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

Note instead of judging me because of my prior history, can you judge me because of my answers to the questions if possible as health issues did play a role with my history. Also I'm going to be mostly away for the Thanksgiving holiday so a response to the answers might be slower than usual. I want to be treated like a regular top-quality candidate, so place as much questions as you can. Even if I don't succeed, I will place my experience to use either by becoming a clerk for the committee or a member of MEDCOM. Thanks Secret account 16:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC) =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: Patience. I selected patience because the committee has to work with some of the most notorious users on the project. Users that refuse to compromise, do personal attacks, have a biased or conflict of inflect on a subject, and they tend to transfer to the arbitration case and just abuse the committee. The committee has to show patience to these users in order to review the situation, read though the evidence, and settle the case as quietly as possible without any lasting implications.

(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: The three featured articles I wrote, though copyedited heavily by other users. But the truth is that while I could detect ambiguities and such in the text, my English grammar isn’t very strong, though it improved significantly since 2005-06. In fact, it may sound funny, but I learned how to write much better from working in Wikipedia continuously. So my English, while it’s concise, might need a quick copyedit or two. In that case I would let another member, especially someone who’s excellent in writing quickly check my work before submitting it.

(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 would do everything but coordinating the mailing list in (I). With (A), I feel better if a more experienced member of the committee help me guide to draft a case at first, so I could learn how to draft a case without any problems for the future. Once I feel I don’t need any guidance, I’ll constantly draft cases; especially ones that I feel are my specialty in the project. (B), (C), (D), (E), (F) and (J) I could do without a problem as I’m familiar with the policy. It’s the same with (G) and (H), as I have some technical understanding on how to use these tools. I’ll do everything in (I) with the exception of coordinating the mailing list, while I’ll join the list and participate, I’m inexperienced with coordinating emails.

