Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/MBK004/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: Decorum and professionalism, as exhibited by Kirill and Roger. -MBK004 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I wish there was one place I could point you to. The majority of my editing is of typical wikignome-type tasks and drafting large swaths of text is not a common occurrence. In fact, the ship articles I work on usually involve reshaping public domain text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. One place that I can direct you to is this section in USS Texas (BB-35) that I wrote completely on my own and has not been significantly modified since it was written almost two years ago. I am planning on updating this section soon though because the events I have written about were delayed. -MBK004 22:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: The ones I would be the most comfortable with from the start would be B, C, I, and J. After I gain access to the tools, E, G, and H would rapidly become comfortable because I am a quick study and learn new processes and procedures quickly. I would hesitate to take part in drafting proposed decisions (A) and drafting responses (F) for the first six months to observe the current arbitrators in their element, and dealing with banned users (D) would not be my cup of tea, but I could consider the recommendations of the subcommittee. -MBK004 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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: I believe that the community understands as do I that there are certain matters that must be handled in private due to those concerns. That being said, I believe that as much as possible should be done in the open unless it cannot be made public due to privacy concerns. There will always be tension, but my view is that such tension is a part of the job and something that will never go away. -MBK004 07:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I do not believe that groupthink is a problem with the committee. I would encourage every member of the committee to fully express their opinions during deliberations (whether it be publicly or privately), but to not shatter group cohesion be able to defend the decision once it has been made. -MBK004 05:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I do, and I have noticed this trend myself. As I mentioned in my statement, I am involved in a massive content-producing project and I intend to stay involved with it (I have two articles in the pipeline for the upcoming summer). I do not foresee reducing my level of contribution of content, but on the contrary as mentioned, I am planning on increasing it in the future. -MBK004 23:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(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 do you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? (Tznkai)
 * A: I can imagine that the level of traffic would be huge and I'm guessing at least 100 messages per day on average. Of course some lists will see more traffic than others by virtue of what each discusses and that would also depend on the level of activity within the community, e.g. if there was a major crisis I would expect the traffic to skyrocket. As for how much I will "actually read", functionaries, clerks and arbcom will be read religiously and checkuser and oversight not as much unless I was actively utilizing those tools or serving as a member of the Audit Subcommittee. -MBK004 23:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I do not believe that a recused arb should be reading the confidential materials related to the case they are involved with. That is an extreme conflict of interest, so their use of such materials would not be appropriate at all. The temptation will always be there because generally the arb does not recuse from every ongoing case and would still need access to the confidential materials for the other cases they are active on. I would hope that the arb's professionalism and ethics would keep them from using the information inappropriately, but the situation is probably inevitable. The inappropriate usage should be dealt with using both methods depending upon how serious the matter was. -MBK004 07:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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: I am sympathetic to the community's want of a process to be able to have the end result of a desysopping, but until a proposal that can adequately address the many issues inherent with the community undertaking these actions is developed and gains approval, I believe that the process should remain with the Committee as well as Jimbo. -MBK004 03:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I believe that the committee has gotten it about right. The preponderance of the desysopings this past year were for either sockpuppetry or abuse of administrative privileges, issues which the community generally does not and should not tolerate. -MBK004 03:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: While I am not fond of the idea, the Committee has reserved this right for quite some time when they have revoked administrative privileges. That being said, there are some foreseeable instances where the community may not be able to set aside preconceived notions about an editor to be able to objectively render a decision. In general though, I would prefer to see users go through a reconfirmation RfA. -MBK004 03:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: Only if the admin does not have an established recall method, and it has become obvious that the community would not be able to adequately deal with the issue short of an arbitration case or desysop by motion. -MBK004 03:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A:
 * When the admin has been confirmed via checkuser to have engaged in sockpuppetry and fails to adequately respond to the committee promptly.
 * When it has been discovered that the admin is a sockpuppet of a banned/blocked user.
