Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/RMHED/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: Reasonableness.

(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: No. Can't, shan't, won't.

(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: I'd give 'em all a go, hell what's the worst that could happen?

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: Easily, as there is no such thing as the "community" on Wikipedia.

(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: Easy, just fill ArbCom with mouthy gobshites who don't give a fuck what others think.

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

(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: Fuck knows, if it looks interesting I'll give it a read.

(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: If an Arb is a participant in a case then they should be taken off the mailing list until the case is resolved.

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'd rather throw it over to the community mob to decide.

(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: Not enough, I'd favour automatic reconfirmation RfA's every 12 months.

(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: Oppose, let the mob have their sport.

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

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: If an administrator went on a killing spree and subsequently blamed their actions on Wikipedia warping their mind, I'd consider it prudent to desysop said admin. Is that specific enough?

(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'd favour leaving them a tersely worded message on their talk page. I might even go so far as being sarcastic. That'll learn 'em.

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: I have had direct experience of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, and like all committees it's only as good as its members. I'd compel all cases to be heard and decided on within 6 weeks. If the 6 week deadline is overrun then the case would be automatically dismissed, this should help focus minds.

(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: "The normal wiki process" now seems incapable of bringing about new policies or making any kind of meaningful change. Consensus is a road to nowhere in this regard, time to introduce straightforward majority voting for any policy changes.

(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: Whether someone is a "constructive editor" or not is dependent on your POV. ArbCom are human, they are fallible, they do their best. Some of their remedies and subsequent sanctions do tend towards the ambiguous, this is unfortunate as it often leads to further wrangling. Better to be more Draconian and precise, than lenient and vague. At least this way people know where they stand.

(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: Until someone comes up with something better, then ArbCom will have to suffice. Why? you ask, well compared to venues like RfC, AN or AN/I ArbCom is positively civilized.

(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: The only body on Wikipedia that currently offers anything like leadership is ArbCom. The WMF don't seem to know what leadership is, the "community" are incapable of decision and Jimmy Wales is to leadership as George Bush is to oratory. Wikipedia is a ship off course, the tiller needs to be manned, ArbCom need to step up and steer this sucker.

(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: Let the mob deal with content disputes, throw it open to a vote. ArbCom shouldn't be bothered with that kind of shit.

(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: Sure, topic ban the annoying fucks who don't get the hint.

(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: ArbCom should delete the Civility policy page, it's a nonsense.

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: Name & shame any lazy Arbs.

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: Not very.

(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: They were having a fucking laugh.

(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: Of course they are, any fuckwit can add content, hey it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

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: Sure, why not. He's probably back already and well on his way to being an admin again.

(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: Because outspoken females have historically always been persecuted. I'd have thrown it back to the mob for RfA reconfirmation.

(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: Bugger all, neither Bridey or Iri pose any kind of threat to da 'pedia.

(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: Nope, I'm not going to waste my time trawling through that steaming pile of shit.

(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: Seems reasonable to keep emails etc, private, unless permission is given otherwise.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * A: You must take responsibility for your actions.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * A: Legal threats are best just ignored as 99.9% of them are bluster, only if they are persistent should blocking happen.

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * A: Agree completely.

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: Agree, seems commonsensical.

(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: Seems like a reasonable decision.

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'd favour using really bad puns for case naming. A case name should only be changed if someone comes up with an even worse pun.

(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, far too lax. Delete all unreferenced BLP's for starters.

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A:Far too many to list, and I can't remember them all, though most were just throw-aways.

(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:(a) Impossible to say without case specific details. A:(b) Bans are largely a waste of time as they aren't realistically enforceable. Rather than desysop I'd prefer to throw it back to the mob for a reconfirmation RfA.

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

Question from Newyorkbrad
How about not doing this? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A: I really can't see why I shouldn't run. I may not have a hope in hell of being elected but surely it's the taking part that counts not the winning? Sitting and watching.

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?
 * A: Too long

(2) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * A:  No, they can attempt to enforce standards, though whether they are successful is another matter.

(3) 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?
 * A:  They sound like a future admin.

(4) 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?
 * A:  Ignore and smile.

(5) 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?
 * A:  If they prove an nuisance then block. 

(6) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * A: No

(7) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * A:  Revert one, two three and four, naughty, naughty the fourth is bad, slap on wrist and short block.

(8) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * A:  I don't, let some other jobsworth deal with that crap.

(9) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * A: Always, they are banned and therefore evil incarnate.

(10) 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.
 * A:  Chronic boredom?

b) Question removed (11) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * 1) Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
 * A:  There is no community, therefore no problem.

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

IRC Question from Hipocrite
Do you use any of the wikimedia related IRC channels? If you do, will you please permit any logs of your conversations to be posted, in full? Thanks.
 * A: I've never used IRC

Question from NE2
Have you read War and Peace?
 * A: No, even the movie bored me.

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.

