Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Cla68/Questions for the candidate

=General questions=
 * General Questions submitted by the users indicated. For more information, please see the guidelines posted here.

Arbitrators' skills
(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. (UltraExactZZ)
 * A: I think the most important trait would be decision-making skills. In other words, the ability to review, absorb, and evaluate a host of information and data, and from that make a decision that provides at least some successful progress on resolving whatever concercern has brought the matter to the Committee's attention.

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)
 * A: As far as articles that I've helped write go, I feel the text flows the best in this one, this one, and this one.  Remember, though, that those articles were copy edited or improved on by other editors, so I'm not sure if I can claim credit for how they are written.
 * I've written an essay on my userpage about how to prepare a history article for featured consideration.
 * Here I had to write a detailed defense on why I took a particular approach in an article that I had helped write.
 * Here are some proposals that I made in the workshop for an ArbCom case.

(3) 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 the requests page) and for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Banned User Subcommittee or considering the subcommittee's recommendations;
 * (E) Overseeing the granting and use of Checkuser and Oversight permissions, including vetting candidates for these privileges and supervising elections for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
 * (F) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (G) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (H) Carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators generally are given oversight privileges also);
 * (I) Internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming Arbcom-l mailing list traffic, reminding colleagues of internal deadlines, and the like;
 * (J) Assisting with policy- and procedure-related discussions, such as working to finalize the long-pending revision of the Arbitration Policy;
 * (K) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain). (Newyorkbrad)
 * A: Yes to A, B, C, D, F, H, I, J, and K. Those seem to mainly require organizational and communication skills which I hope my school and professional careers have adequately prepared me for.  E and G appear to require some experience in checkuser operations, of which I have little-to-none.

Challenges of being an arbitrator
(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: In my experience in real world, similar situations, I've observed and found that it's best to be open as possible. If someone is requesting information that you cannot give, however, you need to be open about it, "Sorry, I can't go into details on that right now.  If I can at a later date I will let you know then."  As much as possible, however, the ArbCom needs to operate in the open.  One problem seems to be that the members don't often explain how they arrived at their conclusions when deciding on a case solution.  That's something that needs to be fixed.

(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of 'groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: At work and in academic situations, such as in my masters program, which involved a lot of group projects, I've experienced some of what you describe. I have participated in some very effective groups, and some that were not so effective.  In my experience, those groups that performed the best encouraged open expression of ideas throughout the decision-making process, but which also acted with fairly decisive, focused action once a decision was reached.  What that means is that as an involved, effective contributor to the group process, I need to voice my opinions, even if in dissension.  I also need to support dissenting opinions from other individuals in the group if it seems that the rest of the group is not paying them sufficient heed.  Once a group decision is reached, however, supporting the resulting action becomes the priority.  In case decisions, however, dissenting opinions are allowed on each of the proposed principles, findings, and remedies.  That seems to work ok.  Sometimes I wonder, however, why dissenting arbs don't make an alternate proposal every time they dissent.

(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? (Juliancolton)
 * A: Yes, it's important for everyone in Wikipedia to keep working on articles. That is why we're here.

(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? (Tznkai)
 * A: I think I read somewhere that the email traffic on those lists can be quite heavy at times.  I believe the Committee assigns one member to monitor each list in order to make the workload manageable for everyone.  If I was the monitor of one of those lists, I would read every incoming message on that list.

(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? (EdChem)
 * A: A recused arbitrator should stay away as much as possible from materials related to the case, including avoiding emails in which the subject line appears to reference the case in question. The recused arbitrator should also not comment on the case on-wiki, unless submitting evidence.  Inappropriate usage by a Committee member should be dealt with internally the first time it occurs, as long as it was a minor violation and the offender apologizes, but if it occurs again a public admonishment or similar action may be necessary.

ArbCom and admins
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? (LessHeard vanU)
 * A: A community-based process should perform this role as much as possible.

(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? (Davewild)
 * A: The Arbcom has not desysopped enough. There have been a number of cases of poor decision-making or violations of policy by Wikipedia administrators, which did not result in a desysop.  Not taking action against poor admins is dispiriting to the community and damages Wikipedia's credibility.

(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? (Finn Casey)
 * A: Kind of. Not every re-sysop needs to be done by the RfA process.  Instead of the Arbcom doing it, however, there should be some kind of admin sub-committee, chaired by an Arbcom member but made up of non-arb elected members with the authority to resysop admins.  Perhaps this could be the same committee charged with reviewing admin performance and deysopping poorly performing admins.

(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? (Majorly)
 * A: Yes. Sometimes that happens.

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Clear violations of policy, such as personal attacks (saying "F-off" to another editor), biting newbies, POV editing of protected pages, legal threats, etc.

(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? (Od Mishehu)
 * A: I would probably only consider taking action against the culpable admins and would propose something along the lines of temporary, say three-months, suspension of their admin privileges. There probably needs to be some kind of "admin scorecard", sort of like every editor's block log, to record whenever an admin does something dubious, or good, for that matter.  If there was a log like that, I would propose that the hypothetical admin review sub-committee have the authority to annotate said log.  The situation you describe would be one of those actions which I think would earn an admin a note in their log.

ArbCom's role and structure
(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? (Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A: More sub-committees and more delegation. As I mentioned above, I believe the Arbcom needs an "admin review" committee to review complaints of admin actions and performance.  Such a committee would have authority to desysopp admins.  I would propose that the committee be chaired by an arbcom member, but that its other voting members be elected in a separate election.

(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? (Davewild)
 * A: I agree. Policy management is not in Arbcom's lane.  I believe there should be an elected committee to manage policy matters, but it should be a separate committee independent of the Arbcom.

(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? (Kotniski)
 * A: I agree that this occurs at times. One reason I think it occurs is that the cases take too long to be decided, which influences the involved editors to continue to plead their cases and bicker with each other on the case talk pages.  So, I think cases need to move along more quickly.