Challenges of being an arbitrator
(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: I’m not a fan of these private mailing lists. I feel that most information should be mentioned on Wikipedia for the community to discuss. But there is a need of these lists for confidential information which just can’t be mentioned on Wikipedia for ethical, legal, and privacy concerns. I would try to promote more communication between the community and the committee, and make less use for the mailing list and the private wiki. But when the Committee do need to discuss something on the private mailing list, I’ll just tell the community that we are dealing with private information, and it can’t be discussed any further. Secret account 16:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of 'groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: I don’t believe groupthink is a problem in this project, and especially in the committee. Every member of the committee has their own point of view. Also Wikipedia, including the committee works with consensus, so a little bit of groupthink is a must if we want to achieve our goals faster. Secret account 16:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? (Juliancolton)
 * A:I noticed that as well. Yes I feel it’s important to maintain some level of article contributions as an arbitrator. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. Also almost all of our policies are based for articles, and we need to edit mainspace in order to grasp these policies. If I’m elected, I will try to form a requirement number of mainspace edits every year, at least 500 edits, in order to stay as a member of the committee. Many of our policies are based on articles, and we need to edit mainspace in order to understand our policies and to connect with the community. While most of the arbitrators’ time will be spent on committee related projects, 500 edits are reasonable enough to contribute to this project without losing any variable time. Secret account 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic do you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? (Tznkai)
 * A: I’m not a member of any mailing lists as I never grasped the concept of it. I also find them occasionally off-topic and irrelevant towards an average editor like myself as well. If I get elected, I do anticipate heavy traffic on each mailing list, and I’ll read as much as my time would allow it. But I won’t read as much as other users though, because I rather do some mainspace contributions than participate in private mailing lists, unless it’s really necessary for a case. The most I’ll participate is checkuser-l and oversight-l. Secret account 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? (EdChem)
 * A: I see no reason why an arbitrator shouldn’t be reading this information. As long the arbitrator doesn’t use the information on-wiki, I think it’s rather useful for the editor to read those emails. He can correct certain facts of the case to the committee, as being a participant, but he shouldn’t use his influence to affect the case outcome. If he uses the information inappropriately, then that’s a conflect of interest, and the member should be sanctioned, and depending the situation, removal from the committee seems the most appropriate. Unfortunately these logs get leaked, (like circumstances behind the User:JoshuaZ desysopping, which was leaked to the Wikipedia Review) and it’s hard to find out who leaks them unless it's obvious. Secret account 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom and admins
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? (LessHeard vanU)
 * A: With reviewing administrator actions that may have breached policy, we already have the proper steps for that which includes the administrator noticeboards, RFC, etc. If the community can’t settle the problem, then it should go to ArbCom. As for (b) I’m strongly against any community-based process other than  Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall because I feel the potential of one of these process could be abused, I could think of many outstanding administrators that other editors doesn’t like for one reason or another, and would be desysopped if there is such a plan for mandatory administrator recall, etc. We can’t lose more administrators than we already have. I highly respect those in the Recall category though, but unfortunately I feel that it’s flawed because it’s not mandatory for a administrator to be recalled to step down, as we saw with Ryulong.  Secret account 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? (Davewild)
 * A: I think that ArbCom desysopped the right amount of administrators over the past year, I could think of one or two that should have been desysopped (won’t say who because I don’t want to start problems) and one or two that was desysopped but should have kept the tools, but with a extremely strong admonishment User:GlassCobra and User:MZMcBride, but other than that it seems fine, as they clearly abused the tools. Secret account 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? (Finn Casey)
 * A: Depends on the circumstances. I would generally oppose the recent practice of letting administrators regain their tools without community approval, as ArbCom desysopped those users in the first place and they need to regain the community trust. But in circumstances in which the Committee specified that the editor needs to go back to the Committee to regain the tools, or in circumstances in which the administrator was desysopped for private reasons, then it’s proper for the committee to re-grant the tools. Secret account 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? (Majorly)
 * A: I wouldn’t consider a case, unless the allegations of the administrator was so serious, we just can’t ignore the situation like wheel warring. Most of the time the issue can be resolved on its own on RFC or WP:AN/I. If the situation wasn’t resolved, of course the case needs to be sent to ArbCom. Secret account 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Circumstances that I would consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case includes wheel warring, abusive sockpupperty or sock of banned user, cases which is clear that the account has been hijacked with massive blocking and deletions, severe harassment and outing, basically any action that highly damages the reputation of the encyclopedia. Most of the time a steward would immediately desysop the editor, and Arbitration Committee doesn’t have to get involved, unless it was requested under Jimbo, which was the case with some of the massive wheel warning of the past. Secret account 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? (Od Mishehu)
 * A: I would recommend a strong admonishment of the editors involved, including the administrators, with a removal of the tools depending on the circumstances, and who was the banned user in question. My answer to #28 and #29 is a bit different because of the circumstances. Who knows how many administrators knew Law was The_underdow, and it would be unconstructive to admonish or desysop many different people. Secret account 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom's role and structure
(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? (Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A: I don’t have much of a opinion in this area. I’m not planning to make any serious changes on ArbCom until I find out the problems internally, which you could only find out if you are a member. But I will do a few minor changes. Most importantly I would split the Ban Appeals Subcommittee from ArbCom entirely. I feel it’s undemocratic for one body to be the judge, jury, executioner, and the appeals committee. Let the appeals committee be independent from ArbCom. Secret account 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? (Davewild)
 * A: I agree. ArbCom shouldn’t be creating, amending, or abolishing policy. ArbCom doesn’t create consensus, the community does, the only thing ArbCom could do is help guide the process. Secret account 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? (Kotniski)
 * A: I agree that sometimes these cases to divert vast of amount of editors time for no reason, but it’s not fully ArbCom fault. What I would do is that I’ll instruct the clerks to be more active in order for editors not to overburden the evidence pages. That way it would make the Committee make better decisions that everyone would agree upon. Secret account 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? (Camaron/Majorly)
 * A: I accept the view that the English Wikipedia needs a Arbitration Committee. The project is three times as big as the next largest Wikipedia, and it’s also the highest-profile. Trolls or Editors with a radical point of view can come to this wiki because they know the community is much larger than the rest. Disputes can become too complicated to be handled by the general community. Especially some of the larger disputes in which many editors get involved and it’s difficult to solve, or when wheelwaring plays a factor. That’s why Jimbo created the Committee as the last step of the dispute resolution process. There are just cases that the community can’t solve by itself, or will needs the guidance of more experienced editors, which the members of the committee typically are. Secret account 22:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? (Camaron)
 * A: I don’t agree with them, but I understand where all the criticism comes from. Everyone agrees that the Arbritation Committee tries to do what’s best for the project, but how they are trying to solve it with these special committees wasn’t the way to do it. It has nothing to do with the power of the committee. I believe that the Advisory Committee was an excellent idea, but had its major faults. Wikipedia was (and still is) becoming more inactive, and we needed to solve the problems before it got worse. I’m sure that the Arbitration Committee noticed that problem, and thought that Committee was the best solution to solve it. But I felt that there needed to be some community discussion first, especially for which users to invite or not. That managed to build a sense of unnecessary bureaucracy and power to a select number of users, and that’s why it became so unpopular with general users. The BLP Special Enforcement log was obviously needed for ethical reasons, though it didn’t become popular because it was a duplicate of WP:BLPN but with sanctions if the article becomes way too problematic. It makes sense if the Committee wants to create a new subcommittee to help the project, try to find consensus first. I would clearly do that if I become elected, helps take away unnecessary drama on ideas that benefits the project. Secret account 23:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can the committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? (Heimstern)
 * A: I’ll usually deny cases in which it’s a clear content dispute, as it’s out of ArbCom scope. It has several noticeboards that deals with content disputes without much conflict.  If we do take cases of content disputes, it’s because of the behavior of all parties involved. During the case I believe that ArbCom could aid in these content disputes by giving sanctions and explain the policy these users had violated. But we shouldn’t sanction users for repeated content violations unless they were warned beforehand. As for the committee establishing procedures question, I’ll say no. It’s better to give discretionary sanctions or send it to MedCom first. MedCom was created to try to find a solution to these long-term content disputes. If MedCom can’t handle the dispute, then the committee should take the case. Secret account 23:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how? (Heimstern)
 * A: I agree that this a serious problem for Wikipedia. These nationalists come to the project because Wikipedia is too weak do handle this situation. First of all many of the articles they target are articles that not many English-speaking editors are interested in, like the Albanian disputes. This makes articles very unstable, and sometimes unreadable, with few experienced editors editing them. The best way to solve this solution is by watchlisting articles that are the focus point of these disputes, and reverting any information that seems biased. Like Moreschi said, it’s relatively easy to find these editors. Once reverting them, lead them to our policies, and if they still refuse to listen, just block them, we don’t need these contributors. I’m all for more sanctions such as bans and topic restrictions on these editors. That way we could prevent nationalism to gain a strong foothold. But I rather take it to the community first; they are smart enough to handle this problem without the need of the Arbitration Committee. Secret account 23:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? (Heimstern)
 * A:

