) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
 * The past is the past.

Questions from TomasBat

 * 1) In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)
 * The latter is a higher priority. We can AGF with a new editor of course, but if they're not really contributing properly then it's best to let them know about it sooner rather than later.

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.
 * My name is such where if someone threatened to reveal it, it could easily be an empty threat or false positive. One can't let harassment get in he way of their duties as an arbitrator.

Questions from Pixelface

 * 1) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
 * I haven't been involved in any as an involved party. I was listed for an afd closure once, but the case was swiftly denied.
 * 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've done this several times. The one time I provided evidence was in Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, which I did think ended up being helpful. I provided a statement in Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines, which was more food for thought, it didn't add much. I provided workshop discussion in a few different cases, the most notable being Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, which I hope was worth my time, it seemed like it was.
 * 1) Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).
 * I haven't made any personally.

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?
 * Well, for starters I think the Bedford case definitely should have been opened. It wasn't just going to be about whether bedford's desysop was right or fell into the hands of Jimbo, but it would have been a discussion and clarification about his role on the project, an issue which has been sorely needed for some time. By declining the case, they implied that Jimbo can do whatever he wants.
 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * You flat-out don't do cases completely in private. Terrible move to do that.
 * 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?
 * After a broad look through now, The issue of voting before evidence is clearly a screw-up, but in terms of issues I could fix down the road, is the idea that Kelly brought up of special elections for arbitrators that aren't holding up their end of the bargain. It might be hard to pull off, but perhaps going to the next on the AC2008 list and getting rid of the dead weight would help arbcom out.

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)
 * Ideally we wouldn't have private cases. If we did though out of necessity, I would support something like this. We need to make sure that the evidence hasn't been greatly misconstrued by the arbs through a lens that doesn't quite fit.

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.
 * This is where we as arbitrators have to be careful and make sure we understand how sources work, which makes it good to have content contributors in arbcom. If they are journals that seem to be pov or otherwise, it's best to threat the sources as to what they are.

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 NOTCENSORED policy implies that when we say we try to cover everything of sufficient notability, we mean it, so as a result things you may not want your kids to see will be included. It might put us in a negative light to some professionals who see no reason to include issues of censorship, though there are probably as many people searching for this stuff as there are who denounce it. After all, Penis gets 20,000 views a day.

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.
 * They should be treated relative to the views that appear to be the most pronounced in general sources.

Questions From Ϣere Spiel  Chequers
For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
 * I can't say the number I've "fully reviewed" as opposed to glance at. I've glanced at all this year's cases at least, though fully reviewed I'd say in the neighborhood of 7. E+C2, C68 etc., Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, and others where I was not actively helping with evidence/workshop.
 * 1) In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
 * 2) In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
 * I'm a little confused by the wording. If you mean where everything (not just remedies) passed 9-0 or something, that's generally most cases. Sometimes they get it overall right, sometimes partially, sometimes wrong. Not sure about proportions. The only split one I know of is the C68 case, which overall i think turned out okay.
 * 1) How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
 * I think the way it is now is a problem. It would have to go to requests for clarification/motion, which is fine, but so few arbitrators bother to check there that requests sit there for far too long.

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)
 * I do agree with this, which is probably the cause of the length of time and the secrecy of the few cases that exist. There are very few cases that come to arbcom now, unlike how it used to be years ago, so you would think that it would be a quicker process to look through them. Most evidence comes very quickly to arbcom, with workshops being a little more spread out time-wise. If arbcom has an idea of what to do in a case, there's no need to wait for some breakthrough that isn't gonna happen, just make the proposed decision (which i plan to do), and continue moving things along. Wizardman  05:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Individual questions