(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? (Camaron/Majorly)
 * A: En.Wikipedia is much bigger than the other wikis.  Some issues need to be resolved, and probably never would be without an Arbcom.  The recent Scientology decision, for example.  The Arbcom is the last step in the dispute resolution process, at least as far as editor or admin behavior is concerned.  Therefore, Arbcom decisions, at least in most cases, should either resolve the problem in question for good or at least put a plan in place to address it.

(19) A number of editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? (Camaron)
 * A: No, I do not agree with them. In order to be effective Arbcom needs to exercise control over its area of authority and do what it needs to do to make and implement effective decisions.  The Committee should be open about its reasoning for doing what it does and take into consideration constructive feedback from the community.  In the end, however, decisions need to made and implemented in which time will tell whether it was the right thing to do or not.  If it wasn't the right decision, the project will learn from it.

(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can the committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? (Heimstern)
 * A: Content disputes can be difficult to resolve.  I think this is the nature of the wiki-way of collaboration.  Sources on a particular topic may be incomplete, or may not meet our reliability or verifiability guidelines.  Some policy points, like "undue weight", are difficult to interpret.  Some opposing editors in a topic area may bicker and debate an article's content for months or years without getting anywhere, but also without clearly violating any policies except perhaps 3rr.  I think there is a way to resolve this type of dispute without making a content decision.  I think in this situation the Committee can decide which editors appear to be trying to collaborate in good faith, and which ones are not, then topic ban all the latter.

(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague 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? (Heimstern)
 * A: Similar to my answer for #20, I think that if a case is presented to Arbcom which concerns a nationalistic or ethnic conflict, one approach to take is to decide which editors are trying to collaborate effectively, and which ones aren't, then topic ban all of the latter for a year or two.  I'm not sure how to end these types of disputes before they reach Arbcom level.  Perhaps establish a "Nationalist/ethnic conflict" sub-committee?  The problem with that is who would want to serve on such a committee?  If there are any admins willing to wade into such disputes and start handing out topic bans, then they probably deserve some back-up from the Committee.  There probably should be some kind of written, formal guidance posted somewhere to assist in this effort.  This is an area that needs to be addressed by the 2010 ArbCom.

(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? (Heimstern)
 * A: Civility is, of course, somewhat subjective, especially with the written word.  Remember that we're taught to reread emails we draft in the office a couple of times before we hit send, to ensure that the message can't accidentally be interpreted as offensive?  There are, however, clear cases of incivility or personal attacks, such as personalizing disputes, name calling, or directing profanity at another editor.  Violations of civility should be grounds for desysop.


 * If I see an admin tell a non-admin to "F-off", I'm going to propose a desysop. If an admin baits another editor, whether admin or non-admin, I'm going to consider proposing a desysop.  If an editor repeatedly violates civility by insulting other editors, I'm going to propose showing him/her the door.  I don't believe in civility restrictions.  Either someone follows the policy or they don't.  I think I've said before that I think civility should be enforced more strictly in article space (articles, article talk pages, and user pages) and less so in admin space (ANI, AN, etc).  I still believe that, but it doesn't mean that I believe that we should be much more lax in admin space.  I saw recently that an editor I otherwise respect was blocked for saying something incivil on the ArbCom Noticeboard talk page.  I agree the editor's comment was out of line.


 * If someone is baited and bites back, then I believe in sanctioning both editors. Same with repeated content abuses.

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: I'll help set deadlines for submission of evidence, help set deadlines for the arbitrator assigned to the case to submit his/her summary of the evidence to the rest of the committee, then help set a deadline for everyone to vote by. I can further help by meeting all the set deadlines myself.

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: The Committee has been doing the right thing by refusing to hear cases unless previous steps in the dispute resolution process have been attempted first.  Wikipedia's dispute resolution process actually isn't that bad if followed correctly.  There is one threat to how it works, however, and that is community participation.  If someone posts an RfC on another editor and no one then shows up to comment or evaluate it, then it really didn't help solve the dispute, did it?  RfCs are now being listed in the Signpost, which is a good step for helping obtain more community participation.  If someone brings a case to the ArbCom who tried an RfC and the RfC didn't get much participation, then perhaps the ArbCom should ask for more input with the RfC first before deciding whether to accept the case or not.

(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I was one of the members of that council. Actually, I still am.  The members of that council could presumably get back to work if asked.  As far as I know the Committee never formally shut it down.  Anyway, the Committee acted within their authority by forming that council.  The council had no authority to do anything more than engage in discussion and submit ideas and proposals.  In spite of some resistance from some members of the community, the council members were still willing and able to go forward with it.  I think it lost steam after the two main sponsors of it on the Committee resigned, and I say that without rancor or bitterness, that's just how things happened.  If the Committee decides again at a future date to set up another advisory council or revive this one, they will be within their authority to do so.

(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months. Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: It's up to the voters to decide if they think a candidate is qualified to serve on the Committee, taking into consideration each candidate's mainspace contributions. Once someone is elected, however, I think we should give them a break on how much article-writing they do.  Their primary job is Arbcom duties.  I believe arbitrators should still do some article-editing when able, but they need to take care of their Committee duties first.  If the duties are so heavy that none of the members has any time for article-writing at all, then something is wrong with the Arbcom structure and needs to be corrected.

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making
(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: Yes.  No, except that perhaps the Committee should have acknowledged that they did not respond to the undertow's unban request as fully as they should have.

(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: I probably would have recused because I have interacted with Jennavecia in an off-wiki message board.  That being said, it appears that, judging from their comments, the Committee members felt that Jayron32 was more forthcoming and contrite about his involvement than the other admins involved.  Also, I think that the sanctions proposed for all the involved admins were within reasonable measures available to the Arbcom to hopefully ensure that such a situation does not happen again.