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: First I would set up an schedule for all the cases to be done. Some cases drag on for weeks because the case goes to ArbCom, then it’s ignored by the parties, making it difficult for the Committee to work on the case. With a timed schedule, it makes all the parties involved work harder to find a solution. I wouldn’t make it less than two weeks a case, because other cases will be going on, and details may be missed because the Committee has to go on a certain speed. With cases that are clearly ignored by the parties, the committee should just resend it back to the community, and close the case. I would also pay close attention to every detail in the case. Sometimes cases tend to drag for months because of lack of detail. Some concepts that may seem unimportant to the arbitrator can be ignored, and forgotten, and that affects the case. I’ll make sure I’ll read every bit of information before making a decision on a case. Secret account 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: I believe that the community should try to resolve the issues first before sending it to the community. 99% of the time, anything could be settled by the community. ArbCom should only be used if the community can’t handle the situation, and it’s a last resort situation. I would reject every case that other processes of the dispute resolution weren’t used unless it’s an emergency, like administrators wheel warring. Secret account 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: See my answer to number #19 on my stand of the Advisory Council. Secret account 01:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months. Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Also see my answer to question #6, which is similar. It’s sad that is the case, and I agree that there should be more encyclopedia editing for members. But the Committee is hard, time-consuming work and a member needs to sacrifice some editing in order to make careful decisions each case dedicates.  The editors elected to the Arbitration Committee have plenty of mainspace editing experience, and most of the cases use that knowledge.  And the members of the committee are aware of what is going on in the community. So yea I feel they are qualified to judge conduct disputes as long as they keep in touch with the community. Secret account 13:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making
(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: I wouldn't have banned Law/undertow, as he was a highly productive editor, but he wasn't perfect, and that many trusted administrators knew that Law was The_Undertow proves the fact. I would have agreed with FloNight there, blocks/banned are only used to keep the project from further harm, and he caused no harm, other than the socking. I would have removed the tools, limit him to one account, and maybe place him on probation. But I wasn’t fully aware of the situation what got The_underdow banned on the first place, because most of the discussion was on the private mailing list. Secret account 17:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: It's because Jennavecia decided to remove her tools while all this was going on, and Jayron32 didn't, which is clear "leaving under circumstances". Also Jayron knew his mistake and apologized, while Jennavecia didn't know the circumstances of the situation until it was too late. Remember the community (at least the ones who didn't know Law was the_undertow) was completely fooled by this. So many people knew Law was The_underdow that punishing one editor wouldn't had make much of a difference, and would have likely caused the departure of the contributor, which isn't productive. There was no tool abuse involved, just a trust issue. Admonishment was proper in this situation.

