Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Mailer diablo/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: Endurance. Any arbitrator has to be prepared for whatever is thrown at them. Immense workload. Flak for any difficult decision they can make. Harassment from users. You name it. Those that are successful have survived through them.

(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 an arbitration clerk I have recognized this importance, and have checked with the Arbitrators themselves on a few cases. Any ambiguity left behind after a judgment usually results in time-wasted when admins have to go back to ArbCom for a request for clarification during enforcement. I can't say that my English is 100% perfect, but I always seek to improve upon it whenever I can; I'm just a human being.

(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: All except CheckUser (G). I would try to pick it up though, if I'm given that tool.

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: Eventually a balance has to be achieved, somehow. Personal information that would merely aggravate the victimized parties (in cases of harassment, for instance) shouldn't be out for everyone to see, but whenever possible one should try to explain how was the decision was arrived at.

(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'm going to be honest with you, while I do not subscribe to group-think, I'm no lone Rambo either. I don't aggressively push my ideas and railroad my way through something. Historically those who did so quickly find themselves thrown out of office. I play more of the role of a safety valve and sanity check of sorts. If I notice that something is heading the wrong way or suspect, I would quickly raise a red flag. In most cases, this is sufficient enough to get everyone to think again and fix up the issue. When it comes down to split decisions, I am not afraid of making my judgment known.

(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: Ideally, that should be the case. Unfortunately, the workload of ArbCom is so heavy, that arbitrators have probably come to realize that they have to sacrifice their time writing because the responsibilities at ArbCom carry a higher priority. I feel that so long one is able to retain that proficiency in article-writing, that is fine by my standards even if one might contribute less.

(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'm already subscribed to three of the lists, a list-moderator on two of them, and the amount of spam I sift through is horrible. An AUSC report cites me as the volunteer with the most replies and discussion on OS-l. I read almost every email I get. If elected, maybe I'll just stop reading spam altogether. :o)

(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: It depends on what role the arbitrator is involved as. If he is the accused and does what is mentioned above, it would be nothing short of corruption. I don't think ArbCom would not want to hang him out dry. If he's just a participant of sorts he is free to comment, but he'll be encouraged to do so on wiki instead.

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: Personally I would prefer that a community-based process be in place, but in the absence of a community consensus and willpower to actually get one working, this is the only working process that we have for desysopping.

(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: Statistically it is about right, though I do not necessarily agree with every individual circumstance that resulted in the desysopping, or lack thereof. We have to accept that we do have rotten apples in the corp, and that we have to be prepared to lose a portion of admins every year, just like how companies get rid of the bottom-performing 5% of their employees.

(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: Support. After all, the Committee itself is an elected body that is deemed qualified to make that judgment. This practice came about after it was found that controversial promotions of desysopped admins at RfA is far more expensive than if the ArbCom makes the call, as it damaged the RfA process permanently. (Refer to the discussions regarding controversial promotions of former admins) ArbCom shouldn't be passing the buck to the crats when it comes to conduct-related matters.

(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: When Requests for Arbitration first opened its doors, it was a requirement that Mediation and a RfC first be conducted before passing the case on to ArbCom as a matter of last resort. Since then things are more pragmatic, and cases are taken up if it is in the view that going through an RfC or mediation would only result in drama and not resolving the issues at hand. I'm a pragmatic person, so I will take the same stand on this matter as well.

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Circumstances that is serious enough to conclude that continued access to the tools would be detrimental to the image of admin corps, or/and cause substansial and irreversible damage to the encyclopedia in general. This includes sustained wheel-warring, abusive socking, mass-blocking or mass-deletion without proper explanation, sale of admin account, 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'm sure you have Law/Undertow in mind, but I'll take this as a general question. That'll depend on the circumstances and the level of involvement by the voters. We shouldn't be handing out punitive measures against editors solely on the act of failure to report. If let's say the voters actually voted for the admin and later implied to impose some form of EEML-style influence on the admin for POV-pushing or something to their benefit, then it would be something far more serious we're dealing with.