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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
 * A:(a) Agree with the opt out of marginals. A:(b) Agree with default to delete, good luck getting a consensus for that though. A:(c) Agree with liberal semi protection. A:(d) Flagged Protection is far too weak, and largely a waste of time. A:(e) Flagged Revisions look more promising, I won't hold my breath though.
 * 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:(a) Policy A:(b) Yes, not far enough. A:(c)  Ideally the WMF would provide leadership in this regard, that they do not do so is telling and shows them to be moral cowards.
 * 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?
 * A: Agree, when it comes to any major policy or guideline change the consensus model doesn't now work. I'd favour outright majority voting for policy changes. The Secure Poll could be utilised or not, I don't think it would much matter.
 * 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?
 * A: I'm in favour of Flagged revisions and some version of it should happen, especially for BLP's. ArbCom has no direct role in this, though they could exert more influence. Delay is due to the lack of any clear consensus, a straightforward majority vote would settle this matter.
 * 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)
 * A:(a) Mostly, as the alternative would all but cripple Wikipedia. To go from one extreme to the other wouldn't work, some kind of interim process would be required. A:(b)  You could maybe implement a change where a new tier of users are created, those that edit under their real names. This new tier would have greater editing privileges as regards say BLP's. A:(c)  Deletion would be fine, oversight is probably too extreme in that kind of situation. A:(d) I wouldn't call it outing, though it is rather impolite. A:(e) In the very unlikely event of being elected I would identify myself. Yes all Arbs should reveal their real ID's. A:(f) Pseudonymity can never be guaranteed, anyone who thinks otherwise probably shouldn't edit Wikipedia. ArbCom can't reasonably be expected to do anything about loss of pseudonymity, too many variables to be remotely viable. A:(g) It all depends on the circumstances, generally someone is 'outed' because they have already revealed said information elsewhere on the internet. Whether on or off-Wiki is largely irrelevant, as the effect is the same. Ultimately if having your real life ID revealed horrifies you then the answer is simple: Don't edit Wikipedia!
 * 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?
 * A:(a) No, adult users should be aware of this anyway and minors should be under some parental control. A:(b) None, the sort of thing the WMF should be taking responsibility for is the content of Wikipedia. A:(c) None, if they fear stalking then don't edit. A:(d) Block and report to their ISP A:(e) Timespan, if the 'reviewing' goes on for weeks then I think it's safe to say it's 'stalking'. A:(f) Yes, tell them to stop whining, if they persist, block.
 * 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?
 * A: No, if the edits are good then leave them. To do anything else just makes Wikipedia look ridiculous.
 * 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:(a) No & yes. A:(b) No. A:(c) Wikipedia Review is rumbustious, if you have a fragile ego it's best avoided. I participate there and would encourage others to do so. A:(d) Very appropriate, those that condemn such sites probably shouldn't be admins. A:(e) Yes, I'm RMHED on Wikipedia Review. A:(f) It's been pretty stable for the last 12 months, due in part no doubt to the fact that some serious players now have Wikipedia Review accounts.
 * 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)?
 * A: Somewhat. Those that have made significant content contributions rather feel that they should be treated with a degree of indulgence. I have a certain amount of sympathy with this, it seems only fair. All users are not equal and nor should they be.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * A: Same as it was last year, Forest Green, it's restful.

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) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A: Jimmy Wales has made plenty of money out of his Wikipedia 'Founder' status, he doesn't give those speeches for free. Yet he objects to others doing similar by being paid to add legitimate content. No, paid editing isn't against policy, any such policy would be near impossible to enforce.

Question from Aqwis
Have you read Atlas Shrugged? --Aqwis (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A: No, I've not read any of Rand's books.

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?
 * A: Yes.


 * Also, as has been mentioned above, several editors have indicated some arbitrators become less active as regular contributors, either because of the "politics" or because of the demands on time. Do you anticipate being able to continue to function as an active content contributor while an arbitrator?
 * A: Yes.


 * 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've always been on the seamier side, so no problem there.

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?
 * A: I commit myself to impartiality, openness and always paying attention.

(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.''
 * A: I never "judge a book by its cover".

Questions from LinuxPirate
(1) Do you currently have a BLP article about your real life identity on Wikipedia?
 * A: MYOB

(2) What is the best Derek and Clive album and why?
 * A: They're all a fucking disgrace, it's that kind of foul-mouthed filth that has helped turn our society into the amoral shithole it is today.

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?
 * A: Very, to not do so is a dereliction and extremely rude.

(2) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * A: Extremely important to monitor the discussion page and highly desirable that some participation is forthcoming.

(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?
 * A: "one of the worst experience of one's life" you say, well I can only conclude that such a person must have led a very sheltered life. Try to retain a sense of perspective would be my advice.

(4) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * A: I find your solution overly simplistic. Ultimately it comes down to individual interpretation as to whether a contributor is an overall net positive or not, there is no simple formula that resolves this question.

(5)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?
 * A: Not really, I don't think it's ArbCom's job to 'soften the blow' via rather pointless findings that are in essence flummery.

Questions from Torkmann

 * 1) Have you ever seen the movie "Oldboy"? How do you think that relates to Wikipedia?
 * A: No, but the plot certainly sounds interesting. Disseminating ill-informed information really can fuck up lives.