(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: Too many editors knew. The Committee couldn't just admonish/desysop everyone in this case. Because Iridescent removed her tools under non-controversial circumstances, she's free to get the tools at any time. It's out of their scope, it's a trust issue that should have been settled in WP:AN or something like that. Secret account 17:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). (Camaron)
 * A: * Requests for arbitration/Scientology being a high-profile case in a high-profile subject. While it did take a long-time, almost six months, because of all the remedies I don't see how the Committee could have shortened the situation. I also liked the result of the Prem Rawat case, as I remembered there was tons of edit wars, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV violations for years on that subject. I remembered I had to do several 3rr blocks on editors involved edit warring with the article. The first RFAr failed miserably, but ever since the second case, there hardly been any problem. The only unfortunate exception to this case was the demise of User:Jossi, once a editor who I highly respected, but sock puppetry was exposed, and he became banned eventually because of the Rawat, and Scientology cases. Requests for arbitration/Date delinking was another highly successful case which ended massive edit warring over a rather trivial thing, even though a few of the restrictions, like the topic ban for User:Tony1 was too strict in my opinion, and a 1rr rule would have been sufficient.


 * For the least successful case, the Committee did a decent job this year, (compared to years before with unpopular cases such as MONGO) and we can't find out the implications of a case for years unless it's pretty obvious. I didn’t like the close of the MZMcBride case (though I would have clearly recued as a party, because one of the main reasons it went to ArbCom in the first place was because of his deletions of “secret pages”, which he used a controversial MFD I closed on it as the consensus). I felt that MZMcBride found out what he did wrong, and wanted to repent, but they were just treating him harshly. He should have kept the tools with the caveats of not doing any more automatic bot edits. I gladly supported his RFA later on.

(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: It's common sense, private correspondence is supposed to be private. If you release emails or chat logs, you are looking for drama and we want to avoid that. Copyright is also a concern.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * A: I agree, if an editor does something in which other editors might perceive as controversial, they must discuss it in a timely matter. It should be mentioned on WP:AN or WP:AN/I, and let it be open to criticism. But it's better to develop consensus first before doing it, because if someone is trolling around, other editors will take notice and endorse the planned action.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * A: Agree, people tend to perceive stuff all the time, especially something serious like a legal threat and will cause less drama.

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * A: I agree with the principle of the case, that mediation is a privilege, and that communication should be open and shouldn’t be used for evidence. But if the communication between the parties is highly worrisome, loaded with personal attacks and refusal to compromise, or an editor admits sock puppetry then I believe it needs to be mentioned if it helps the case. I would have worded it differently.

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: I would have supported this principle. If an editor exposes their name in private, it’s unfortunately their problem, as I learned the hard way. But the name shouldn't be used to research private information about the user, as that becomes outing, and grounds for a ban. Also the name and such shouldn’t be used for grudges against the editor.

(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: MBisanz is a highly trusted and variable member of the community, and I trust his judgment. And because the vote was so close, it seems only fair to elect an alternative fourth member.