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: Delegate more tasks through sub-committees and functionaries, so that arbitrators can get less distracted through side issues and get on with the main task of dealing with cases. Perhaps a sub-com in arbitrations enforcements should be next.

(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: Agree. Policy by fiat does not bode well with the community.

(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: What I do know is that there's too much bickering even in the workshops. In real life, if you were to punch with someone in the court-room, you will be restrained and be slapped with more charges. Same applies when it comes to arbitration cases.

(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: ArbCom suffers from the same problem as RfA does - It's something that everyone loves to hate, but there is no better alternative to replace it, and so we are stuck with this. As I mentioned earlier, ArbCom was originally supposed to go hand in hand with mediation and RfC, but it probably became the sole formal dispute resolution method for the simple reason that it's the only one which actually has teeth. The other process is AN/I, which I think everyone has realized by now produces at times more heat than light.

(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: As a collective body, the Arbitration Committee is the most powerful body in English Wikipedia. There are imaginative ways to make it exert even more power. I'm no fan of Big Government though, so on a personal capacity I would keep in check the powers of ArbCom as such that it would work together with the community, not against it. [See (25) on Advisory Council on Project Development]

(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: Wouldn't a direct content ruling constitute imposing some form of bias? The community is already up in arms when ArbCom tried to impose policy, I cannot imagine what would happen if it tried to dictate content. I think the community is currently sufficiently empowered to enforce content policies and consensus without having ArbCom to intervene.

(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: Yes, more aggressive sanctions on more aggressive editors who think that Wikipedia is a battleground. Other editors should be allowed to edit in peace and not get caught up with these sort of skirmishes. Admins already have been given free reign over some aspects of enforcement, and they could do more to take up this responsibility actively.

(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: Its like Swine Flu. In the early days when it first occurred, everyone panicked and imposed the most restrictive measure possible to try and clamp down on it. Then eventually it got common enough, the authorities ended up relaxing it even though it still causes people to die. Similarly the climate of incivility is of epidemic proportions, almost every controversial discussion is declared a bio-hazard that as such no editor care, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing anything about it anymore. And no, I do not think that two wrongs make a right. I think the time is right to start cleaning up and sanction editors who can't go without littering "silly ****" everywhere.

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: I like the current method of having deadlines posted in public. This puts both internal and external pressure for ArbCom to try to work on the cases as much as possible. I think this is the single most important factor at improving ArbCom's efficiency. Also, delegation of non-case tasks would also help arbitrators to lessen their workload and get on with the main task of handling cases.

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: If the community is able to sort out matters on its own, it's great because ArbCom has one case less to handle, and the community learns how to deal with similar ones in future. ArbCom should not be a nanny state that babysits every AN/I problem at first opportunity; it should only do so if the matter prolonged with the community does not solve the problem, only aggravate it.

(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: ACPD would have taken off if it actually came from the community, not ArbCom. This is the classic example of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". ArbCom did not see the ACPD the way the editor-in-the-street did - that is it looks awfully like a Cabal or even school-yard politics, especially for those that did not get invited.

(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: Per (6). There is one unexpected benefit for arbitrators who end up writing less - they now have strategic distance when they view conduct issues involving a content dispute.

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. Appeal a ban, not evade it. Evade it, and your ban counter gets reset. No exceptions.

(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 appeared to be unrepentant towards her actions, while Jayron32 was more forthcoming. Just like a judge would consider mitigating and aggravating factors when passing down the duration of a custodial sentence, when the investigation by ArbCom took place the reaction by her could only be seen as aggravating factors towards the charges.

(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 do not think neglect/failure to act, by itself, is sufficient grounds to remove someone's adminship. We're not a military court martial and it would be dangerous to set precedents that would have wide implications.

(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, a case that I clerked. Yes, there were some media publicity over the decision, but there is a lot less strife for things on the ground. Case-wise, I don't see anything that seems to be disastrously wrong this year.

