Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Ruslik0/Questions for the candidate

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

Arbitrators' skills
(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. (UltraExactZZ)
 * A: I am familiar with only a few current or former arbitrators. Nevertheless I think that the most important quality is persistence—the ability to continue doing your job despite all adverse factors.

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)
 * A:I can point to this informal mediation, which was ultimately successful.

(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: If I am elected, I will certainly participate in A-C, which I consider to be the core ArbCom activities. I am unlikely to be involved in handling routine checkuser or oversight requests, though I may use the tools in some cases. I am likely to participate in one of subcommittees (Banned User subcommittee or Audit Subcommittee). I may also participate in other activities if I have time.

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:This should be decided on case by case basis. In my opinion, it is impossible to make a precise rule about what may be disclosed to the community and what should be kept confidential. When the information can not be fully disclosed, one of possible solutions is to provide a summary of the private evidence. Such a summary can preserve confidentially of private information, while allowing community to known basic facts.

(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of 'groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A:I do not think it is such a big problem in Wikipedia. People here communicate mostly via the internet. They usually do not know each other personally. 'groupthink' is a big problem only in the real world. I do not think there is a need to take special steps to avoid this problem in ArbCom.

(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? (Juliancolton)
 * A:I believe it is important. It would be incredibly boring for me to limit my participation in Wikipedia to only voting in arbitration cases without writing something about celestial bodies.

(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 expect a few thousands a month. I am probably too optimistic? How much I will read depends on the nature of this traffic, of course. Short e-mails will not be a big problem. Long essays are another matter. In the latter case it will be probably impossible for me to read everything. What is really important is to select the most important parts of long e-mails and read them thoroughly. I think I will be able to do this.

(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: Reading confidential materials is not problematic per se. It becomes a problem when the recused arbitrator uses this information to influence the outcome of the case. The recused arbitrator should refrain from participating in all case related discussions held in closed forums (like ArbCom Wiki or mailing lists). When making comments in open forums the arbitrator should avoid mentioning any facts known to him from the confidential sources. As to safeguards, it is probably impractical to revoke arbitrator's access to the confidential sources (at least in all cases), because it will adversely affect his/her participation in other cases. I think other arbitrators should firmly insist on recused arbitrator's compliance with the principles outlined above. This is, in fact, the best safeguard possible.

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: There should be only one process that handles all desysoppings. Having two competing processes will inevitably lead to conflicts. If community thinks that administrators should be desysopped by a some community process, then ArbCom should not handle desysoppings at all (except in emergency).

(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: According to this table the desysopping rate has been approximately constant over the last four years—about 10 per year. So, the current year is not unusual, and the number of desysopped administrators is about right, in my opinion.

(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: If you mean Mitchazenia (I am not aware of any other case), I do not think that this case created any precedent. The motion passed in the April specified that "he may regain his adminship via RFA, request to the arbitration committee, or request to a bureaucrat", which means that the loss of bit was not considered to have happened under controversial circumstances. As one arbitrator said "I'm inclined to consider the incident closed with Mitchazenia having voluntarily given up his adminship because of stress". So, it was, in fact, restoration of the adminship relinquished in good standing.

(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: If there has been no RFC or attempts of dispute resolution, how one can be sure that an administrator has actually lost trust of the community?

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I assume that by "without a prior ArbCom case" you mean that an administrator has never been admonished by the Committee. In such a case the desysopping is an appropriate remedy in cases where the admin tools have been repeatedly used by an administrator to advance their own position in a dispute or in cases of repeated wheel-warring.

(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: As I said in the answer to another question, what can you really do? You can not sanction everyone, and it is outside the remit of the Committee to enforce some kind of general moral law.

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 one idea. It would be reasonable, in my opinion, to divide the Committee into two permanent panels of 9 arbitrators each (assuming total 18 arbitrators). This would increase the throughput of the Committee and make cases more manageable. If the number of arbitrators is more than 9, it can be difficult for them to work effectively together.

(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:ArbCom should not create a new policy out of thin air. I, however, consider it is acceptable for the Committee to provide a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous policy, if it is necessary for resolution of a case. Community discussion can follow, but it is not a substitute for arbitration, which usually begins after all other methods of dispute resolution are exhausted. So, it may be quite meaningless to send the case back to the community for a clarification.

(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:This happens sometimes, but it is difficult to provide a simple recipe here.

(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: It is difficult for me to imagine how such a large project as English Wikipedia can function without an Arbitration Committee—it can descend into chaos very easily.