Other issues
(33) Originally RfARs were named in the style of "Party X v. Party Y", in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? Under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in ? (MBisanz)
 * A: The most appropriate naming convention is the one that is most convenient, and most relates to the topic. The original naming convention was too conflictive, as it sounded like one of these parties will win and one will lose, so it’s easy to decline it. If it deals with an individual user or two users, it’s appropriate to list the users for the title, as it’s about them. If it’s dealing with multiple users or a certain subject (like highways), the subject the users are dealing with is most appropriate. As for circumstances in which a case name should be changed after opening, it’s only the case when it’s proven that the subject has little to do with the case. Like in Zeraeph, SandyGeorgia name was originally listed on the case. But it was proven that SandyGeorgia didn’t do anything other than opening the case against Zeraeph, and her name was rightfully removed from the case. It was a mistake for ArbCom as they should have known beforehand that SandyGeorgia has little to do with this situation. If they did their research from the beginning, the case name would have just been for Zeraeph. Secret account 00:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A:Personally, I feel that the current WP:BLP policy is way too lenient. While it explains that articles must be held to rigorist sourcing, it doesn’t fully explain what rigorist sourcing is. I feel because of ethical concerns, that we should delete all articles on marginally notable people, especially when the subject asks for the deletion. We also need to set a timeframe to find reliable sourcing for unreferenced BLPs, 60 days is enough time for sourcing to be found. To protect BLP further, some form of flagged reversions must be introduced. We need to show the harshest punishment for blatant violators, to show how serious we deal with BLPs. I also feel that BLP should qualify for companies, products, and recently deceased people. Remember living people owns them, and they qualify for WP:BLP. Same with relatives. WP:COI must be dealt with in a reasonable manner, which includes reversion or deletion, because these subjects tend to place positive information, and want nothing negative spoken about them, no matter how reliable is the sourcing. Our policy on people only known for one event is good, but constantly ignored.

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A: – Main account until the Mzoli’s Meats incident, which I apologized (I misunderstood a comment Jimbo said, deleted the article, but I was under tremendous family stress and in poor health at the time, and I soon apologized, but the account was locked for good as I removed the email capability and purged the password).  – similar circumstance, had a spam filter with my Wikipedia emails, back in 2006 because of vandalism emails, couldn’t remove the filter, managed to get the Jaranda account back via a developer.  is my public account,  was the account I started out with before changing my username to  and I started out in 2005 as  before changing usernames to Jaranda. I also edit from a 147.xx.xxx Ip address, which is the IP address for Miami Dade College when I’m logged out.

(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:

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

Question by Wehwalt
I'm a candidate, but I expect to be voting for other people, so welcome to the race. You had only 13 edits in the six months May-October 2009. How do we know that you have, as you put it, kept up on things?


 * I had been around the project. I also have a number of edits in and a couple of IP addresses from Miami Dade College computers, most notably  during that time span. It is well over 100 edits, but several of the IP addresses I used are hard to track. The main reason I became inactive during most of 2009 was because of continuing harassment of the gwarp vandal. I was one of its primary targets, creating countless vandalistic usernames with my personal information on it, since oversighted. I have a highly libelous article about me, written by the vandal in the Encyclopedia Dramatica. It contains most of my personal information, including my old telephone number, most of my accounts, and my emails, among other stuff. I tried to ignore it. I requested desysopping back in January 2009 because of I was taking some difficult math courses. But I was still editing until April when my Facebook account got hacked by some Encyclopedia Dramatica trolls. I don’t know how it was hacked, as my password was extremely strong (my mother’s Social Security Number). I decided that this harassment was enough, especially after someone vandalized my user talk page with Encyclopedia Dramatica links, and the vandalism was left for a week before I had to revert it (the original edit was oversighted), and the user got welcomed by User:A_Nobody after the vandalism can only be seen by administrators. I don’t know what any other editor would have done in my circumstances. Still while I was “gone”, I was on Wikipedia almost every day (I don’t really edit on weekends because of work), read what was going on in Arbcom, WP:AN/I, WP:AN, and WP:SIGNPOST, and also the Wikipedia Review. I really wanted to come back to active editing, but I didn’t want risk any more harassment. Once I heard that Jaraxle managed to leave the project, I felt it was time for me to come back to active contributions. Also health concerns played a major factor with my “instability”. I had plenty of family drama at home, which included the illness of a major family member, and I edited with heavy stress at times. It’s rather personal but if anyone is willing to email me, I will explain the situation if I feel that you are trustworthy. Right now I’m taking medication for my stress, and I never felt any better. I feel that with my experience, I could be a net positive for the Arbitration Committee, and I could handle the stress it comes with it. And also I don't want people to go though what I been though. Thanks Secret account 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754
Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.