(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 (ii) "Responsibility", December 2007 (iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008 (iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008 (v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: Agree for (i) thru (iv). I don't particularly like the way (v) is worded, but I can see what the Arbs are trying to get at.

(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: Stand-by or alternate member to be called upon if any other three resigned, yes. But no to being the forth member with privileges and access outright as a matter of principle. For the record, this has got nothing to do with MBisanz as a candidate, he is well-qualified and I have supported him during the AUSC elections.

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: The locus of the dispute should be the name of the case. It would either be the primary party where it is in dispute with the other parties, or the subject matter if no particular party stands out as the focus.

(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: Refer to Lar's Q1

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A: This, and User:Way Of Life from public computers where security is a risk. The rest are doppelgangers to prevent spoofing of my username.

(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 generally prefer stricter sanctions. There is no magical formula to determine how I would vote; as you have mentioned every case has its own merit/demerit, but I generally tend to view lot less favourably towards those who are not here to write the encyclopedia.

=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) 17:11, 16 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) * For ArbCom process, I think the controls in place are more or less fine. For the community side, unfortunately there has been no agreement over a desysopping process due precisely due to disagreements over how much controls there should be in place.
 * 4) Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
 * 5) * ArbCom should have and is the final jurisdiction on desysopping.
 * 6) * Here's how it works. If there is ever to be a community desysopping process, they should form their own chain of decision-makers (such as crats, stewards, etc). Just like how community sanctions are imposed, ArbCom would be hands free on the decision-makers. Only if the accused chooses to appeal any decision to the ArbCom or elects to have his conduct examined by a case should we then take over any such matter.
 * 7) 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?
 * 8) * It should be the same (a vote of majority), only expedited. If the damage is immediate and great that it cannot wait for a vote, this decision has to be endorsed by a steward (i.e. the steward's opinon is that he would have done it himself, if brought to his attention even without the ArbCom). Any such decision made must be then endorsed or repealed by ArbCom by a vote within a given timeframe.
 * 9) What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?
 * 10) * You are free to give up your tools, and ask them back for it if (1) you did not give up them under circumstances where your conduct or the use of its tools are being brought into question by the community or ArbCom (2) at any other period you would have done nothing that would bring the suitability of having the tools into serious question (such as socking). These criterion are assessed by the crats.
 * 11) What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
 * 12) What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
 * 13) * It simply means to give other editors the respect that you expect from, to establish a conducive environment to edit in.
 * 14) Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
 * 15) * Far less civil than when I first edited here.
 * 16) Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 17) * There has been leeway given by the community towards high contributing editors.
 * 18) Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 19) * High-performing "assholes" are not welcome on Wikipedia.
 * 20) Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
 * 21) * More enforcement. For the encyclopedia to move forward, we must have a conducive environment for editors to edit in peace.
 * 22) 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?
 * 23) * ArbCom has to do its part in to send a message that there will be much less tolerance towards those are repeatedly incivil. Just like how a referee would flash the yellow card against players who swear against officials in a match. I will not hesitate to support sanctions against chronically incivil behaviour.
 * 24) 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?
 * 25) * See Lar's question (5), (6) regarding psuedo-nymity and limitations on what WMF and ArbCom can do. Wikipedians have no rights except for the Right to Fork and the Right to Vanish/Leave.
 * 26) 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.
 * 27) Ensuring a civil and conducive environment for editing. As per my answers to regarding civility above, and my statement that "Rest assured drama-mongers shall be awarded a Yellow card, trolls and troublemakers be shown the Red."
 * 28) Upholding Wikipedia as a credible, neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. That means to arrest POV pushers, those there are not here to build an encyclopedia, whom I come across in the course of my duties should I be elected.

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. Yes, I will be able to give the time to go through such cases. That's what the ArbCom is for. See answer to (6) regarding ArbCom and content contributions. I think that is something inevitable unless every arbitrator is 24/7/365 on Wikipedia.