(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: I do not share such concerns. Advisory Council was intended (as I understand) to advise the Committee on the policy related matters. Still, the idea was quickly abandoned after the community objected. If the Committee is unable to create even such a purely decorative body, can it be considered too powerful?

(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: The resolution of content disputes requires familiarity with the subject. Since it is unlikely that arbitrators are familiar with everything, they are generally unlikely to be much of help.


 * Content policy can be different: BLP is also a content policy, but its violations are often sanctioned.

(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: I do not think this problem can be solved. Until such conflicts exist in the real world they will continue to spread to Wikipedia as well. The only thing the Committee can do is to try to resolve nationalist disputes in a timely manner and to quickly prevent the most prolific edit warriors from editing the disputed articles. Although after some time new edit warriors will appear.

(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 of course enforce civility on its own pages. As to desysopping, it depends on the level of incivility. In extreme cases it may be appropriate to desysop only based on incivility.
 * To what extent is incivility mitigated by the baiting? The defence of provocation is not something unheard of in the real world. So, in some circunstances it can be used.
 * See alos my answer to the first question of Sarah777.

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: See my answer to q. 3 of Piotrus.

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: Yes, it is important. Many disputes can be resolved without the Committee, and a community based solution is likely to be less stressful for the participants than an ArbCom case.

(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: Such bodies can be established by any group of editors. Arbitrators are not different.

(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: Many arbitrators had an extensive editing experience in the past. So, I think, this is should not be a problem.

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, I agree.

(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: I have great respect for all editors who were involved in this incident (especially Jennavecia), and feel uncomfortable unswerving this question. So, I will only say that what happened can not be changed, and it is better to put this matter to rest.

(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:What could the Arbitration Committee really do? They were likely not the only users who had known about Law/Undertow. And it is not possible to admonish/desysop/ban everyone. But it was important to draw a line under that incident. And this line was drawn at the three editors mentioned in the previous question.

(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). (Camaron)
 * A: I have been thinking about this question for some time, and have come to a conclusion that it is not possible to answer it. In 2009 (like in any other year) the Committee handled cases that were a way different from each other. I do not think one can compare such a complex case as Date Delinking with cases concerned with edit-warring over just one article. It is like comparing apples with oranges. I also do not know what criteria should be use to determine the successfulness of cases: the number of editors banned, desysoped or restricted?
 * Taking into account that ArbCom cases are often a stressful experience for all their participants, the most successful ArbCom case is in fact one that never reaches arbitration. Ruslik_ Zero 19:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007
 * A: I agree with this principle. Apart from being unethical, such a publication may violate the copyright of its author, because it has been never released under CC-BY-SA license. (Fair use does not apply to the texts that have been never published outside Wikipedia.)

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * A: I generally agree, although I would clarify that "actions" mean serious actions. As written it implies that if you can not explain why "word1" should be substituted for "word2" in an article, you should e-mail the Arbitration Committee.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * A: Agree. Editors should use the internal dispute resolution processes. If they want to resort to outside remedies they should stop editing.

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * A: I have no objections, although this principle will necessary have some limits. For instance, legal threats during a mediation will result in a block.

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: Outing does not serve any purpose related to building the Encyclopedia. Its only purpose is usually to embarrass another editor. So, I agree with this principle.

(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: I know that the Committee made this decision (to appoint more than three member in case of a close vote) before the elections. If this decision had been published before the elections, there would have been no problems. I think it was just an oversight.

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:Many cases have more than two parties. So, it is generally undesirable to single out two editors and name a case after them. Current naming convention is fine, in my opinion. The name of a case can be changed if, for instance, it is too long or if it is not sufficiently descriptive. Any change should be made after a consultation with parties.

(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: I think our BLP policy is fine. The problem actually lies in its enforcement or lack thereof. I mean that the problem can be solved only if the BLP policy is enforced, which means removal of all unsourced negative information in a timely manner.

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A: Apart from User:Ruslik0AWB I have never had any other accounts.

(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: This "lenient v. strict" is a wrong question to ask. What is really important is whether the proposed decision solves the problem. If a more lenient alternative is sufficient (in my opinion) I will vote for it. On the other hand if I feel that a case can be resolved only by a ban or desysopping I will vote for the ban or desysopping. ArbCom sanctions are not supposed to punish or inflict retribution, they are means to restore the normal editing environment. In summary, I want to say that I prefer workable solutions.