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

Question from User:NWA.Rep
What's your opinion on personal attacks made in offsite locations such as private communication (e-mail, IRC channel) and other sites such as Wikipedia Review? Do you wish to respond to your personal attack made against a fellow candidate in Wikipedia Review? ''He also says his net worth's $5.5 million. Heck, he's a guy who probably doesn't even deserve his own thread. Or maybe his uselessness and arrogance Does in fact deserve a thread. The regs would know better than I.'' Do you feel this contribute to a harmonious editing atmosphere? Do you think such statements raise a red flag on your temperament and suitability for the arbcom position? Best of luck on your candidacy. --NWA.Rep (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In a way I'm glad you asked this, since I can publicly clean the air on the issue. The post was made nearly a year ago, of course I don't feel the same way now. The post was one which I apologized for here back in July, and while part of the statement isn't an attack, the arrogance statement was way out of line, and i've apologized for that (if that doesn't count then I'm apologizing now). Granted, it's one comment out of 50k+ edits on and off-wiki, which I'd say is a good track record. At least I've retracted mine, I see you still have me on a list of POV pushers in your user talk space. However, as an arb, one has to be used to dealing with attacks from a multitude of different users. I've been called way worse things than the above comment on and off-wiki before, and it helps to improve me. Lastly, I may point out that I took a wikibreak shortly after posting that, as I did burn myself out and needed time to cool down.
 * As for offsite attacks, they should be held just as accountable. So I probably should've gotten a trout-slapping for that one above ;) Wizardman  19:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer. I appreciate your honesty.--NWA.Rep (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Will Beback
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
 * Nope, never used another account.


 * 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?
 * Iff these role accounts are transparent (we know who they are), and they aren't being used in any sort of socking manner, i don't mind them. For positions of trust, only 1 account per person should have any sort of special tools like adminship.


 * 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?
 * Tough to say, as chronic POV pushers are one of Wikipedia's worst problems. I would be a lil more lenient in applying the checkuser policies, since if there are people that just won't quit, it effectively became a battle where one wins and one loses. I understand that FT2 has made a WP:SSP2 page, which could be a good idea, though admittedly i haven't looked into it. All we can do is hope good editors catch them and report them, though if we catch a pov pushing sock, then taking action is a help to the encyclopedia.

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 01:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom exists not as a talking body, but as an acting body, so I'd have to say the statement's invalid.

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

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Science is, naturally, a difficult issue at times for arbcom. A key policy on Wikipedia is NPOV, and if science conflicts with that, then it may not be the right way to establish an article. This doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive, but we do have to make sure that we aren't promoting anything ridiculous. Articles of natural sciences are not my strong suit, so I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on scientific matters.
 * I think this answer came out really badly to many users, and I don't think I explained my view too well. I'll clarify what I meant by this at a later date. Wizardman  06:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I re-read my question, and it sounded like I didn't really know what I was talking about. I understood it from my language, but can pretty easily realize now how poor that probably sounded to others. Instead of breaking down the above, because nothing will really be left, I'll just start over. You say in your oppose that I was framing spov and npov as a battle that npov must win, and badger drink pinned me as a relativist. While I in my line of study can either support or oppose science and have it be accepted (history), I'm not trying to say that it applies here. After all, we are an encyclopedia, encyclopedias cannot effectively be relativist texts. Science is not my strong suit, so I cannot rattle off expert terms, but anyway, off to actually answering the question :)


 * As SPOV is not a process/policy/anything, I won't use it in answering the question. I think this is the mistake I made earlier, I misread the question as it you were asking about the rejected policy on Wikipedia. The scientific method is drilled into our heads as kids for good reason. It helps to find the facts, as is what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. After all, science is not a POV in and of itself; it's a process of understanding. In cases where science and NPOV combine, there's no issues. It is where they differ that conflict occurs. Instead of "then it might not be the right way to establish an article" What I meant to say was that we cannot just erratically throw down the hammer on these types of articles (The conflict between science and opinion was not the right way to establish an article). We need to see what science and the public see as the neutral point of view, and work from there. In the case of scientific articles, we would work through scientific thought, for example. For some quasi-obvious reasons, I would look at scientific arbcom disputes with a patient hand, looking through and making sure I really understood it before trying anything.

Now, i re-read this several times, and it's not a huge improvement quality-of-writing-wise, but it outlines my view much better. I just hope I was able to effectively clarify things. I'm certainly not anti-science, and I'm sorry if I caused myself to be put in that light. This is not me "changing" my answer; it is me re-reading the appropriate arbitration cases, a few administrative threads, and clarifying my own views on the matter, which I admittedly made a bad mess of above. I'm sure you guys will keep an eye on me should I be elected to arbcom, you're free to ping me if I'm misinterpreting something. Wizardman 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Ncmvocalist
1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For a, I would say so, based on the fact that motions to vacate cases are pretty rare, even rarer for serious requests. For b, I would support it, since there is consensus that the case was handled poorly. I wouldn't have made an alternate proposal, though I feel that the wording for 1.3 is best, and would support that. While I understand the point of the other three motions, I don't care for the wording on them, and likely would oppose 1.1 and abstain on 1 and 1.2.