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.
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied
 * Due to the nature of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit", the BLP problem is almost impossible to eradicate, and can only be managed at best. info-en-q has been able to deal with BLP issues in a sensitive manner, but has limitations when it comes to complicated cases (and at times, backlog). In the recent years though, editors have been made more aware about the BLP problem, and are working towards a better long-term solutions as you have provided in your question. So now, let's go through them one-by-one :
 * a) "Opt in/opt out" is susceptible to abuse. While allowing marginally-notable individuals to opt-out is a great idea in principle, we might also attract substantially notable (not to the extent of GWB!) but controversial individuals who would try to push to have their BLPs deleted. On the other hand, we'll attract several requests from commercial individuals who would try to opt-in to promote their business or profile.
 * b) Support, so long it is made distinct from the normal AfD process to prevent confusion. Perhaps a separate queue like WP:BLPFD, where editors can also try to fix up BLP problems made known rather than sifting through categories.
 * c) I like this, and have already been doing this. Admins should have the broad discretion to impose semi-protection on articles that are susceptible to BLP issues.
 * d) Whole-heartedly support. Why hasn't it been implemented yet?
 * e) My main worry of the original proposal is that it might create a new power structure/hierarchy altogether, and comes drama as people try to jostle for power. Also, the workload would be immense, and new page patrol is already struggling! The main reason I prefer flagged protection over this is that it uses an existing form of structure and therefore less susceptible to these problems.
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * a) Policy.
 * b) Agree to some extent, but it it can't be helped. I would have preferred that ArbCom not set policy, but there are some deficiencies that the community couldn't address, and so ArbCom has to apply band aid until the community addresses it.
 * c) The BLP problem isn't something that can be solved overnight (just like ArbCom!), but we are heading in the right direction. Hopefully as some proposals are implemented to improve the BLP situation, the ArbCom would need to intervene less often.
 * 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?
 * Agree; As one might observed from RfA and proposals, it is difficult to determine consensus with such a crowd on Wikipedia. In such a big world, there is simply no way to please everyone. I think we should not be afraid of using voting or other experimental models to gauge opinion.
 * 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?
 * I support any form of proposal on sighted process that would reform or make use of the existing editing structure. A radically new process would have the effect of admins/editors/etc trying to jostle for editorial control on newly created positions, and make undeserving headlines ("It is no longer an encyclopedia that anyone can edit!") that generate both internal and external drama. It is this that has caused the community to have great disagreements over the original proposals, and I think even the people at the top don't necessarily agree either, which simply adds on to the delay.
 * That is why Flagged Protections, which uses the existing structure, is preferred and much more likely to be implemented. And once it is implemented, we can then see how the community wants to proceed from there. As for the ArbCom, well not much role to play here since it is a community matter; unless ArbCom intends to fiat policy!
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from last year in that it's more extensive)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from last year)
 * This question is answered together with question 6.
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * The point of using a real name is to link the account to real-life credentials and accountability. The day we begin to use real names, the day Wikipedia stops being "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and becomes a "Citizendium". Since Day One the basis of this site is based on the principle of anonymity, there is no turning back.
 * As such, a name is just a name here. We should therefore respect the decision of an editor if he/she chooses not to give it out. This is so long he is not using the anonymity to evade bans or sanctions.
 * If the editor feels that it is too dangerous to edit with his real identity being revealed, I'm afraid at best he could do is to exercise Right To Vanish...Support against harassment is limited on Wikipedia, even by the WMF. We can only at most do whatever we can on Wikipedia itself when it comes to dealing with harassment, to impose sanctions, bans etc., outside of Wikipedia the only thing we can do is to get law-enforcement involved.