(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: Do you have links to their statements?  I would need to see them before I commented.
 * Don't know about MZMcBride, but mine was here. I still stand by everything I said in that thread. – irides cent 2  14:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, I would only have proposed sanctions for the admins who were involved in that RfA. Iridescent was not currently an admin when placing the vote.

(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). (Camaron)
 * A: I believe the Judea and Samaria case was most successful, because editors who were causing a lot of problems in those articles were topic banned.  As far as I know, the amount of trouble being caused in those articles now is much less.
 * I'm not sure which case was least successful. The Fringe Science case appears to have had more issues raised on the enforcement page, but perhaps more time is needed to assess all of the case decisions.

(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) (Daniel)
 * (As a point of further clarification, it is entirely unnecessary to read the case these principles were originally decided in — the intent of these questions are to establish your opinion on the general principles that are linked to, while working under the assumption they are directly relevant to a case you are deciding.)

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007
 * A: I agree, don't post people's emails on-wiki without their permission. Summarizing an email's contents is, however, ok.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * A: I agree with the proposal that this is linked to.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * A: I more or less agree with this proposal, but it can depend on the situation. I think I saw once that an editor used the word "libel" and was then blocked for making a "legal threat."  Unless the editor said something like, "If you say that again I'm going to sue you for libel" then it probably isn't an actionable legal threat.

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * A: If all the parties to mediation agree to this, then fine. That still means that they need to follow Wikipedia's basic policies of NPA, no legal threats, etc.

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: Wikipedia has a double standard when it comes to outing.  Outing is allowed when COI is alleged, but not in most other cases.  Each situation needs to be judged on its own.

(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: The decision was very reasonable.  The sub-committee needs an alternate, so why not appoint the fourth place finisher as the alternate?  Makes sense and solves the problem.

Other issues
(33) Originally RfARs were named in the style of "Party X v. Party Y", in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? Under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in ? (MBisanz)
 * A: Whenever possible, cases should not be named after editor account names. If, after the case is closed, it is obvious that the case centered on problematic behavior by one or more particular editors, it can be renamed for them.

(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Wikipedia needs to fix its BLP problem soon, as in a strict version of flagged revisions.  Until it does so, it probably needs to delete all marginally notable BLP articles.  For example, even though this article is semi-protected and watched by over 100 editors, this edit still survived for almost 14 hours before being reverted.

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A: I don't and never have had any registered, alternate accounts.  Although I have ocasionally forgotten to log in when editing, I don't think I have made substantive IP edits.

(36) One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? (Newyorkbrad)
 * A: I lean towards being more severe. I am more severe on editors who appear to have a hidden agenda or refuse to admit that they are not being honest with what they are trying to do in Wikipedia.  For example, if an admin screws up a bunch of pages while trying to fix something in them with an unauthorized bot, versus an admin who edits a protected page evidently to adjust the article to his/her POV, I would be much more severe with the latter.  Also, perhaps because of the influence of living in Japan, I'm much more likely to be lenient with editors who admit wrongdoing, apologize, and promise not to repeat the behavior in question (in Japan, if someone apologizes, the offense is often completely dismissed).

(37)"Running for arbcom is a de facto sign of mental illness." Agree or disagree, and why? DS (talk)

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

Questions from Avraham
Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) A: There needs to be more control. The final say should be in the hands of the Arbcom, because it is one of their responsibilities. Desysopping decisions, however, should be delegated to some type of "admin review" sub-committee. Arbcom can then act as the court of final appeal. I think the admin review board could handle emergency desysops also, but if no one on the board is available, then grabbing the first available arb should be fine. The voluntary reliquishment under non-controversial situations seems to work ok.
 * 1) What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
 * 2) Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
 * 3) Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
 * 4) How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?
 * 5) What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?

A: Inter-editor behavior, in general, seems to be ok in most areas of the project. Civility seems to be better overall than it used to be. There used to be a class of editors who were "above" the civility policy, but I don't think it's that way anymore. No, there should not be a class of editors exempt from the policy. That being said, if long-time admins want to insult each other on ANI, I would probably grant a little more leeway, but not much. The problem is that outside observers might see that nonsense going on and come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a bush league operation.
 * 1) What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
 * 2) What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
 * 3) Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
 * 4) Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 5) Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 6) Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
 * 7) If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?

As far as the Committee is concerned, when presented with evidence in a case that an editor has violated the civility guidelines, then there needs to be a finding and corrective action taken to address it. In the case of administrators, incivil, condescending, bullying, or otherwise offensive behavior should be grounds for desysop.


 * 1) What is your opinion regarding Wikipedians "rights," or at least "expectations" to privacy and ano/psuedo-nymity, and what is ArbCom's role in either supporting or adjusting these expectations/rights?
 * A: Wikipedia's policy is to try to preserve anonymity for project participants. The Committee should try to respect this principle as much as possible.  Only in cases of clear wiki-abuse, such as malicious socking, COI, or the like should the Committee consider, carefully, whether the right to anonymity may be dismissed.


 * 1) Lastly, please list one to three issues that you believe are of primary importance to the ongoing future of wikipedia and how you will contribute to the handling of those issues. Please feel free to copy/paste sections from your nominating statement if you have addressed it there.
 * 1. BLPs/flagged revisions.  I'll keep pushing for flagged revisions, and, once implemented will volunteer as a "trusted editor" to approve revisions so that the backlog doesn't become long.
 * 2. POV-pushing by coordinated groups.  Too many topics within Wikipedia are still being controlled by small groups of editors who band together to game Wikipedia's structure in order to promote their POV.  If elected, I will, when brought to my attention, try to bust-up these groups and send them packing.

Questions from Lar
Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.

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. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.