 * When it has been discovered that the account has been compromised.-MBK004 03:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(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 contend that strong admonishments would be in order unless the users have been the subject of a previous ArbCom case where an admonishment was previously issued. In those instances stricter action should be taken, including but not limited to further admonishments of even stronger wording, or even possibly being barred from voting at RFA/RFB for a set amount of time. Admins would be no different unless their stature/position was used to either convince other editors to vote accordingly or willingly nominate the banned user, in which case desysopping would be appropriate in my eyes. -MBK004 03:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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: It appears as though the committee has made great strides in overhauling its organizational issues as well as delegating certain parts of its remit better than previous years. I would like to further explore more avenues to increase the organization, efficiency, and delegation within the community with the hope of being able to further reduce the time required to complete a case so having to wait multiple months for a decision will be a thing of the past. -MBK004 01:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(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 do agree, ArbCom is not in the business of forming policy, but instead of enforcing policy by ruling on the underlying principles that form the policy. Since the community has developed policy via consensus, changes to existing policies and new policy should come the same way. -MBK004 02:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: As I have pointed out in several of my answers to other questions, I do agree that the committee has tended to take too long to finish cases and we should work to reduce the time even more. Hopefully if the time it takes for cases to be resolved is reduced, the level of hostility and pointless arguments that occur in the cases will be reduced by virtue of time. As to the other issue with oppressed and disillusioned editors and retributive punishments, that seems to be a loaded question. If editors are doing things that are not supported by policy then they should be sanctioned accordingly. -MBK004 02:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I accept the viewpoint because some disputes are too derisive to be dealt with in an appropriate and timely nature by the community at-large and there needs to be a body such as ArbCom available to take those disputes and deal with them. The importance of ArbCom in the dispute resolution process is prominent because ArbCom is the last resort after all other methods have failed to adequately solve a problem as well as hearing instances where the normal processes would either pose privacy concerns or be extremely derisive in the community. -MBK004 02:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(19) A number 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: BLPSE was a good faith effort by the committee to help solve an issue which at the time was making BLPs a true battlefield. In hindsight it probably had too much teeth and its language was stronger than it needed to be. Discretionary sanctions, which now exist and have been imposed by the committee on several occasions seem to be much more what is needed and was probably conceived taking into account the good and the bad that came from BLPSE. Had I been an arb at the time BLPSE was imposed, I would probably have supported it, but now I would support discretionary sanctions instead.
 * The Advisory Council was an effort by the committee to receive more feedback from the community. While it is unfortunate that the ensuing fiasco occurred, the council was implemented rather quickly and with little input from the community. That seemed to be the largest issue the community had with the council and to an extent doomed the council before it was able to accomplish anything of real substance. That being said, the communication between the committee and the community has greatly improved since then, which is something that most likely is in direct response to the community's reaction to the council. -MBK004 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: Since the committee has avoided direct content rulings, making a sudden change to this would be interpreted by the community as a power grab even if it was made in good faith to possibly help resolve issues. Unfortunately these types of disputes are best left to the community to be dealt with even though some have not been adequately resolved. The committee might be able to file an RFC asking for the community's guidance on if there was a way to help the situation without appearing to overstep the committee's mandate. -MBK004 05:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: The committee should be more willing to hand out sanctions in this situation. Topic bans should be imposed if the editors are not interested in effectively collaborating on an article and are instead focused upon getting "their" version in the article above all else. I would like to see the community take on more of the responsibility, but how to do so will require some thought because I am the first to admit that I do not have all the answers. -MBK004 06:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: The problem with civility is simple, it is subjective from editor to editor based upon their social norms. That means that the community is inconsistent in what constitutes incivility. Point by point, I don't believe that incivility by itself should be the catalyst for desysopping (usually an uncivil admin will also be violating admin policy which would be an acceptable reason for desysop in my view), but it (incivility) could be the major component of a community ban. As to civility restrictions, I remain unconvinced that they are effective and work, but I am also hesitant to do away with them entirely. I would not use baiting as a reason not to punish an editor for incivility, but I would propose that the editor who baited should receive sanctions as well. -MBK004 06:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: See my answer to question 15 above. -MBK004 01:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: Extremely important, the dispute resolution process as it stands now works pretty well if it is followed correctly. The issue there is that sometimes RFCs do not receive enough community feedback to be helpful and then the matter ends up at ArbCom prematurely because the community did not show-up to the RFC. That being said, if there are privacy concerns then by all means go straight to committee because the committee is set-up to deal with those issues. -MBK004 01:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: Please see my answer to question 19 above. -MBK004 05:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I do consider the committee qualified to judge in such disputes, but the statistics are indeed very worrying and I would encourage those users to try and make an attempt to edit more encyclopedic content, whether that be in copyediting, wikignoming, stub creation where warranted, or