 * The real problem of using a real name (pun intended) is that they have used for the wrong purposes of accountability...there are banned editors queuing up to dig up everyone's past and using them with 'maximum impact', to hold them 'responsible' (I call that vendetta) for the actions made against them. As per the previous paragraph, banned users stand to have nothing to lose, and so there is nothing effective to hold them back from using any sort of harassment tactics outside of Wikipedia.
 * I don't think editors would try to overplay the stalking card. Usually drama by the community as a result is sufficient 'punishment'.
 * 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?
 * The wheel can be reinvented, and therefore if someone else finds it the banned editor's contribs useful enough it will eventually get rewritten. Try appealing the ban, I guess. Banned users are banned for a good reason, period.
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * a) There is no way to contain all the criticism within Wikipedia. Who knows, the person who made the comment might not even edit Wikipedia!
 * b) I do not have a website commenting on Wikipedia.
 * c) Wikipedia Review is just like a bar which just happen to have many banned users hanging out there. I haven't heard much about Wikback.
 * d) We're not the military. While we can encourage editors to bring their concerns onto Wikipedia to discuss, we can't force them to do so if they choose to vent it outside instead. Any actions they did on-wiki as a result of receiving advice from an external website, we should deal with the basis/merit/dismerit on the action itself.
 * e) I'm not sophisticated enough to have a double-life. Therefore whatever site I signed up for, uses this username. Any action, if there is any in the first place, for any outing outside of Wikipedia is limited within Wikipedia. Using another pseudonymous account at such a site is discouraged, but it's not like we have the CheckUser data to directly confirm it.
 * f) Don't think anything has changed since.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * I think this ia a glaring problem. The community tends to give some leeway to long-standing contributors if there is some lapse in judgment. Usually time is the best cure for this sort of things (either the editor goes back to contributing and stops that behavior/having that issue, or the community eventually runs out of patience with him/her or finds it too serious to let go)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Blue. I like the sea. ;)
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * a) There is no way to contain all the criticism within Wikipedia. Who knows, the person who made the comment might not even edit Wikipedia!
 * b) I do not have a website commenting on Wikipedia.
 * c) Wikipedia Review is just like a bar which just happen to have many banned users hanging out there. I haven't heard much about Wikback.
 * d) We're not the military. While we can encourage editors to bring their concerns onto Wikipedia to discuss, we can't force them to do so if they choose to vent it outside instead. Any actions they did on-wiki as a result of receiving advice from an external website, we should deal with the basis/merit/dismerit on the action itself.
 * e) I'm not sophisticated enough to have a double-life. Therefore whatever site I signed up for, uses this username. Any action, if there is any in the first place, for any outing outside of Wikipedia is limited within Wikipedia. Using another pseudonymous account at such a site is discouraged, but it's not like we have the CheckUser data to directly confirm it.
 * f) Don't think anything has changed since.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * I think this ia a glaring problem. The community tends to give some leeway to long-standing contributors if there is some lapse in judgment. Usually time is the best cure for this sort of things (either the editor goes back to contributing and stops that behavior/having that issue, or the community eventually runs out of patience with him/her or finds it too serious to let go)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Blue. I like the sea. ;)
 * I think this ia a glaring problem. The community tends to give some leeway to long-standing contributors if there is some lapse in judgment. Usually time is the best cure for this sort of things (either the editor goes back to contributing and stops that behavior/having that issue, or the community eventually runs out of patience with him/her or finds it too serious to let go)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Blue. I like the sea. ;)
 * Blue. I like the sea. ;)