 * 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: Wikipedia doesn't currently do enough to protect BLP subjects. Vandalism occurs and often goes uncorrectd for hours, even days or months.
 * 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.
 * A: I agree with the "opt out" provision which defaults BLPs to delete if the subject has said that they want the article deleted.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * A: I agree with this.
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * A: I agree with this.
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get
 * A: We need something like this implemented on all BLPs.
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied
 * A: We need a strict version of this implemented on all BLPs.
 * 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?
 * A: Primarily policy, but content, of course, is involved to some degree.
 * 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?
 * A: Some policy is vague, some unforseen situations have arisen, and there currently isn't an effective governance process overseeing policy. So, sometimes the ArbCom has been forced to make some decisions that affect policy to some degree.  Until the community puts a policy management process in place, the Committee will probably continue, at times, to be forced to make some policy decisions.  The Committee should make every attempt not to do so, but if a decision is needed and there is no other way to do it, then the ArbCom may need to make similar decisions in the future.  In these cases, I don't think the ArbCom is necessarily making new policy, what it's doing is interpreting policy in a way that sets a precedent.  A fine distinction, I know.
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * I'll continue to encourage the "default to delete" rule when there is no consensus on a BLP AfD and participate in discussions about implementation of flagged revisions.
 * 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? Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * The consensus model does seem to be broken in some areas of Wikipedia. For example, it is now almost impossible to make any significant changes to a policy because it is so hard to gain consensus.  There probably needs to be a mixture of elected committees with authority to make, or prevent, changes in certain areas and voting mechanisms to make decisions in other areas.  I read somewhere recently an editor's idea that there should be a voting mechanism to decide content disputes (sorry, I don't remember who said this to give them due credit), but I think that may be a good idea.
 * 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? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
 * We should implement a strict form for BLPs which requires all edits to be screened for approval except by "trusted users." Since it is a policy decision, as of right now the ArbCom plays a small role.  Individual arbs, however, should advocate implementing flagged revisions and once implemented, the Committee should enforce the policy that guides the use of the tool.
 * 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?
 * I support this principle. Looking at an edit, you usually cannot tell if the editor is male or female, their age, nationality, etc.  Thus, pseudonymity usually allows edits to be judged in and of themselves, not based on who the editor is.  That's what it's all about, the content, not the editors.
 * 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?
 * To show COI is one of the only situations I know of where outing is allowed. Otherwise, we should respect someone's desire to remain anonymous, even if the person previously disclosed their identity.  That being said, however, Wikipedia doesn't need to bend over backward to do this.  Anyone who participates on the Internet in any way needs to understand that anonymity is not guaranteed.  Oversight, admin deletion, and reverts are tools that we have and can use to try to protect anonymity.  Ultimately, however, each Internet participant is responsible for their own anonymity and for dealing with the consequences if anonymity is lost.
 * 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?
 * It is outing, but not necessarily a violation of the outing policy. Again, such information is permissible to show COI.  Otherwise, it may violate outing, NPA, or other policy to discuss such information in Wikipedia.
 * 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 from last year in that it's more extensive)
 * I don't openly acknowledge my real identity in Wikipedia, but my real name is fairly easy to find out. I'm willing to disclose my real name on wiki if elected.
 * 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?
 * I just checked the account creation screen, and I see that it contains some warning language for the account creator. The language is not strong enough, however.  The account creation screen should clearly warn prospective editors that the WMF cannot guarantee 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 from last year)
 * On-wiki: If the outing shows COI, then the editor in question should be thanked.  If not, the editor should be warned if it is a first offense.  If it happens again, use escalating blocks until the behavior is corrected.  Off-wiki: I believe that the general rule on Wikipedia is that, although off-wiki behavior is not generally sanctionable on-wiki, outing is sometimes an exception.  Judge it on a case-by-cases basis.  If the outing is done off-wiki in an attempt to influence on-wiki actions or situations, then it may be sanctionable.
 * 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?
 * The account creation screen does warn that stalking has sometimes occurred with Wikipedia participants. That is probably sufficient.
 * 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.
 * Stalking is a law enforcement matter. The only responsibility the WMF has is to cooperate with law enforcement in any real-life stalking case.  If the alleged stalker is a WMF employee, then the WMF may carry more responsibility to take action.  If the WMF wishes to facilitate a volunteer group of Wikipedia editors to assist stalking victims, that's fine, but the group's membership should be open to all and the group's leaders' account names should be readily available.  Someone from the WMF should probably also monitor the volunteer group to make sure it is actually assisting stalking victims and not engaged in some other type of behavior.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * Any assistance the WMF provides should be equally provided to everyone. Again, if any type of mailing list or other group counseling service is facilitated by the Foundation, it should be open to all, not just a select group of invitees.
 * 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.
 * Once a stalker has been reported to law enforcement, and law enforcement has opened an investigation, the WMF should cooperate with the investigation. If law enforcement authorities recommend or approve permanently banning the alleged stalker, who otherwise may not have violated any other Wikipedia policies, then it should be done.  In one case here on Wikipedia, a stalker was apparently editing women's BLPs, then trying to use that as an "in" to meet the BLPs subject.  In that case, all edits from that stalker's accounts should be reverted and the accounts blocked.  One problem with this case was that some of the editors involved refused to discuss what was going on, leaving other editors to wonder why apparently ok edits were being reverted.  The answer was always, "Trust us, we know what we're doing."  Wrong answer.  We need to let everyone know what is going on.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * If you follow another editor's edits and take action on them, you should be prepared to show why that editor is violating Wikipedia policy and why you feel a need to try and correct it. If you can do that, it's not stalking or harassment.  If you can't, it is.
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * Yes. Warn them to knock it off then apply a mix of desysopp (if the person is an admin) and escalating blocks until the behavior is corrected.
 * 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?
 * This one is simple. Unless the edits violate some policy, or unless they were made by one particular case mentioned above, then they should be left alone.
 * 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?
 * There shouldn't be any problem with Wikipedia discussion occurring off-site. The only problem is if anyone acts on that discussion in a way that is against Wikipedia policy.
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * I don't have a blog, but I participate in Wikipedia Review under the same account name as I use here.
 * 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)?
 * Wikipedia Review has helped resolve several instances of editors using Wikipedia for nefarious reasons. Thus, Wikipedia Review has really helped improve Wikipedia.
 * I was a member of Wikback. I thought it was a good forum.  I don't know why it failed.  I think Wikipedia Review works fine as a criticism site.
 * 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?
 * Yes, it is appropriate for an admin, arbitrator, or regular editor to participate in an outside criticism site. An off-site forum allows interested observers, including banned editors and non-Wikipedia participants, to speak their minds openly.
 * 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? )
 * I have an account under the same username on Wikipedia Review. Trying to "out" someone as a participant in Wikipedia Review, if they have a different account name there, appears to be harassment unless the "outer" has a fairly good reason for doing so.  Doing so to try to win a dispute, defame the editor in question, or for some reason like that is harassment and should be dealt with as appropriate.
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * At times in the past, participation in Wikipedia Review was, unfortunately, actually used to try win political battles or torpedo candidates' candidacies for elected positions. Those dark times appear to be over.  Wikipedia can only improve from criticism, whether internal or external, if valid criticism is acted upon.
 * 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)?
 * Wikipedia used to have a big time problem with this. The disparity in sanctions given to new editors, or editors who weren't with the "in" crowd who appeared to have dedicated their lives to Wikipedia, was glaringly obvious before a couple of years ago.  Wikipedia is better now, but it still seems to lean towards taking the side of long-term admins in disputes.  Wikipedia's loose governance structure still sometimes appears reluctant to take action against editors, especially admins, who cause more than their share of problems.  The thing to do about this is to stop being inconsistent in applying corrective action to editor and admin behavior.  The ArbCom can take the lead in this and show how to do it.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * I honestly don't have a favorite color. I like all colors equally depending on the situation, season, item, or mood I'm in.
 * 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? )
 * I have an account under the same username on Wikipedia Review. Trying to "out" someone as a participant in Wikipedia Review, if they have a different account name there, appears to be harassment unless the "outer" has a fairly good reason for doing so.  Doing so to try to win a dispute, defame the editor in question, or for some reason like that is harassment and should be dealt with as appropriate.
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * At times in the past, participation in Wikipedia Review was, unfortunately, actually used to try win political battles or torpedo candidates' candidacies for elected positions. Those dark times appear to be over.  Wikipedia can only improve from criticism, whether internal or external, if valid criticism is acted upon.
 * 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)?
 * Wikipedia used to have a big time problem with this. The disparity in sanctions given to new editors, or editors who weren't with the "in" crowd who appeared to have dedicated their lives to Wikipedia, was glaringly obvious before a couple of years ago.  Wikipedia is better now, but it still seems to lean towards taking the side of long-term admins in disputes.  Wikipedia's loose governance structure still sometimes appears reluctant to take action against editors, especially admins, who cause more than their share of problems.  The thing to do about this is to stop being inconsistent in applying corrective action to editor and admin behavior.  The ArbCom can take the lead in this and show how to do it.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * I honestly don't have a favorite color. I like all colors equally depending on the situation, season, item, or mood I'm in.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * I honestly don't have a favorite color. I like all colors equally depending on the situation, season, item, or mood I'm in.