article development through the GA/A/FA process. The reasoning behind my view on the qualifications are that the current members who have stayed active in content production should be able to impart the general tenor of the community and the editing environment to the other members who have not stayed as active in that arena. -MBK004 04:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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: I do agree with the decision. This is a clear instance of ban/block evasion which is made all the more glaring by the use of the Law account to evade the ban before the_undertow even appealed the original ban according to the statements of the arbs when they voted. -MBK004 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: Jennavecia was desyopped because of her attitude and refusal to admit that the matter was as big of a deal as it was. Jayron was very open and realized how much of a problem this was, that was the turning point. As to how I would have voted, I would have opposed the desysop of Jayron as being too harsh since the user admitted what he did was wrong, but the desysop of Jennavecia would have my support because her refusal to admit how much of a problem her actions were indicate that the user thinks of themselves above the community and as such no longer able to hold the community's trust with the admin tools. -MBK004 08:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: I should state that I do have a history with MZMcBride (because I was the filing party of this RFAR) and would accordingly recuse myself from sitting in judgment of him. As to Iridescent, my comments above in question 14 are directly on-point. Accordingly, an admonishment would be appropriate and then if a request was lodged with the bureaucrats, then they would decide if an RFA is necessary or not. -MBK004 08:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: Scientology was a case with significant issues that was handled with minimal drama for what has turned out to be a landmark case. I feel that the committee got it right and handled the request successfully, especially since the case has not needed to be amended by motion since its conclusion. I also feel as though the Ryulong case was handled appropriately and in a timely manner for such a multi-dimensional dispute and has been generally successful, noting that the motions to amend the case were solely because one of the parties failed to adequately adjust their behavior after the conclusion of the case.
 * As to the least successful case, I could choose several but Date delinking is my choice for the time required to close the case. Six months is just way too long for an arbitration case, even as large and for such a derisive issue as this one was. The number of times that the decision has had to be amended post-closing makes it fairly evident that the original decision had too many flaws in it. -MBK004 05:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(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 completely agree with this principle because things said in private are usually not intended to be viewed by others than those who have sent and received the information. I take a dim view on posting private correspondence without the consent of all involved. -MBK004 02:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * A: I also agree with this principle because you should be prepared and willing to explain every action you take regardless of if it is on-wiki or not as a matter of personal responsibility and integrity. -MBK004 02:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * A: I agree with this principle because the use of the words defamatory and libelous are often misused and also mis-understood by well-meaning individuals when the use of a few more words would more accurately convey the position more clearly. -MBK004 02:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * A: I agree with some concerns primarily with the wording of the principle. The use of the word "privileged", which has a distinct technical legal meaning that does not quite measure up to the privilege that exists here because the information could be used informally. -MBK004 04:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: I agree with this principle primarily because if the user has self-identified the information, the cat is out of the bag so to speak. The wishes of the editor in question should be considered and acted upon if they have decided to redact any information that they have self-identified, but with the knowledge that the information is out there. -MBK004 04:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(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: While I understand the reasons for the committee to appoint a fourth, I feel as though there was a bit of bad faith in how the plans of the committee were announced to the community at the start of the election. At the very least if the decision was made after voting had began I would have liked to see an announcement by the committee to that effect so the community would have a chance to further evaluate the candidates as well as their votes. Had I known that there would be a fourth appointed as an alternate I would have voted differently than I did and I imagine that many others would have done the same thing. The recent announcement that MBisanz will not be given access to the list or access to the tools unless the vacancy for which he was appointed does in fact occur does put me at ease. -MBK004 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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: I believe that the appropriate naming convention would be to name an individual user if the case is primarily concerned with that user's behavior, and use the name of the general area (e.g. Highways) if the dispute encompasses multiple editors over a common area. Changing the name of a case after opening should only be done when the circumstances/focus of the case shift dramatically after opening to the point that the original name is no longer appropriate based upon the naming conventions I have just stated. -MBK004 07:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(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:No, it is clear that there are issues. The most glaring change that would in all likelihood solve most of the problems would be the implementation of flagged revisions on BLP articles. That being said, the notability requirements also need to be clarified, especially in the instances of the marginally notable. -MBK004 08:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A: and  -MBK004 08:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(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 would probably fall on the strict side of the committee. My voting for a less-severe sanction would need to be preceded by a genuine admission of remorse from the user, as well as promises that the behavior will not happen again, much like the case was with Jayron in the recent Law/undertow fiasco (see question 28 above). -MBK004 03:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

=Individual questions=
 * Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here. It is not mandatory for candidates to respond to mass questions that are not individualised.