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

I felt that it took too long for that case to finish. Over four months is way too much. Wikiprojects can’t trump our core policies in Wikipedia, but they can be quite a help to make our encyclopedia better. I believe that Wikiprojects can enforce standards to articles, if the relevant Wikipedia policy is unclear on the situation, such as article layout. They can also understand policies better with articles related to their subject, as editors of these projects can be considered experts of the subject. If the user is ignoring consensus, and has no productive edits to articles, the best thing to do is to mention it in WP:AN/I and discuss with the user in his user talk page, saying to stop with his behavior or risk a block. If that doesn’t work, a block must be considered. I would first block for a few days, to check if he gets the picture, and maybe make him a helpful contributor. If that doesn’t work, I guess he’s on the project for some sort of agenda, and block him indef. I was one of the editors who highly endorsed User:Kmweber ban back in 2008 because of the same circumstances you explained. But Kmweber didn’t contribute much to articles, thus why I supported the ban. If the user doesn’t do nothing but the circumstances explained, the user can be considered as a WP:TROLL and can be blocked. If the user is helpful with articles though, it needs to be discussed via WP:AN/I or a WP:RFC can be in order. If that doesn’t work, then it must be send to the committee. I would try to communicate with the editor, and explain what he is doing wrong. I would fix his edits, and if I see potential in the editor, I’ll be willing to tutor him. If he doesn’t understand English, I would either look for an editor who understands his language, or lead him to the right Wikipedia. If he still damaging the project, a block might be in order, but I would only use it as a last resort. The circumstances can lead to a community ban if the editor doesn’t reform themselves, and contribute positively to the encyclopedia. It would have to be discussed by the community though, especially the first two circumstances. An indefinite block is more likely for #3 and #5 though. The three revert rule is a destructive form of revert warning in which an editor made three or more reverts to an article within a 24 hour period. Vandalism and WP:BLP violations are exempt from the three revert rule. It should be enforced with a warning that you have violated, or is close to violating the rule. If the editor ignores your warning, then a block is in order, from 24 hours for a first offense to a week or more for multiple offenses. If the username is clearly provocative, or a clear impersonation of another editor I would block on sight. But if it’s borderline, I would look at their edits closely. If the editing is unconstructive, or promoting a company I would block on sight. But if they have some constructive edits, I would politely ask them that their username can be considered by some as potentially provocative and to lead then to WP:CHU I don’t believe every edit should be reverted for a banned user. But if the edit is unconstructive, editing a subject from which he was banned from, or isn’t on mainspace, it should be reverted on sight. If the edit is something that helps the encyclopedia, like fixing a typo, there is no point to revert an edit that’s going to be fixed later. User:Casliber because of the unfortunate Law/The Undertow fiasco. Casliber was one of our most productive members of ArbCom, but he was one of the apparently many editors who knew that the underdow was Law, which was a breach of trust. But Casliber realized his mistake, stepped down quietly from the committee and community regained their trust on Casliber. I know why the rest of the other members stepped down, but I don’t want to discuss further. There are quite a few problems with the Wikipedia community. But the most important problem in the community we are facing is a sudden lack of good contributors. Many of our most valued contributors left the project because they grew dissatisfied with the project. Unfortunately the project treats our article writers and experts like crap, there’s hardly a decent policy to deal with harassment, and consensus can’t be formed on anything. WP:RFA wasn’t this dead since 2004. We need to develop a system to bring back these contributors, and to bring new editors for the project. I don’t believe WP:NOOB is the solution, it needs to be discussed further, and I feel like the Arbitration Committee can lead the way, with the community support. Secret account 03:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 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?
 * 1) There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?
 * 1) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they do not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * 1) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * 1) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * 1) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * 1) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * 1) During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. b) Question removed
 * 1) Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
 * 2) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