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754
Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, 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. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.

The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * Too long.
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * To some extent, but ultimately the community enforces standards. A wikiproject helps to establish and communicate standards, but cannot enforce them all by itself in the long term without community support.
 * 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?
 * Follow the dispute resolution process. First, discuss the situation with them on their talk page.  If that doesn't work, do an editor conduct RfC.  And so on.
 * 1) There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?
 * If true, that is not a very helpful or productive attitude.
 * 1) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * An inability to write well in English is not necessarily indicative of low intelligence. I have encountered editors before who are obviously struggling with English or understanding the format standards.  Usually, they have been receptive of offers for assistance on their talk page.  If not, they generally leave.  If they aren't or don't, then follow the dispute resolution process.
 * 1) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * If all else fails, that may be one option to resolve the situation.
 * 1) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * I don't think I can explain it any better than the policy page. It's usually fairly obvious when someone is violating either the spirit or letter of this rule.  Warnings, followed by escalating blocks seem to often work at correcting this kind of behavior.
 * 1) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * Does the username have obvious, reasonably objectionable undertones?
 * 1) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * Only if the edits violate some policy in and of themselves. Otherwise, let the edits remain.
 * 1) During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. b) Question removed
 * Sam Blacketer previously edited under an administrative account that was desysopped for problematic behavior. Blacketer concealed the previous account history when becoming an administrator and arbitrator.  Also, the real person behind the account, who worked for a political party, made edits using the account to the BLP of a political leader from a rival political party.  All in all, probably not the kind of behavior we would like to see in a member of a committee charged with supervising standards of editor and administrator conduct.  Note that Sam Blacketer wrote in his resignation statement that he had already privately announced some months earlier that he intended to resign and was following through with his decision to do so.
 * 1) Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
 * 2) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * The biggest problem is a lack of an effective governance structure. For example, flagged revisions should have been implemented on BLPs long ago, but the project didn't have any kind of policy-making board with the authority to get it done.  The ArbCom has the authority it needs to effectively govern editor and administrator conduct.  Now, we just need the same kind of committees to govern the other areas of Wikipedia, such as policy and content.

Questions from John Carter
These questions are being asked of all candidates. If some of them are repetitious of others asked above, feel free to ignore them.
 * In limited conversation with past and present arbitrators, they have regularly mentioned the pronounced time demands which being a member of the Arbitration Committee can require, particularly in the difficult or complex cases, on such matters as reading evidence, reviewing behavior of individuals, and discussion of solutions. Do you believe that you will be able to give such matters the time they require?
 * A: Yes, or I wouldn't be running.