2. The community have, on occasions, found it difficult to have poorly written or handled ArbCom decisions reversed, even today. What mechanisms (if any) would you propose to remedy this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters I would make sure the requests are heard in a timely manner. Clarifications and motions are trouble in terms of backlog and often go stale. I think it comes down to the elected arbitrators to handle this issue properly, one arb can't magically fix this sort of issue.

3. One of the major concerns with certain past and current arbitrators is their failure to handle ArbCom tasks in a prompt or timely manner. What steps will you take to help move things along? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll write up proposed decisions where needed, make sure I'm voting timely, and encourage other arbs to do the same. If an arbitrator isn't participating anywhere despite being active, I'll ask them about it both on and off-wiki, since we can't have people just sitting there doing nothing.

4. (A) What is your stance on tendentious problem editing? (B) Why do you believe the community is, at times, passive in dealing with this issue? (C) If you are appointed as an ArbCom member, what steps (if any) will you take to help ensure this issue is actively dealt with by ArbCom? (D) What proposals would you make to deal with (or remedy) this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (A) Tenditious editing is a pain, and I certainly think it's a problem. If done civilly, it is very difficult for the teniditious editor to be dealt with, which moves into (B). They are passive because there is something in place to deal with sudden edit-warring (3rr) and to an extent, something to deal with personal attacks, but there is nowhere that someone can go to deal with a long-term, slow-moving edit-warrior, or someone who's incivil while edit-warring, but just borderline enough. These are issues that we have to stop overlooking as a community and effectively deal with. (C) Dealing with these issues would ideally be handled by the community, but since there is dispute on how to best handle these, I would deal with the issues of civil pov pushers and other tenditious editors by adopting a hardline stance on cases that appear before arbcom. Why "remind" an edit warrior not to edit war? 1RR and similar remedies can work, but it is a process that needs to be taken care of sooner rather than later, whether that means tougher remedies or having the community create a policy on tenditious editing (which probably would not happen due to consensus issues, though it would be nice to have).

Unless to clarify anything above, I have no further questions for the candidate. Thank you for your time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Malinaccier

 * 1) What powers do you believe Arbcom members should have that they do not already?
 * I don't know of any. Possibly being able to enforce their own rulings, but that would be it.

Thank you and good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:44, 25 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.
 * In the end it should be a community decision. That being said, the way that we got our 4 new checkusers I'm fine with even though it was a lil secret, since the community had some involvement at least.
 * 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).
 * If the community thinks ArbCom screwed up that badly in something, then they have the right to fix it. The Mantanmoreland case is a prime example of this, I believe.
 * 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?
 * Mailing list yes; i'd keep a couple on in case of questions regarding old cases, but no need for a buttload on there. Checkuser and Oversight are trickier because they aren't solely arbcom tools. For those I'd say remove them is they're inactive or never use them. If I left arbcom I'd leave the mailing list (unless i was one of those couple they'd want to leave on for past case purposes, but i doubt i'd be one of them they'd keep), and I would resign CU/OS privs if I no longer planned to participate in that realm of wikipedia (OS i'd be tempted to keep because you might catch something serious and there might not be another OS online).
 * 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).
 * Taking it to ArbI'm kidding :). Seriously, the way they can address this is first through an RfC. They're not very useful, but this can at least determine consensus if I were to be acting poorly. In my case personally, they can just come to me and I'll explain my actions best I can, and we'll see what the best solution is. Granted, the way I'd do it is probably not how most arbs would go about doing that; I remember that it's the community that chooses arbs though.

Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Do you think that the special civility restrictions enacted by ArbCom in several cases have been successful? If not, what would you do propose instead?
 * My thoughts on civility restrictions and arbcom are posted elsewhere on this page.
 * 1) Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of an ArbCom case (WP:AE)? If the answer is no, what should be done about admin A?
 * If admin A were to do this, the case and the action should be checked to make sure the admin actually is acting under this provision. Granted, wheel warring is bad, so I would hope the admin opens discussion on it if they were to do this action.

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) 16:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with it, especially #3. We often forget on here that we have our own mindsets, and just because we disagree with something does not inherently signify being wrong. Of course, 1 is common sense, and 2 makes sense as well.