Question from Sandstein
Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in a 2008 motion. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention, as suggested by the 2008 motion, at. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it (e.g. by reblocking or by sanctioning the unblocker) for 15 days until the case became moot because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks,  Sandstein   08:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A: Well, it definitely appears as though your initial request was overtaken by the cyclone of events that unfolded with the admin who undid your block. I would disagree with your contention that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions enforced. You should look at it from the perspective that by the time that the matter was fully considered and motions were voted upon the other scandal would had unfolded and a motion to uphold your actions and rebuke Law would be moot because of the desysop and block. While it may not seem as though there was any activity, I would be willing to bet that the non-public areas that ArbCom discusses matters on were buzzing with the events that were made public shortly after your request which led to the voluntary desysop as well as the block for ban evasion. Perhaps the slate of motions that were voted upon which led to the resignation of one admin as well as the desysop of another should have included a motion that upheld your enforcement block which probably precipitated the whole matter. If I was an arbitrator at the time I would have proposed such a motion that I just described and perhaps would have tried to focus some of the discussion back upon your initial request because your block was never reinstated. -MBK004 07:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from John Carter
These questions are being asked of all candidates. If some are redundant to others already asked, 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?
 * 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?
 * 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 do anticipate being fully able to handle the time requirements inherent with reading and analyzing evidence, reviewing individual behavior, and the other activities associated with membership on the committee. Time management is very important and I already utilize those concepts in my real-life to be able to juggle my social commitments, educational commitments, as well as my commitments on-wiki. I do not foresee any problems. I am also prepared to state that I will not become less active on the content side than I am already, and as I have stated before, I actually plan on becoming slightly more active in the future. As to the seamier side of wikipedia, that does not have an impact on my contributions currently, but admittedly this question would be better asked once I was half-way through my term. In real-life, I deal with the seamier side of society in my every-day life because I am a criminal justice student and am exposed to that element daily in the course of my studies and that exposure has only strengthened my resolve in my choice of studies. -MBK004 03:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from MBisanz
If I asked the ten editors who have viewed your userpage the most times if you were more of an inclusionist or a deletionist, what would most of them say as the answer (this is a limited question, no "well it isn't that clear" answer).

Second, if I asked them to describe why they answered that way, what would most of them say (this is an unlimited question, I'm hoping for a detailed answer).


 * A: I have taken some time to think about this one ... while I haven't announced my views on inclusionism vs. deletionism before, I would imagine that most would say deletionist because of my relentless enforcement of WP:MILPOP and WP:TRIVIA. In reality, I am in the center of the issue because there is a middle-ground between pure inclusionism and pure deletionism and that is where I would place myself in the spectrum, much like my real-life political beliefs. -MBK004 22:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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.
 * While it is human nature that first impressions are made, the ideal thing to do is to employ personal discipline and to approach each request with an open mind and examine both sides of the situation before making a decision as I have pledged to do in my statement. -MBK004 04:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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 the subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * The current balance of control seems to be appropriate, desysopping should be something that while attainable, is not able to be successful in response to a kneejerk decision made while in conflict. I believe that the Arbitration Committee should remain involved in the process as it currently is involved even if the community is able to implement an acceptable process (see question 9). I don't think the stewards would want to get involved in this except for removing the bit, but the crats could possibly become involved in the community process. The current state of how emergency desysops are handled by the committee seem to be adequate and do not appear to need drastic changes. Voluntary relinquishment, as long as it was not done "under a cloud" should remain as it stands with just a simple request at WP:BN sufficient for a crat to flip the switch upon request. That being said, I would caution those who have been without the bit for a significant amount of time to re-read the major policies since they will have probably changed since their time as an admin before they make their request. -MBK004 06:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Civility is about the respect that should be accorded to your fellow editors as well as editing in a professional manner. Civility is largely subjective in the hands of both the editor typing and the editor who is interpreting. Since the standards of decency vary from country to country, some things are acceptable in some parts of the world but not others. The shift in the tendency of editors behavior will of course depend on the area of the encyclopedia that you are looking at, but I believe that the level is stable and is not moving in either direction. As to editors being exempt from civility, absolutely not. If two well-established editors want to insult each other, by all means do it off-wiki, but civility should remain in place when editing. That being said, there does appear to be some users who have been able to skirt their way around having civility restrictions being successful enforced upon them, and this is a problem in the community which should be dealt with, even if the editors are extremely productive content producers. That ties in directly with my belief that civility should be enforced, but in order to do so, there needs to be a clearly-defined policy that eliminates the subjectivity from how it is currently enforced. As to the Arbitration Committee's role in this, there is not much that can be done unless severe incivility is brought before the committee where it should be dealt with during a case assuming that other methods of dispute resolution have failed to solve the issue. -MBK004 06:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Editors are accorded the ability to remain as anonymous as they wish. The Committee should not be the driving force to implement any changes to this fact, and if this were changed, it would probably have to come from the Wikimedia Foundation. As to supporting the anonymity of editors, basic common courtesy and etiquette should come into play (also see question 31 part 5). -MBK004 06:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * The issue of the governance of the project - All editors should be involved in the discussions related to this and I definitely will be involved not only as an arbitrator (if elected) but also as a regular editor, administrator, and Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. -MBK004 06:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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?