Read my answer to NuclearWarfare question (34) on my stance to BLP, I believe its way too lenient right now.
 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * I agree with this decision. I feel all marginally notable BLPs should be deleted anyways, and it’s clearer if they want their article to be deleted. But a process needs to be formed to determine if the subject is marginally notable or not, as one editor can’t make the opinion, and AFD will be overloaded that articles won’t get evaluated properly.
 * 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.
 * It depends on the circumstances. In my history of closing AFDs, I deal with no consensus AFDs all the time and I tend to delete articles that weren’t improved in AFD. I agree in general that if a BLP is a no consensus, it should default to delete. But there has been several times which I closed a no consensus AFD because the article had a bunch of delete comments at first, and was significantly improved by an editor, but there wasn’t enough time to change opinions on the article. That seems like it’s the only appropriate way to keep a no consensus BLP. I believe it should also be the same for websites, and companies, as they are managed by living people.
 * 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 occurrence and 1 year for repeats)
 * Most high-profile BLPs get that treatment anyways with little controversy. I strongly agree with that process, and I’m pretty sure most other editors will.
 * 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
 * I’ll combine my answer with d) and e). I feel that Flagged Protection might be a bit confusing to newer users, but if it’s to protect BLPs, I’ll endorse it. I endorsed Flagged Revisions when it was first placed in front of the community. I feel while it’s a bit unwikilike, it makes the encyclopedia feel more accurate and higher-quality because most of the information would be checked for misinformation first. Also takes away any libel concerns.


 * 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?
 * WP:BLP is policy, so most of what was asked was a question of policy. But with the questions on the Flagged Revisions and Protection I’ll say it’s more of a content based decision, and community consensus needs to be formed before implementing. ArbCom can guide and enforce policies on BLP, but can’t set it, and they should not have anything to do with the Flagged policies. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?


 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * I wouldn’t do anything for ArbCom to lead these guidelines. I would make the community decide what to do with the BLP issue
 * 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?


 * 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?
 * 2) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * I support this principle. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone could edit. If we remove the principle of anonymity, we wouldn’t be where we are today. Many of our most valued contributors are still anonymous, and I doubt they would have come to the project for several concerns. Some of these editors can’t be anonymous because they are college students or professors and editing is frowned upon by their colleagues. Others are underage and needs to edit privately. Also I personally doubt many users would go to the process of identifying yourself to do minor edits for articles. Citizendium, while it had some following with intellectuals, failed because editors just wouldn’t identify themselves. But I agree that if you are running for a higher level position, like the Arbitration Committee or checkuser you need to identify to the Foundation. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * * Not applicable in this situation. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * The project can’t do much if someone previously disclosed their real identity. Once they disclosed their personal information, it is public. That happened in my situation with outing. I let my name become public, and eventually I got harassed and ousted with more personal information. The only choice we can do is to respect their wishes, try to delete information that contains the personal information, even oversight if necessary, and warn the user that there’s still potential that the information can be used against you. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * The project can’t do much if someone previously disclosed their real identity. Once they disclosed their personal information, it is public. That happened in my situation with outing. I let my name become public, and eventually I got harassed and ousted with more personal information. The only choice we can do is to respect their wishes, try to delete information that contains the personal information, even oversight if necessary, and warn the user that there’s still potential that the information can be used against you. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?


 * It depends on the circumstances. If a user decided to reveal their identity via a website like the Wikipedia Review, it’s their fault for making their real identity easy to find to a place where there is a bunch of wikipedians and won’t be consider as ousting. But if they disclosed their identity via email or with facebook, etc and then another user reveals their identity on Wikipedia without their consent, it is considered as ousting, no questions asked.
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from last year in that it's more extensive)
 * I was somewhat pseudonymous, but I confirmed my identity. I never told anyone that Aranda was my last name though, and I never gave my date of birth, or links to anything personal like my facebook page. My identity is well-known, but for the wrong reasons.  But I feel that all Arbitrators should openly acknowledge their real identity for ethical reasons. It also prevents drama from forming, if they would have acknowledge their identify, we would have never had the User:Sam Blackster drama, as his previous username was openly acknowledged beforehand. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * 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)
 * Sanctions is appropriate in this situation, preferably a ban. Ousting is a serious matter that can’t be ignored. If we give a user a weak sanction, it lets other users encourage outing of editors. It doesn’t matter if it’s on or off wiki, ousting can be used in catastrophic ways if it’s released to the public, like the potential for stalking. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?