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

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 next question determines your ability to go through evidence. 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?
 * From brief reading the case pages, I can say that a few arbitrators had some doubts whether the case was within their jurisdiction. It looked more like a content dispute. This delayed the case, although the overall length of the case does not seem to have been excessive—only three months. Ruslik_ Zero 13:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * Any Wikiproject is only a loose association of editors. Such entities can not be reasonably expected to enforce any standards. On the other hands Wikiprojects with sticker requirements for participants were constantly rejected by the community. Ruslik_ Zero 13:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * 5) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * 6) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * 7) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * 8) 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) When the story was made public, do you believe that the editor you chose handled this situation properly in stepping down? Were they forthcoming enough with information?
 * 9) Tell me as much as you can about User:OrangeCounty39. You may refer to any page on the Internet except for other ArbCom candidates' replies to this question.
 * What can I tell you about User:Freewayguy? He was a strange editor. He liked to ask me various questions about Solar system bodies, especially about colors of planetary atmospheres. He did not create many problems for the Solar System Wikiproject, although this was the case for roads. He eventually was indef blocked because he used to make well intentioned but unhelpful edits to road articles, which often messed wiki syntax and other things (an example of 5 above). After that he created a few socks, which were also blocked. That is all that I can remember. Ruslik_ Zero 13:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

Questions from John Carter
These questions are being asked of all candidates.
 * 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?
 * Yes, I believe. I would not be running now, if I were not sure (at least to some degree). Ruslik_ Zero 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I will be able, although my activity will be lower. Ruslik_ Zero 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I really do not know. Ruslik_ Zero 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Kirill Lokshin

 * 1) Is the purpose of arbitration to resolve disputes, or to uphold policies and community norms?  To what extent can, or should, the Committee ignore policy if doing so allows a more effective resolution to a particular dispute?
 * ArbCom as any judicial body must not ignore law (policy). Although nothing prevents it from interpreting an (ambiguous) policy to be applied to a particular case. Interpretation can be quite creative, of course. Ruslik_ Zero 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How should the desire to be fair to every individual involved in arbitration be balanced with the need to expediently resolve disputes?
 * I do not see any contradiction between expedient resolution of disputes and individual fairnesses. Ruslik_ Zero 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) When presented with groups holding two competing visions of what Wikipedia ought to be, should the Committee strive to maintain a balance of power between the two sides, or espouse one in preference to the other?
 * The Committee should not consider such things at all. It should apply a policy to facts and make a decision in interest of Wikipedia. Ruslik_ Zero 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Should every infraction discovered in the course of an arbitration proceeding be sanctioned?  Why or why not?
 * No, I think this is impractical. The scope of each case should be defined from the beginning and not expanded without a good cause, because it may lead to delays. Ruslik_ Zero 11:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Why did arbitration decisions shift from individual, targeted sanctions, to general sanctions, and finally to discretionary sanctions?  How did this trend change the editing environment in affected areas, and to what extent have those changes benefitted the project?
 * I suppose that the intention was to minimize the negative effects of more stringent sanctions by allowing problematic editors to continue participating in the project. Although I do not know, whether this tactic has had any real impact on the editing environment, I have not conducted any research. Ruslik_ Zero 11:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Are admonishments, reminders, and warnings effective as arbitration remedies?  Why or why not?
 * It depends on editors, of course. For some they are effective, for some not. Ruslik_ Zero 11:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the shift away from informal decision-making and consensus and towards formal procedures and rules of order in the Committee's day-to-day business desireable?  Why or why not?
 * I think it was inevitable. It was just a sign of maturation of the project. Ruslik_ Zero 11:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) To what extent should individual arbitrators bear collective responsibility for the actions of the Committee as a whole?  Is it acceptable for an arbitrator to undermine a decision he or she disagrees with?
 * An arbitrator has a right to dissent from an opinion of the Committee. However they should exercise restraint in publicly criticizing Committee's decisions. For instance, an arbitrator may file a dissenting opinion in a particular case, but should generally refrain from starting critical discussions outside ArbCom pages.
 * 1) Arbitration has been described as mixing the characteristics of adversarial and inquisitorial systems.  To what extent is this correct?  To what extent is this desireable?
 * I do not think anything different is possible.
 * 1) Over the past several years, a number of cases (notably C68-FM-SV, Date delinking, and Scientology) have taken an extremely long time to resolve.  What are the primary causes of this, and how can they be addressed?
 * 2) Are the main systemic problems with arbitration a result of the Committee's failings, or consequences of the environment in which the Committee functions?
 * I am not sure that these systemic problems exist. I would say they are only perceived problems.