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

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

(Note:- in a lot of cases, a remedy may potentially be "multi stage"; that is, take a step, see what effect it has, return to it if needed. This may include watching or warning first times, taking a tougher line later, or deciding it's an acceptable risk if they act up again, since action could be taken in future if needed. Although mild, it's a valid approach. I'd be fine if you use it, and what you do when it fails.
 * 1) Flexibility:
 * a) What experience do you have at a range of Wikipedia dispute resolution "styles", and in estimating how users may react to a given response? (This is a fairly essential skill in deciding whether to play hard or soft, direct or mediated, give another chance, discuss further, draw a line, or "try something new" in a case.)
 * b) Please outline your track record at choosing remedies that are effective, but not overly-excessive, in a sample of difficult cases.
 * c) Please show some cases you gave a seemingly difficult user a chance to reform (when others were skeptical), and where you drew a very hard but fair line on a problematic user.
 * d) Please highlight a project space matter where there was much divisive opinion but where other administrators (on both "sides") listened to you, and you helped focus or resolve it.
 * 1) Conduct under pressure:
 * a) Please point out a case you took a stand that was not universally popular, knowing you could face retaliation or rebuke.
 * b) Please point out a matter where you were badly attacked, accused, or heavily provoked, but remained in line with "best practice" conduct, yourself.
 * c) Please point out a dispute where you faced people trying to redirect the matter to a side-issue (soapbox, hobby horse, etc) and your response was to avoid the "invitation" of distraction, and to keep the focus on the main target.
 * d) Please point out a serious dispute which occupied your attention for between 2 weeks and several months, and which shows your sticking power and handling in the context of protracted disputes.

Like the previous questions, they are intended to be searching. Feedback will also be provided. Thank you. FT2 (Talk 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question by JoshuaZ
Follow up to your earlier answer to Rspeer. How do you think NPOV applies when dealing with fringe topics such as astrology and young earth creationism which are popular among the general public but have strong scientific consensuses against them? What if the subject is normally considered science such as evolution? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Slrubenstein

 * 1) In a recent ArbCom case, a project page was created with an unprotected talk page.  Later in the process, the talk was archived - in effect, the page was blanked - and the page protected, foreclosing any further discussion (see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive178).  Looking towards the future, what policy would you propose concerning the purpose of talk pages, the protection of talk pages so as to prevent talk, or the blanking of talk pages by ArbCom?
 * 2) Do you find the word "troll" useful in describing a certain kind of problem at Wikipedia?  Is labeling a user a "troll" always a personal attack?  If the term is useful, how, in your experience, does one recognize a troll?  What is the appropriate response?  Does ArbCom have a role?
 * 3) Should WP:DE be made a policy?  Why/why not?
 * 4) Some people have claimed that a hierarchy, or hierarchies, of authority are developing at Wikipedia.  Do you agree?  If so, do you consider this a necessary feature of the community, or a problem for the community?  More specifically, in what ways do you see members of ArbCom as leaders or as servants of the community?
 * 5) ArbCom was originally formed to be the ultimate stage of resolving edit conflicts at articles.  Since then, its mission has expanded.  Do you believe it has expanded to reach the appropriate limit of its powers?  If you believe that its mission has not expanded enough, or has expanded too much, please provide specifics and explain how you would deal with this.

Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Pixelface
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions: Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * 2) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * 3) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * 4) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * 5) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * 6) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * 7) 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"?
 * 8) 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?
 * 9) 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?
 * 10) 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?
 * 11) 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?

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

Good luck with your run! S. D. D.J.Jameson 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Marlith
What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years?  Marlith  (Talk)   03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see it as a respectable source of information, with a community who works on it diligently and respectfully.

Questions from Tony1
My good wishes for your candidature, Wizardman. I wonder whether you might respond to these questions. "However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as 'best practice' in some cases (although not required to). Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will 'stick', in certain exceptional cases."
 * 1) What is your attitude to the notion of introducing commercial advertising on WP?
 * 2) Many users believe that the current "official" processes for ensuring that administrators adhere to the policy requirements of their behaviour—particularly the use of blocking—are inadequate. What is your attitude towards the reform of those processes so that they avoid the accusation that admins judge the behaviour of admins?
 * 3) Some of the policy tenets embedded in the policy page WP:Administrators are cast in terms that may require ArbCom's interpretion during your term. Can you give us an idea of how you'd approach the interpretation of this potential exception from the critical policy that admins avoid conflict of interest in their role? The text in question is green and includes a commented-out section. The hypothetical case you face as a member of ArbCom would involve a claim that an admin who has not followed the putative "best practice" has breached the WP:UNINVOLVED policy by themselves blocking a user with whom they've had a negative interaction on the talk page of the same article several months before.

Tony  (talk)  15:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)