 * 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?
 * See my response to Rschen question #9, which is similar. I don’t support a “revert all edits” principle. I’ll only support it if the editing is considered as disruptive, or if it’s a banned user editing non-mainspace. There are many good edits that problematic editors still do, User:Archtransit was a sock of a banned user that wrote an FA. We won’t delete the FA because the user is banned, it’s unconstructive.  As for run of the mill editors, same situation, but they are usually not blocked and it’s bad faith to remove any comments they made. If I see something worrisome, I rather do a specific summary behind each edit I revert unless it’s obvious. For example I reverted all of  the other day with rollback because his only edits were similar to a single-purpose account and were disruptive (removing PoV tags from random articles with no discussion). But if it’s not disruptive, it should be removed manually. Secret account 22:08, 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?
 * I prefer that all discussion of Wikipedia remain on Wikipedia, but it’s acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia. It’s acceptable especially if the user could have the chance to defend themselves, or if the criticism is public, like the Wikipedia Review. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * * I don’t have a blog for making outside comments about Wikipedia. I’m not a blog-type of person first of all. I also don’t like talking unconstructively about anything offline, or in a private website if another editor can’t defend themselves. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * I have an account on Wikipedia Review with over 100 posts. Many times it’s an excellent source for criticism, a place where an editor can freely discuss what’s wrong with Wikipedia without going through the consequences of the community. Also it’s interesting to read the point of view from the banned editors who participate here, while biased for obvious reasons, they bring a unique perspective, especially when discussing BLPs. I avoid and strongly discourage the sections that are related to the outing and harassment of other editors. I also avoid the editors section because it’s loaded with biased information. As for Wikback, I felt it was an excellent idea, because Wikipedia Review was still known for biased criticism and I joined right after opening. But I was mostly idle during the time the website failed. Right now the site is down, so I can’t research the subject further. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * I feel it’s appropriate for all sorts of editors to participate in an outside criticism website, as long as you don’t disclose any private information. I feel that editors have a better understanding of what’s going on behind-the-scenes if you participate in those websites. For some reason editors are afraid to discuss criticism on Wiki. You see it all the time, but it’s so loosely disorganized that you can’t comprehend the discussion most of the times. With an outside criticism website, the issue is more organized, because it’s on a forum based format, instead of a noticeboard. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * I do have an account (see question d). As for someone using an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a website, I don’t think it’s a problem unless they abuse the system by releasing highly confidential information. I personally prefer someone to use their Wikipedia username to these criticism websites, but we can’t enforce it, and privacy can play a factor. As for arbitrators that have a secret account, I feel it is ousting because they want to keep the account private. But if the arbitrator uses the account for illegal reasons, like ousting editors, or releasing the private mailing list and it was exposed, I wouldn’t support a sanction to whoever exposes it. It was likely released because of good faith, and while it could be considered ousting, we need to WP:IAR in that circumstances. It’s like the Zoe/ RickK situation last year in which it is assumed that it’s likely the same person under both accounts, and the password (which was the same in each) was cracked in order to prevent further harm to the accounts. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * It's clear the view of outside criticism changed for the better. I remember when the Wikipedia Review first started; it became notorious for highly-biased points of view from banned users, and a place where ousting was encouraged. Several users, most sadly User:Katefan0 had to leave the project because they were wrongfully ousted there. But eventually Wikipedia Review started to clean up their act. They banned some of their most blatant violators of the harassment, and deleted many posts which involved the outing of editors. Anything that seems to be controversial they removed from the Google logs, placed it in a section called the tar pit in which only registered users can read it. Eventually highly respected users from Wikipedia started to join in the criticism to find solutions for these problems. Now I don’t believe any user have a strong Wikipedia Review bias, unless it’s in the Editors section, which tend to be unconstructive. It wasn’t the case a few years ago, or even last year. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * It depends on the circumstances. I think the English Wikipedia does have somewhat of a problem with Vested Contributors but it’s not as severe as some made it out to be. There have been many circumstances in which an experienced editor does something out of the ordinary, but the community is willing to forgive, or turn the other way. This can lead to problems, but it is important for us to give a little slack to our more experienced contributors so we don’t drive them from the project. However there is the danger of giving too much slack, so we need to be careful on give just the right amount of it. But at least there is a process for the community to deal with these "vested contributors" if they start abusing their powers. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * My favorite color has always been red, but I never was sure why that is. Secret account 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

These are not easy questions. I hope you will choose to answer them, as your thoughtful answers will be appreciated, by more folk than just myself. ++Lar: t/c 23:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?
 * 2) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * 3) In both my experience, and that of some other editors I talked to, being "grilled" at arbitration for weeks (or months) is "one of the worst experience of one's life" - and it doesn't matter if one is found innocent or guilty afterwards. Do you think that something can be done to make the experience of parties be less stressful?
 * 4) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * 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?