 * Extremely important, communication and staying in-touch with the community is something that is essential for an arbitrator. Part of my platform is transparency, I welcome the community to ask questions of me and I see that as part of the job, not a nuisance. That being said, some types of requests are inappropriate at certain times and in certain situations. Although I would not answer those, I would notify the editor that the request was inappropriate and suggest an alternate method to attempt get their question answered. -MBK004 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * See the answer to your first question, I believe it covers this as well. -MBK004 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * As I have said in many places on this page as well as in my platform, cases do take entirely too long and the extended length is definitely something that makes arbitration all that much more stressful. By reducing the time that cases seem to sit in limbo without a resolution, the general unpleasantness should be reduced. As for being found innocent or guilty, it is unfortunate that some editors never get over the stigma of having a case brought against them when they have been "vindicated" by the final decision. -MBK004 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * It is a bit more simplified that the situation usually is, but I do agree. It is worth noting that if the user who produces quality content does not respond appropriately and modify their behavior according to the alternate methods of restrictions then the ban would then be in order. -MBK004 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * These types of findings (of positive reinforcement) are not usually unanimous since some Arbitrators adamantly oppose them and they usually seem out of place when viewed with the rest of the final decision.. The committee is not in the business of rewarding good behavior, but these findings do have their place to vindicate editors if they have been accused of actions during the case which has been proven to not be true. -MBK004 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Sarah777
1. A major concern of mine is the use/abuse of WP:CIVIL to silence editors by Admins who are often less than objective or neutral. Have you any concerns about the enforcement of WP:CIVIL?

2. Related to the above; I believe that there is cultural difference in the acceptability of robust and frank language between America and Europe. An illustration of this is the censorship of "bad language" on US television, words which would pass unnoticed on TV in the UK or Ireland for example. How do you react to the charge that US standards of "civility" are being imposed on Wikipedians from places that happily embrace forms of expression that some Americans seem to find "uncivil"?

3. Do you think it's a good thing that so many candidates seem to major in Military History? Sarah777 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Answers:
 * 1. I believe that I have partially answered this question with general question number 22 above. That being said, admins who are not objective and are involved should not be using their tools or their positions to silence editors through use of CIVIL. -MBK004 05:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Frankly, I believe that the level of censorship in my home nation has gone above political correctness and is a bit too straight-laced for my tastes. I see this project as an international one, and therefore using the set standards from one nation seems to not be in the best interests of the project. I would hope that editors would be able to realize that other editors may not be accustomed to using or hearing such language in regular conversation, but since it is more common in other places, to learn to accept it. Perhaps I ask too much? -MBK004 04:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. Looking at the candidate pool, there are only three counting myself, the others being Cla and Kirill. Three out of 22 at the time of writing does not seem to be too many, but Wehwalt has dabbled in military history as of late. I look at MILHIST as one of the more successful WikiProjects in terms of not only producing quality content but also quality editors. We all have decided to run on our own volition and we all write and edit the topics that interest us individually. -MBK004 04:23, 23 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.


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * Too long, three months unacceptable. Looking back, there were quite a few high-profile cases around that time, but that is no excuse to not adjudicate the case in a reasonable amount of time.