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention 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 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   06:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about that. Enforcements is indeed one aspect that seem to have fallen short. Probably due to ArbCom's workload the task of enforcing remedies have been delegated to admins in general, but it also means that if nobody is willing to do the dirty job the enforcement is not done. We could use a dedicated department or sub-com to overlook enforcements and ensure that the decisions are actually enforced.

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?
 * 2) * Too long!...Justice delayed is justice denied.
 * 3) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 4) * A WikiProject is just like a village...It can get some form of things organized as a community within its own, but at the end of the day has to follow Federal Law (policies). Also, article standards may overlap each other (such as templates), which then one project would have to sort it out with the other.
 * 5) 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?
 * 6) * Don't give them food...Let them starve! >:D
 * 7) 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?
 * 8) * Are the rationales they provided reasonable to the community? Are their "attacks" constructive criticism, not personal attacks? If the answers to both are no, no food for them, either!
 * 9) 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?
 * 10) * This one is different. Would they able to communicate and contribute properly in their own native language? If so, we should be a little more patience to teach them the ropes about Wikipedia with the help of some translation, or ask them to contribute in the native-language Wikipedia.
 * 11) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * 12) * If they ever exhaust the patience of the community. #3 is easily justified, as they are not here to write an encyclopedia. For #4, these are highly frown upon, and can be frustrating and weary to patience. For #5, it would have been unfortunate, but they should be given much more leeway than usual.
 * 13) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * 14) * Once upon a time, there was no 3RR and editors just simply reverted like crazy. Eventually it came to the point that enough was enough, and it has to stop somewhere. 3RR was born. That did not eliminate the cause of revert-warring, it only limits it. Of course, we have that fair share of editors who think that 3 reverts is an entitlement and hence are free to use it willfully. I think in such cases where edit wars have spread like a ForestFire and used in such a manner, we should not be afraid to sanction them.
 * 15) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * How much provocation it potentially causes, and the probable intention of it. If it is unintentional, we should just ask them politely to change it. If its willful, block and get them to change it. If it's created by a vandal solely for the purpose of testing the waters of the username policy, just block and move on.
 * 1) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * See Lar's Q7.
 * 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
 * 2) Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
 * 3) * I do not think it is appropriate to comment directly on former arbitrators.
 * 4) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * 5) * Essentially the same problems an overpopulated metropolis would suffer from. Wikipedia is no longer a village.

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Coren
You state in your statement that you've been through golden age and dark age alike. Which are we in now? (And why?)
 * A: The Golden Age belongs to the period of 2005, where Wikipedia saw its fastest rate of growth and isn't bogged down by daily drama and such. The Dark Ages refer to the year what SandyGeorgia describes as the "annus horribilis", where there is more infighting than to get things done here. Since then there has been new blood and some reform on ArbCom, we're out of the Dark Ages and hopefully heading for another Golden Age.

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?
 * 2) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * Highly important. Questions and doubts on cases, evidence or decisions should be responded to promptly.
 * Highly important for the drafting arbitrator, as he has to understand the case details fully. For other arbitrators, they should at least be aware on the ongoing at minimum.
 * This painful experience, in the recent years, have been aggravated by the combative nature and attacks even when it comes to posting evidence and working out details at the workshop. This has got to stop. Parties that do not behave should be barred from the case pages until they learn to behave, and make other parties experience much less of a misery. Of course, speeding up the case matter also helps not to leave the parties "hanging at a balance".
 * Cost-benefit analysis is already the reality when it comes to making decisions.
 * 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?

Question from NE2
Have you read War and Peace?
 * I'm afraid I have not. I'm sorry.

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) 22:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the community would have preferred that Jimbo be more of a hands-free approach, but I don't think the community should prohibit Jimbo to comment or participate like any other editor in discussions. I believe if left to the community to decide, they would probably have come to the same conclusion on paid editing. It is against COI, and is a recipe for future problems.

Question from kotra
In your candidate statement you mention your commitment to transparency. As my only knowledge of you as it relates to transparency is your participation in the current ArbCom election RFC, where you supported the secret voting method, could you elaborate (beyond your answer to Sam Blacketer's Q4) on how you are committed to transparency, if possible citing past examples and/or future intentions? -kotra (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I supported secret balloting for this election because I do not want to know who has opposed or supported, which might prejudice my judgment should I ever come across them in any future cases.
 * My commitment to transparency is a personal one, which can be derived from my actions, logs and correspondence on Wikipedia. In my course of my responsibilities, I have always assumed nothing to be truly secret. If for any reason my logs/actions/correspondence on Wikipedia that is previously private (to protect the privacy of others) become public for any reason, you will find nothing that will damage my personal integrity (other than the fact that any such public revelation would harm the privacy of others). If that ever happens and you need a clarification or explanation on any logs/actions/correspondence, I will be prepared to do so. Those that are already public, please feel free to go through them. Where possible, I've always asked for the matter to be 'on record' (especially for Oversight requests that I have dealt with).