Good luck! Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * This is unlikely to solve the BLP problem. It will only serve to shift the discussion to a different question—Who is a marginally notable person? And what will we do if there is no consensus whether a person is marginally notable or notable non-marginally? Every article should be judged on it's own merits and the decision should made by the in Wiki editing community. Ruslik_ Zero 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * I am afraid but this will result in deletion of many articles that should not be deleted. Deletion discussions often suffer from the lack of participation, and "default to delete" may have serious negative consequences, including increase in the DRV workload. In addition, if the article is deleted as "no consensus", would it be acceptable to recreate it? Should recreated articles be deleted as G4? Ruslik_ Zero 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * I am more receptive to this approach, which can help in many cases. Ruslik_ Zero 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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
 * FR (or FP, I do not see any real difference between two) can help too, but will not solve all problems with BLP. Ruslik_ Zero 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * Of policy. Ruslik_ Zero 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * ArbCom mandated no new policy. Administrators had had a wide latitude in enforcing the BLP policy before that decision. The Committee only clarified how this should be done. I can not say that I disagree with that decision. Ruslik_ Zero 14:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * 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?
 * 2) 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 was one of coauthors of the proposal voted in the last January. I feel I have said enough. Ruslik_ Zero 14:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * 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)
 * I do not have any problem with anonymity or pseudo-anonymity. Of course, with anonymity comes (possible) outing. Editors should generally take care of this themselves. If they want to remain anonymous, they should avoid posting information that can lead to their identification, although historically the Wikipedia community has respected the wishes of the editors to remain anonymous and helped them to remove identifying information from Wikipedia pages. Ruslik_ Zero 14:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * 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?
 * You should understand that WMF has only a limited ability to help editors (and non editors) with their real life problems including stalking. What WMF can do is to help them remove sensitive information about them from WMF websites, although this may not help. In addition what WMF does is a matter for WMF to decide not for the Arbitration Committee of English Wikipedia. Ruslik_ Zero 12:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * As I know the "revert all edits" principle is only applied to banned editors (by community or by the Committee). Ruslik_ Zero 12:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * 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?
 * It is both impossible and undesirable to keep all discussions of Wikipedia on Wikipedia itself. Wikipadia was created as an open project. What is unacceptable, however, is using outside forums to coordinate questionable intra-Wiki activity.
 * I do not have any blog and such. As to Wikipedia Review, I sometimes read it, though I have never participated in discussions there (I do not have accounts on any criticism cites).
 * Is it appropriate for an editor to participate in such a site? Yes, it is generally appropriate, although I do not like when an editor says one thing here and another on an outside site. Ruslik_ Zero 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * I do not think so. Ruslik_ Zero 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Since I am a physicist my favorite color is near infrared light, especially K-band (2.2 μm). :-) Ruslik_ Zero 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * It is both impossible and undesirable to keep all discussions of Wikipedia on Wikipedia itself. Wikipadia was created as an open project. What is unacceptable, however, is using outside forums to coordinate questionable intra-Wiki activity.
 * I do not have any blog and such. As to Wikipedia Review, I sometimes read it, though I have never participated in discussions there (I do not have accounts on any criticism cites).
 * Is it appropriate for an editor to participate in such a site? Yes, it is generally appropriate, although I do not like when an editor says one thing here and another on an outside site. Ruslik_ Zero 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * I do not think so. Ruslik_ Zero 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Since I am a physicist my favorite color is near infrared light, especially K-band (2.2 μm). :-) Ruslik_ Zero 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * Since I am a physicist my favorite color is near infrared light, especially K-band (2.2 μm). :-) Ruslik_ Zero 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Avraham
Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 17:12, 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) Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
 * 4) How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?
 * There is a great difference between emergency and regular desysop. They can not be handled by one process. Ruslik_ Zero 09:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?
 * 2) What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
 * 3) What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
 * 4) Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
 * I have not noticed any change in the last 2 years. Ruslik_ Zero 09:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * No, I do not believe in this. Ruslik_ Zero 09:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 2) Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) 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?
 * 5) 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.