 * Also, as has been mentioned above, several editors have indicated some arbitrators become less active as regular contributors, either because of the "politics" or because of the demands on time. Do you anticipate being able to continue to function as an active content contributor while an arbitrator?
 * A: Yes, because I have fairly good system that I follow. If you look at my contribution history, you should see that each weekday I spend 15-30 minutes updating various military-related articles with information gleaned from that day's headlines. I plan to continue doing this.  Also, I've completed reading and making notes in the source books I'll be using for the next several articles on my "to do" list (on my userpage).  So, all I need to do is spend a few minutes every day putting "words on paper" and each article will slowly progress towards completion.


 * Also, do you anticipate that your exposure to the seamier side of wikipedia might make you less interested in continuing as a content contributor on the conclusion of your ArbCom term?
 * A: I would think that the experience would make me more motivated to work on articles.  As I've said before, I think for one to gain any lasting satisfaction from participating in Wikipedia, one needs to build some good articles so that you'll have a tangible, visible result to show for your work here.

Questions from Piotrus

 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?
 * Very important. I imagine it must be frustrating to ask someone a question and not get a response, although I understand that the arbitrators are very busy.
 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * This one is a little less clear cut. Because of the nature of the evidence page, not all opinion, reasoning, or testimony can probably fit there, so some of it takes place on the evidence, workshop, and proposed solution talk pages.  Having been a party in one case, I can understand the desire to know that arbitrators are reading and considering what is said on the case talk pages.  Since arbitrators should probably reserve their opinions until they vote on the proposed decision, perhaps the best that can be done is for arbitrators to periodically say something on the case talk pages along the lines of, "I am reading this page and taking into consideration what is being said, however I'm reserving judgement at this time until I vote on the proposed decision."
 * 1) In both my experience, and that of some other editors I talked to, being "grilled" at arbitration for weeks (or months) is "one of the worst experience of one's life" - and it doesn't matter if one is found innocent or guilty afterwards. Do you think that something can be done to make the experience of parties be less stressful?
 * Move the cases along faster. Once the proposed decision is drafted, get in there and vote.
 * 1) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * I agree. One point, however, is that even though policy states that blocks or bans are supposed to be preventative not punitive, that isn't always the case.  Some are obviously punitive.  If a punitive block or ban is imposed, it should be done with the ultimate aim of correcting the behavior in question.
 * 1) ArbCom commonly criticizes editors, publishing findings about their failings and remedies to correct them. While nobody disputes this is needed, do you think ArbCom should also try to clarify whether noted failings are exceptional, and accompany critical findings with positive reinforcement, such as here?
 * Positive or negative reinforcement of editor behavior in Wikipedia is a fundamental issue affecting Wikipedia's progress towards it's ultimate goal, videlicet, a credible, on-line, free, encyclopedia. As such, addressing how the community uses positive or negative reinforcement to effect editor behavior is ultimately way beyond the ArbCom's mandate.
 * Frankly, there probably are not enough positive reinforcement mechanisms in Wikipedia. We give barnstars to each other, as well as thanks on each other's talk pages.  The WP:WBFAN list helps give recognition to FA contributors.  For those who concentrate on administrative issues, there are the positive comments each receives on the vote pages when they run for an elected position.  Likely, administrators and editors would be motivated to be more active if they received more positive reinforcement for their efforts.
 * Now, can ArbCom show the way when it comes to creating an atmosphere of positive reinforcement? Probably so, but it requires careful application to ensure that it is used fairly and consistently.  I imagine it's probably much easier to simply list the violations of each case party and proposed remedies than to (sometimes) struggle to find something nice to say about each and every party to the case.  If ArbCom is going to use positive reinforcement with anyone, then it needs to try and do it with everyone, which will make dealing with a case more time consuming.  Perhaps one way to handle this would be to ask parties, after the principles and findings have been decided, but before proposing any remedies, to help the committee by submitting evidence of or summarizing the valuable contributions they have made to Wikipedia.  The Committee would then be able to recognize these contributions and take them into account in the ultimate decision.

IRC Question from Hipocrite
Do you use any of the wikimedia related IRC channels? If you do, will you please permit any logs of your conversations to be posted, in full? Thanks.
 * A: I do not use any of the IRC channels.

Question from NE2
Have you read War and Peace?
 * A: I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't read it. I haven't read much classic literature in the past few years, and Wikipedia is partly to blame.  Since I started working on military history articles, most of my reading has been books that I plan on using in an article. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Chaser
There have been suggestions that not being an admin would make it difficult to be an arbitrator, particularly in regards to asking for help to see deleted revisions. What do you think about that?
 * A: In order to do the job properly as an arbitrator, I probably would need to have access to administrator privileges. I understand, however, that a final decision on this issue has not been made.  If the Committee decides not to give admin privileges to successful candidates who are not already admins, I guess that means that they are willing to help them out by providing deleted revisions and the like when necessary.  Nevertheless, voters should be aware that by voting for a non-admin candidate they may also be voting to give administrator status to that candidate if successful.
 * Arbcom has been discussing sysoping non-admin arbitrators? Since when?--chaser (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong, but I thought I saw a discussion on it when Giano (who is not an admin) ran two years ago.

Question from Smallbones
Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has an indirect role in creating policy. His opinions carry some weight.  Also, he is the final authority for selection of ArbCom members.  Although the Committee doesn't make too much policy, it does have a lot of influence on Wikipedia's governance.  Hypothetically, the community can, if it chooses, ignore Jimbo's opinions on policy.  I say hypothetically because I don't think that has really been tested yet.


 * If you look at the RfC you link to, you'll see my name in support of Rootology's statement. As long as an editor is obeying the rules, especially NPOV, then I don't care if they're being paid to write articles or not.