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) * Regarding transparency, see kotra's Question. For objectivity, I would recuse on any cases if I have been involved in the matter in my personal capacity. I believe that these qualities are proven by my track record in my years of editing here.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) * Being relatively drama-free for the period of my editing experience, I think I would be able to identify the root of the issues and problems that might have otherwise been shrouded by drama. The ArbCom accepts cases with the view to solving the issues, the editors also have to play their part when they're undergoing a case, that is they should share this view along with ArbCom.
 * 5) * If the editors continue to mud-sling or are un-cooperative in the duration of a case and demonstrate the precise behaviour that they had been labelled for, there is nothing that I (say even with unlimited truckloads of good faith) can convince the other ArbCom members not to look upon them in a stereotypical manner if the editors cannot bring themselves to helping themselves.

Questions from LessHeard vanU

 * 1) a) With reference to your statement, what is this "new perspective" you feel you may bring to the ArbCom, why do you think it necessary that ArbCom should encompass it (other than to have more perspectives addressed), and why do you believe it has not previously been represented?
 * A: Most of the sitting arbitrators are based in Western societies. I hope that being an Asian, I hope to be able to view some matters in a different cultural perspective that may not have been previously considered by other arbitrators. Where there is a difficult dispute between Asian editors for instance, I would be able to understand the conflict better than where it might otherwise be much more harder to resolve without the necessary context.


 * 1) b) Leading from your answer, might I suggest that there is the possibility that your non Western viewpoint may incorporate bias' that result from a different perspective, rather than being a more informed or neutral observer of some situations (your bias' are different from other peoples bias')? Do you think that that is a fair comment, and do you think it may apply to you? Would you agree, instead, that there is unlikely to be a truly neutral viewpoint by any individual, and that by providing your input you would be tempering one institutional bias with one from another viewpoint - and this is not a bad thing ? (I would like to point out that by suggesting that everyone has their own bias' built around cultural conditioning, I am not saying that one bias is more worthy than another - simply that consensus arrived through the medium of a predominant cultural bias is not necessarily NPOV, but neither are the viewpoints that may come to a different conclusion arrived from a dissimilar culture.)
 * A: To the first question, the skeptic's reply would indeed be "What makes you think that the Western/current/majority viewpoint is any less biased and any more informed than the non-Western one resulting from a different perspective?" (as you had correctly pointed out, in the second set of parenthesis)
 * To reconcile this argument, indeed no individual is able to read the mind or perspective of another person, or to be able to imagine every possible view enough to be "absolutely" neutral. The best thing humans were able to do is to come together, have a collective opinion and find a form of equilibrium. In this sense, I am able to offer a new perspective to ArbCom as a new member from a less represented culture if elected. Of course things will eventually come to a full circle at the end of the year, where some of my ideas might be adopted as the institutional viewpoint, and then it would be time for the new arbitrators to revisit them. So yes, I think it is not a bad thing to have one viewpoint against another prevailing viewpoint; It's called diversity of ideas.
 * I didn't answer this question with the view on neutrality of perspectives; I thought you had asked more about the originality of perspectives. :o)
 * The original question was just that, regarding the originality of the noted perspective. Once you had explained that, I wished to investigate how aware you might be that neither the existing or your own perspective was necessarily "true", but an viewpoint to be argued from. It seems that you are, and I thank you for your answers.

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?
 * A: If the editor feels that a decision made against him/her is unfair, he/she should bring it to the attention of the community. There are many bad blocks/bans/etc that have been reversed this way. I do not believe that the community as a whole would be less than objective or neutral.

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"? Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A: I think it's not just a matter between US or UK editors; This website has editors coming from all over the world. Since you brought up TV in the UK as an example, let's illustrate it in the same way as well : BBC World News applies the most restrictive censorship on "bad language" for its programs (such as Top Gear) so as not to offend any cultures across the world. Therefore it is not just about US standards of civility, it is about standards from a global perspective that editors must respect.