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?
 * Yes, it is important to reply to e-mails and talk page messages. I usually reply to all messages on my talk page (when a reply is actually needed). However, arbitrators should always keep in mind that they are arbitrators, not ordinary editors. They should maintain neutrality and avoid giving one party advantage over another by their replies. If they feel that they are asked to do something inappropriate they should politely decline, but they should formally answer to an e-mail or talk page message. In addition, if an e-mail is related to a case under consideration, it is probably better to discuss it in some open forum. Ruslik_ Zero 16:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * It is important for arbitrators to monitor the discussions, but participation is another matter. There are a lot of discussions in which arbitrators should not participate under any circumstances. Ruslik_ Zero 16:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In both my experience, and that of some other editors I talked to, being "grilled" at arbitration for weeks (or months) is "one of the worst experience of one's life" - and it doesn't matter if one is found innocent or guilty afterwards. Do you think that something can be done to make the experience of parties be less stressful?
 * There is no simple solution. ArbCom should probably better define the scope of each case and avoid expending it without a good cause. The limits on the amount of evidence presented by parties need to be better enforced as well (including removing of irrelevant items).
 * 1) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * Yes, I generally agree. Ruslik_ Zero 16:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) ArbCom commonly criticizes editors, publishing findings about their failings and remedies to correct them. While nobody disputes this is needed, do you think ArbCom should also try to clarify whether noted failings are exceptional, and accompany critical findings with positive reinforcement, such as here?

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.
 * I do not use IRC channels. Ruslik_ Zero 14:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from NE2
Have you read War and Peace?
 * Yes, I have. Ruslik_ Zero 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from FT2
1. Forgive me if this has been asked or answered elsewhere, and if it's private or sensitive please feel free to discuss by email.

Your statement says that you are a theoretical physicist. It also says that in various ways (separate to your abilities as an editor/admin) this would be an asset at Arbcom.

It occurs to me that anyone could make such a claim, as could any genuine scientist of unknown science community standing.

In general, if a candidate's candidacy is being significantly bolstered by a claim related to a real-life matter, do you feel they should identify themselves to the community or provide some means of verifying this, so people can form their own view on their real-world standing? FT2 (Talk 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to identify myself publicly. Ruslik_ Zero 08:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is more, should such candidates somehow (not necessarily publicly) expect to show that their claimed credentials are genuine, if they cite them in a high level election? For example evidencing them to WMF or the like, similar to identification in that it's non-public and confidential. I'm thinking of this case, where they didn't, and they weren't, for example. FT2 (Talk 14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WMF does not require (and will not accept) such evidence, and there is not any other formal process. So, at present I do not know what to do. Ruslik_ Zero 19:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was a difficult question, I hope you were okay with it. FT2 (Talk 17:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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) 22:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not want to answer the first question, because I want to keep my mind open, in case this ends up in arbitration.
 * The answer to the second question depends on the definition of "paid editing". Here I agree with Jimbo that this phrase may be "nearly meaningless". I, however, do not like when an editor sets up an internet shop with a fixed price list for their inWiki editing services. Ruslik_ Zero 10:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Second, if I asked them to describe why they answered that way, what would most of them say (this is an unlimited question, I'm hoping for a detailed answer).
 * Less experienced editors looking at the number of articles that I have deleted may come to a conclusion that I am a deletinist. More experienced editors will ignore this number as irrelevant and will ask me directly instead. Ruslik_ Zero 14:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Vecrumba

 * 1) What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?
 * 2) How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.
 * I have not been heavily involved in many protracted conflicts on Wikipedia. Therefore I hope that my view of them will be fresh and ameliorating. I do not have any special personal expectations and perspectives on these conflicts. Ruslik_ Zero 09:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from HarryAlffa
You apparently did not understand this question, what can you say to give the communbity confidence that you will be able to handle the complexities of ArbCom cases? HarryAlffa (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In the talk page you described this as, "The style is different from the rest of the page. It is written from the second person, while the page from the third". The page is and was written in the second-person narrative, and the contribution you reverted used the same voice, not different; how do you account for such faulty analysis? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Sarah777
1. A major concern of mine is the use/abuse of WP:CIVIL to silence editors by Admins who are often less than objective or neutral. Have you any concerns about the enforcement of WP:CIVIL?
 * I do not think that WP:CIVIL is abused to silence anybody (at least I do not know about this), but I have some concerns that sometimes administrators overreact to the specific words. What is important is the meaning, not the words. Impoliteness is not the same thing as incivility. Ruslik_ Zero 19:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * I do not agree that there is a general censorship of "bad language" on the US television. Television can be different: broadcast, cable, satellite etc. In the United States the censorship is only relevant for the broadcast TV, where indecent language is prohibited. These regulations, however, do not apply to other types of TV. On the other hand in Europe regulations often apply to both broadcast and cable TV, though they can be less strict than in US. So, the difference may be not so great on average.
 * This question is the first time I have heard that the US standards are being imposed on Wikipedians, if by the standards you mean the US broadcast regulations. I will oppose such imposition, although I am not sure that it is happening now. Ruslik_ Zero 09:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)