Questions from Vecrumba

 * 1) What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?
 * 2) How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.
 * I believe that the way to approach a case objectively is not to focus at all on the editors involved during the evidence stage, but on the behavior. In addition to looking at the evidence presented, one needs to look at the talk pages, including the archives, of the involved articles, the article histories, and the usertalk pages of the participating editors.  After checking for obvious violations of WP's major policies, namely NPA, 3RR, etc, then one should look at how much effort the editors are making to work together in a collaborative manner to resolve their disagreements and make progress on article text.


 * Sometimes, as in a recent case, one "side's" position will appear to be better supported by the sources. In that situation, the conduct of the other side is especially illuminating.  Does the other side respond by stalling, engaging in circular arguments, and/or stubbornly refusing to accept to any degree that the other side has made their point?  In my opinion, if editors are acting that way, further mediation is not the answer.  Instead, the noncooperative editors should, at least, be topic-banned.

Questions from Sam Blacketer

 * 1) Where in the canon of Wikipedia policies, guidelines or instructions is it stated that a supporter of one political party ought not to (a) revert vandalism, and (b) add neutral sourced content regarding a member of different political party?
 * 2) It has always previously been the case that contributors to Wikipedia are welcome whatever their own points of view, and should simply "leave your POV at the door". Do you agree or disagree? If the latter, please explain and expand on your disagreement.
 * 3) The guideline on conflict of interest defines the conflict of interest as "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor". An editor who contributes relevant sourced neutral content can only have a conflict of interest if they have a close interest, but even then "closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral". Please outline the aspects of this guideline with which you are in disagreement. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You were/still are(?) an elected official of an involved political party. It's a question of judgement.
 * Same as above.
 * Same as above.
 * The above cannot under any reasonable definition, be termed as answering the questions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the best answer is what happened when what you were doing came out into the open and was reported in the media. You embarrassed Wikipedia.  So yes, it is a question of judgement. Cla68 (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I do not abide by that previously unknown policy, WP:DONTDOANYTHINGTHEDAILYMAILCANMISREPRESENT. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from JzG
Per the concerns I raise in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/Cla68, I have profound reservations over the way you handled that incident.
 * 1) Would you say this level of singlemindedness is representative of how you would handle disputes?
 * 2) How could we be confident that if the vote went against you in an arbitration case you would not go again to The Register and have your version promulgated as WP:TRUTH?
 * 3) To what extent does your prior opinion of the disputants in a case influence your interpretation of the evidence?
 * 4) How can we be confident that you would recuse in all cases where your personal opinions colour your judgement?

Guy (Help!) 21:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "my version" is, but it's not true that "every single person" on that mailing list agrees that the list's activities were above board. See, for example:  .  Also, Jimbo admitted that the list was used to canvass support or opposition for issues of importance to the members of that list .  That wouldn't be a big deal if the list's membership was open to everyone.  But, that wasn't the case, was it?  In fact, the account names of the majority of the people who belonged to that list is still a secret from the wider Wikipedia community, as far as I know, in spite of repeated requests from me and other editors.  Remember also, that the list's existence was kept secret from the Wikipedia community until the !! incident brought it into the open, to the obvious shock and dismay of many others besides myself.


 * You say that I "took my version of events to a journalist with a long-standing agenda against Wikipedia." There are two things wrong with this statement.  I didn't "take" anything to a journalist.  He found out about it on his own contacted me and asked for my opinion on the issue.  Also, I don't think the reporter has a "long-standing agenda against Wikipedia."  He, like mosts journalists, reports on stories which he feels may be of interest to his journal's readers.  If Wikipedia admins are engaged in notably dubious or nefarious behavior, then that's not the reporter's fault for reporting on them, it's Wikipedia's fault for not having an adequate governance structure in place to address and correct that type of behavior.  Moreover, the publication of a story in the press about the incident has nothing to do with what was done about it in Wikipedia.  Remember, an ArbCom case was opened, the Committee took some corrective action and the community took some corrective action.


 * That article that you're referring to was the main source of outside information on the story, so naturally it became the primary source for the text placed in the "Criticism of Wikipedia" story. Was your opposition to the placement of the information in the article based on the fact that you were a member of the mailing list in question?


 * Anyway, to answer your questions:

1. Since you mischaracterize or seem to misunderstand what happened, I'm not sure how I can answer the question in the way you have it phrased. Perhaps I can instead change the question to, "How do you (I) handle disputes where people disagree with you?" I handle them the same way just about everyone does. I debate with them about it, with give and take.

2. I assume what you really mean in this question is, can we trust you to keep private ArbCom business private? I assume that, because otherwise everything else the ArbCom does with cases is done in the open, on pages accessible to all, so if a reporter decides to report on it, it has nothing to do with anyone "taking it" to them. Yes, you can trust me to keep private ArbCom business private. In fact, I promise not to reveal private ArbCom information or discussion to anyone outside the Committee without Committee approval.

3. I answered this in a question higher-up on this page. When examining a case during the evidence phase, I will concentrate on the behavior in question, not the editor or the editor's supposed reputation. If I have had more than a reasonable amount of interaction with a primary editor in a case, such as having engaged in dispute resolution with them in the past, I will recuse.

Questions from Will Beback
You have been very supportive of Herschelkrustofsky (HK) and his sockpuppets. HK was a single-purpose account devoted to pushing the fringe POV of the Lyndon Larouche movement. On Wikipedia Review you implied that, if you were not under an Arbcom prohibition, you would have interfered with the blocking of a sock found to be editing from a LaRouche office.


 * 1. Do you think that single purpose editors who promote fringe viewpoints should be encouraged?

 Will Beback   talk    08:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Should banned editors be allowed to create dozens of sock puppets to evade their blocks and continue the problematic behaviors that led to their original bans?