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * Sure, if they can get those standards ratified as a part of the Manual of style, such as what the Military history project has with our WP:MILMOS. By getting the standards ratified, the community has signed off on them which means that enforcement is not just on the onus of the WikiProject anymore but on the whole community. That being said, there are always exceptions to be found and those take discussion to enact.
 * 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?
 * Ignoring consensus is a violation of policy and ignoring the advice of administrators does not generally produce a good outcome. That said, if all forms of communication have failed, then blocking the user would be in order, preferably with consensus obtained at ANI.
 * 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?
 * Usually in this situation the user is ignored and their stance does not have a meaningful impact upon the discussion they have interrupted. The issue is usually taken up at an RFC and the user eventually either leaves in disgust that the community is not agreeing with them or they become disruptive in discussions and end up being sanctioned accordingly.
 * 1) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they do 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?
 * There are two different situations here, if they do not speak English as their first language or if they have a learning disability, and the approaches would be different. As to the non-native English speaker, first try to find an editor that speaks their primary language and have them attempt to explain the above concerns. If that doesn't work, there isn't much that can be done, hence regrettably a block would be in the cards. As to the learning disabled, sometimes explanation will never work and at which time it would become evident that they would continue to not be a net positive for the encyclopedia and be blocked.
 * 1) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * They can if the patience of the community has been exhausted.
 * 1) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * When an editor has a preferred version of the article and reverts said article three times within 24 hours to keep "their" version of the article. Usually violations of the rule result in the editor being blocked unless the reverts removed a copyvio, were made by a banned editor, or to remove clear vandalism. Unfortunately, enforcement of this can be quite nasty when the editor being blocked is well-established and the system can be gamed easily since usually only one editor is blocked for edit warring instead of the two who were participating in the edit war.
 * 1) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * Usually, a provocative borderline username is when some but not all agree that there is a problem. Hopefully discussion with the user will lead them to request a change in username. Vulgar/disparaging usernames are easier to judge but you have to remember that some words which can be considered "naughty" are actually acceptable usernames as long as the user isn't harmful.
 * 1) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * If they are disruptive and are not of a positive benefit to the encyclopedia. If there are good edits, policy allows for other users to take responsibility for them. An excellent example is this article Boeing 747, which was put through FAC by Archtransit, who was a sock of a banned user. The user's edits were not removed from the article nor did the article's featured status suffer for the situation.
 * 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
 * Casliber resigned because of his knowledge of a user under ArbCom sanction that had returned under a new account and had gained adminship. When his discussions with the editor to get them to retire the new account and then return with the original account failed he did not mention this to the committee or to the community. When the link between the two accounts made made publicly, he resigned because he felt that he could no longer hold the trust of the community as an arbitrator.
 * 1) Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
 * 2) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * There are too many to accurately explain them all, but the big issues center around the governance of the project and where it lies, the BLP problem which is ever-ongoing, and also the slow-down of recruitment new editors as well as article creation. The treatment of new editors and how new page patrolling is conducted has also become a big deal as of late as evidenced by the mixed opinions about the Newbie treatment at CSD experiment.

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Answers interspersed above. -MBK004 08:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * I am not comfortable with the subject of an article being able to influence what appears in Wikipedia related to them, if they meet the notability requirements. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * The risking no harm position, but isn't this deletionism? -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I would be in favor of it, but flagged revisions for BLPs would solve the issue as well. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get
 * On BLPs, this seems to be the best hope to defuse the massive BLP problem. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied
 * I am not entirely convinced that every single article needs flagged revisions. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * It is one of both -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * In regards to BLPSE, I think it was a good faith effort that was a little too strong that what was needed. See my answer to question 19 for more. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * Flagged revisions on BLPs would definitely help, as well as making sure that the notability criteria are clearly defined so as to try and cut-down on the numbers of marginally notable. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * I agree, consensus does work but not when there are so many people that obtaining a consensus is prohibitively difficult. For instance it is extremely difficult to make changes to major policies because of the ability to secure consensus for the change. SecurePoll works extremely well when the issue could be solved by a simple vote, but there are other areas where a simple vote just clouds the issue. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
 * The main thing against its implementation is its own inertia. Some are concerned that using flagged revisions will mean the end of the original view of wikipedia as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. While the delay has hurt the community, it is still possible to reach a decision on whether to implement or not. I don't believe there is anything that the committee could do except participate in the discussions as regular editors. I have largely stayed out of this issue to this point, but I do recognize that there are some articles that would benefit from flagged revisions, mainly those of BLPs. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * I do, judge the edit on its merits, not on the editor who is making them. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * 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?