You state that I have been supportive of HK, but without providing any evidence. Also, your link to Wikipedia Review didn't work when I tried it, so I can't respond to it until it I see what you're talking about [Edit: I see you tried to fix the link, but I made several posts in that thread, and your link simply goes to one page in the thread. I suggest that if you want to know exactly what I meant by whatever post you object to, that you ask exactly that below]. What I will say, is that I think POV-pushing has been going on with the LaRouche articles on both sides. I'm completely dumbfounded that two editors, Chip Berlet and Dennis King, who were so openly partisan, were allowed to edit the LaRouche articles and that several Wikipedia admins apparently supported them in doing so. Anyway, if elected and anything related to the LaRouche articles comes up in front of arbcom, I will recuse because of the heavy past interaction between me and two admins who are active with the LaRouche articles, you being one of them. I'll answer the questions, but consider them as separate from your introductory paragraph:

1. Any editors who violate any Wikipedia policies, whether single purpose or not, should be encouraged not to do so by following the dispute resolution process.

2. I suspect that there are a lot of sock accounts in Wikipedia. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that several editors I've encountered in the past few weeks have been socks of banned users. As long as they're following the rules, and not seeking any kind of admin or other formal, privileged position in Wikipedia, I'm not going to try to find out if they were once banned or not. If they get in the way of effective collaboration, however, like Jossi did with his sock account when he tried to derail your FA nomination of Millenium '73, then action probably needs to be taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cla68 (talk • contribs) 11:12, November 27, 2009


 * ArbCom members have to analyze large amounts of evidence. I'm surprised you couldn't find your comments on that page. Here is the sentence that you don't remember from October 28, 2009:
 * Good grief, now I understand why Will and SV suddenly put me at arm's distance a couple of days ago, it's because they were planning to make their move on Leatherstocking and didn't want me getting in the way. 
 * Putting you at arms length apparently refers to my reminding you that the ArbCom, after a long case, placed you on special probation due to your dysfunctional interactions with SlimVirgin. That transpired days before the evidence regarding Leatherstocking was found. Your statement assumes bad faith and assumes an incorrect version of the events. As for supporting HK and his socks, your contributions to the linked WikipediaReview thread make that clear. Asking for evidence of your support of HK makes it seem that you are clueless as to the appearance of your comments, a bad characteristic for an ArbCom member.
 * 3. Do the desirable traits of ArbCom members include assuming bad faith and arriving at conclusions unsupported by evidence?
 * You have recently been in an edit conflict over information concerning the LaRouche movement's views.
 * 4. In light of your extensive discussions with HK on WikipediaReview and your assertion that "Type 'Eurasian Land Bridge' into Google and five of the top six links mention LaRouche", would you care to explain how you came to write Eurasian Land Bridge?
 * In your answers above you seem to say that it's OK for people to evade their bans and blocks so long as further policy violations (besides WP:SOCK) are not proven.
 * 5. What's the point of banning or blocking them or of having a policy prohibiting the use of socks to evade bans and blocks if they are permitted to evade those prohibitions?
 * Leatherstocking attacked other editors for their alleged COIs (as you also appear to do even on this page) and stridently denied any connection to the LaRouche movement while, as it was eventually discovered, he was using an IP registered to the LaRouche movement.
 * 6. Do you think that the block of Leatherstocking was inappropriate in any respect? How would you have gotten in the way of that block if you were not constrained by your ArbCom probation?   Will Beback    talk    12:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

3. I've said that I would recuse if anything concerning the LaRouche articles was brought before ArbCom. Otherwise, I stand by what I said. The discussion about including mention of LaRouche in that article is here. I think the history of that article illustrates POV-pushing by both sides. A 2004 comment by an editor who has been extensively involved in the LaRouche articles asserts that the topic of that article "ever existed except in the minds of LaRouchies". I think the present article shows that that is clearly not the case. The article history also shows poor editing by "pro-LaRouche" editors who always tried to insist on using LaRouche-linked sources for the article. All it would have taken was for any of the involved editors to make a trip to their local library to get the sources necessary to establish a viable article, which I have done. It's very unfortunate that for five years the editors on both sides of that topic allowed their POV to get in the way and prevent an article on an important topic from being developed.

4. I was aware of the Eurasian Land Bridge topic because of discussion about it in Wikipedia Review, in which I and several others gave HK a fairly hard time about it, because he couldn't back up his views on its development with any reliable sources. A couple of weeks ago, however, a coworker of mine forwarded me a link to the Ōtsuka article and I realized that the subject did exist. So, I wrote an article about it, which I have submitted for Good Article review. I guess this question could more easily be directed at you. You have been involved with the LaRouche articles for quite some time. Why did you never try to improve this article using reliable sources? As an arbitrator, one criteria I'll use in trying to judge the behavior of editors in open cases is if they appear to be trying to help build an encyclopedia, or else appear to be here editing with some other agenda.

5. The purpose of any type of admin action in Wikipedia is to correct a problem. If an editor is blocked or banned, and they come back with a sock and scrupulously obey the rules, then the problem has been corrected, hasn't it? Of course, if it becomes known that the account is a sock of a banned user, then the account must be blocked because we have to be consistent in our enforcement of ArbCom or community sanctions.

6. The evidence that Leatherstocking is a sock is circumstantial. I think the admins involved are aware of that, based on the comments I've seen. The thing is, however, I wouldn't have protested the block, because I think that Leatherstocking's edits had become increasingly POV towards the end. So, it really wasn't necessary for me to be chased away from those articles just before the block on Leatherstocking was proposed. What I might have done, however, is questioned why only Leatherstocking was being banned, when there were other editors who were openly editing the LaRouche articles with an "anti-LaRouche" agenda, which is also against the ArbCom sanctions that were used to block Leatherstocking. Again, if elected and should any of this come before ArbCom, I will recuse.