 * Using human decency to a point with the realization that it isn't always possible to put the cat back inside the bag. It is possible if the disclosure was recent and did not encompass many pages, but massive intervention is not ideal or even possible in some instances. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * Only if the outing is done in order to reveal a blatant conflict of interest. Editing with a blatant conflict of interest is unacceptable, and at this point pseudonymity is not the primary concern. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from last year in that it's more extensive)
 * I have not openly acknowledged my real identity, but from all of the information that I have placed out there it is fairly easy to find it. I will support any arbitrator who wishes to remain anonymous but they should realize that holding this position isn't the best was to stay out of the spotlight. As to my identity, I do not plan to reveal upon election. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * I do not believe that there is anything the WMF can do beyond warning editors when they register their accounts that they cannot guarantee pseudonymity and/or anonymity, this is the internet after all and we should all use common sense in what we choose to reveal and where. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from last year)
 * Unless the outing has revealed a blatant COI, the editor who does the outing should be banned from the project for breaking one of our primary policies. This usually applies on-wiki only, but off-wiki actions can be taken into account if they are intended to influence decisions on-wiki. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * I would think it would be obvious that there are hazards to revealing one's identity on one of the most popular websites in the world. While the WMF should by all means disclaim that anonymity is not always guaranteed when editing. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * Cooperation with the authorities is an absolute must, but since stalking is a criminal and civil matter the WMF should stay out of this as much as possible. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * None, editing Wikipedia is an extremely public activity, and while pseudonymity is available it is not guaranteed. Therefore victims of stalking might best consider not editing. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * We should cooperate fully with the appropriate civil and criminal authorities. Flagged revisions will definitely reduce the ability for stalkers to be able to use Wikipedia to harass others. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * That is on a case-by-case basis. Looking at a user's contributions is routinely done in the case of reverting vandalism, linkspam, etc. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * There are, and the way to deal with them is through reason, and when that fails, blocks because if they keep claiming stalking when it does not exist, then they are being disruptive. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * Blanket unreverting is not appropriate. The edits were removed for a reason that is acceptable per policy. To change that, change the policy. Blanket reversal is disruptive but of course individual editors can take responsibility for individual edits if they are good. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * While I prefer to keep most if not all discussion on wikipedia, I am not dead-set against having some occur off wikipedia. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * I do not, I just do not see the need for something like this. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * WR is a necessary evil. It has been used for coordination of votestacking but it also also identified some important issues, especially of editors using wikipedia for nefarious purposes. WR is about the most ideal outside criticism site for wikipedia even though there is a high signal-to-noise ratio there. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * Participation is okay, but admins and arbitrators should pay attention to the extent of their involvement since they do hold positions of community trust. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * I do not have an account, nor do I believe I need one. Outing of someone on WR or another site is usually not sanctioned on-wiki unless the outing is done to influence a decision on-wiki. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * While WR has been problematic, especially with votestacking in RFAs and AFDs, the outside criticism is useful and is occasionally incorporated in discussions that take place on-wiki. With that, I think that the view has changed for the better. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Yes there is a problem, editors who go against policies such as civility and are able to get away with that because of their content contributions. Because of their mass of good content contributions editors constantly defend them, oblivious to the harm that the incivility can cause in regards to editors leaving. What to do with this problem is to enforce the policies equally and ensure that no editor is exempt from them. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Blue, I've always liked the color. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have an account, nor do I believe I need one. Outing of someone on WR or another site is usually not sanctioned on-wiki unless the outing is done to influence a decision on-wiki. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * While WR has been problematic, especially with votestacking in RFAs and AFDs, the outside criticism is useful and is occasionally incorporated in discussions that take place on-wiki. With that, I think that the view has changed for the better. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Yes there is a problem, editors who go against policies such as civility and are able to get away with that because of their content contributions. Because of their mass of good content contributions editors constantly defend them, oblivious to the harm that the incivility can cause in regards to editors leaving. What to do with this problem is to enforce the policies equally and ensure that no editor is exempt from them. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Blue, I've always liked the color. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Blue, I've always liked the color. -MBK004 08:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

These are not easy questions, and I hope you take the time to answer them thoughtfully. It will be appreciated. Also, my apologies for getting these to you late. It was an inadvertent error, no slight was intended. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)