Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Seddon/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 have to admit that this question will probabably keep me thinking and may be changed several times given the sheer number of characteristics that are important in an arbitrator that I will decide is marginally more important than the rest. I suppose the most important one is a sense of fairness. Parties should all be treated equally and no one party being treated more harshly than another when it isn't warrented.
 * Coming in at a very close second would be a good communicator in that you should be clear, calm, and assume good faith whenever possible.

(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:

(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:

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:

(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:

(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 agree that it is important not to lose touch with the evolutionof the project and care must be taken not be disengaged with certain ares of the project and institutionalised in your thinking. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is founded on a concensus model and therefore the status quo is always in a constant state of flux.
 * I do not believe however that contributing to the articlespace is the sole method of preventing this. It is important to try and vary where you contribute as much as possible to try and achieve a balance. Someone who only edits articles and does not participate elsewhere has only a single view of the project and I imagine that someone who only edits in one or two narrow topics could also become limited in thier understanding.
 * At the end of the day, you just have to always keep in mind that the project is dynamic and dont become set in your ways and maintain an open mind. Personally, so long as individuals achieve this end desire, the means does not make too much of a difference to me.

(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: Being on many mailing lists means that I am fairly used to reading large amounts of mail. I do endeavour to read every piece of mail that comes through my inbox. I expect that the Functionaries-en list will be the lowest traffic out of those there with checkuser-l, oversight-l and clerks-l having medium traffic and the arbcom-l list having the highest traffic.

(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? (EdChem)
 * A:If an arbitrator were to be a named party when the case was opened, or it was made clear that an arbitrator was involved in the dispute, I would ask that a seperate mailing list be set up temporarily for the duration of the case (removing the arb from the main arbcom mailing list could unnecessarily affect other cases or situations), and that should the arb wiki be required, a seperate namespace be set up so that the arbitrator does not have unfair access to arb discussion and private evidence but does not hinder the arbitrators ongoing ability to participate in other active cases.

ArbCom and admins
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? (LessHeard vanU)
 * A: I do think that a community based process needs to be developed for admin desysopping and prehaps even community bans. Currently the only viable venues for the community to do this is via the admin noticeboards or through an RFC. However the first is not the most suited due to overwhelming activity that goes on there on a day to day basis and the latter isnt suitable because conduct RFC's just end up becoming unworkable and stagnated.
 * I suppose the best way forward, building on what the community already has, would be some sort of coordinated RFC-like process, but the key would be in the detail.

(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 do not feel there is a general trend that can be observed. Desysopping admins should be judged on a case by case basis.

(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 there was clear concensus from the community that an admin should not retain the tools then I believe that the community should be the ones to approve the re-granting of tools. However if the community was devided on the desysopping and ARBCOM had to make the decision themselves then I would support arbcom regranting the tools if there was sufficient evidence that trust had been regained in some form.

(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: The trouble we have on the English Wikipedia, is that there is no definitive method for desysopping admins other than through the arbitration committee or jimbo even if it is clear an admin has no community trust. Based on my own judgement I would say that there is no need for a case to be opened. If, as you say, it is clear that an admin had lost the faith of the community, then the committee could request the desysop on behalf of the community. As an additional note, for it to be clear that trust had been lost there must have been significant discussion already which would nullify the need for an RFC.

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Unsure on what specifics you want, but generally an admin should only be desysopped without a prior arbcom case when there is clear evidence (through RFC, AN or similar discussions) that the community has lost faith in an administrators ability.

(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 believe I have/will have covered this answer in questions 27-29.

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: As I mentioned in my candidate statement, I want to set up an arbitration oversight or audit committee. They wouldn't become the new highest power on wikipedia or be able to overturn committee decisions. Their task would be to evaluate sanctions, bans and committee conduct and to simply make a good faith ruling that would be given to the community and the committee. It would then be down to the committee to deal with and facilitate that ruling. The main reason why I do not believe that this body should have powers over arbcom is that bureaucracy is rarely cured with more bureaucracy. However, this committee existence, structure and remit should be heavily influenced by the community, most likely through some sort of RFC.

(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:

(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 am aware of rememdies that have been directed at people with no connection to a case, article or dispute and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is an unfortunate outcome of arbitration pages that a significant amount of wikilawyering and politics occurs to distract away from the real problem.
 * The problem is that there is no real way of dealing with this without making assumptions of bad faith which in my eyes would simply cause more stress and drama. Something which I think should be done is that when people post suggested findings of fact, remedies etc. that it should be mandatory to provide evidence backing them up. This means that discussions are centered on editors that have actually been disruptive rather than on remedies that have been listed to distrct attention away. This may or may not help and only when put in practice can its effectiveness be assessed.

(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:

(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 believe I have alluded to this question in other questions. In short I believe that there occasions when the committee has overstepped its remit. When the committee wishes to create things such as this committee it needs to consult the community beforehand

(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:
 * Part 1: In my eyes, breaking of content policy is almost certainly to be associated with conduct issues (edit warring etc.) so I feel this question is not representative of what actually occurs.
 * Part 2: The committee can only establish such procedures with significant community input and not unilaterally. I do however believe something is required area as there is a gap between dispute resolution

(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 think that topic restrictions should be used more often in these disputes. It allows us to retain editors who are genuinely here to create an encyclopedia and can edit constructively and loose those that are simply here to push POV's. This reduces the overall net negative to the project whilst at the same time reducing the drama and conflict in the topic area. At the end of the topic restriction, editors should then be placed on a revert restriction in area they were banned from, in effect a wiki rehabilitation. It should be fairly clear after this whether on not the user intends to edit constructively.
 * To answer the second part of your question. I think that the responsibility for all the problems we have on wikipedia lie with the community in some part. It is after all our project and so we should all work to solve these disputes. I think that uninvolved admins should actively patrol those areas known for being zones of significant to monitor articles prones to edit warring.

(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: I'm not sure I can elaborate any further on this without repeating what I have already said. I'll list the questions that I believe answer this at a later date.

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A:

(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: I think that its formation was outside of the committee's remit and it was had no community involvement in its formation. So based on those two things, I think it was generally a bad move and was doomed to fail from the start.

(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:

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: This is somewhat of a difficult situation. Here we have a situation where someone banned returns as a sock, edits and contributes constructively, gains adminship and then is discovered. It is widely known that blocks and bans should only be used when editors are disruptive to the project and in this situation the rebanning of the_undertow did not achieve this.
 * Understandably there was a fear from the committee that this could set some sort of precedent of currently banned users socking to undermine previous blocks and bans. However, if an editor can quickly turn himself around and edit the project constructively again then that editor should be allowed back to the project under the caveat that any sort of future disruption will not be treated with the same levels of good faith that may have been shown previously. I am concerned that the precedent set by this undermines the ethos that we welcome constructive and collaborative editors who do not disrupt the project.
 * the_undertow/Law was correct to give up his tools though, as there was deception at his rfa because the community was not presented with all the relevant information to come with a thoroughly informed decision even if the outcome had been the same.

(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:

(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:

(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:

(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: Support To post without the authors permission is legally unsound under both copyright law and privacy law. Unless otherwise stated, emails remain in the ownership of the author and so neither the committee nor users have the legal capability to repost emails on this project.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * A:

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * A:

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

(v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A:

(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 see no fault with MBisanz as an individual being on the subcommittee. I believe he is a competent individual. However the arbitration committee should not have altered the rules of the election and allowed a fourth persn to joint the committee. It undermines the trust the community have and undermines the integrity of the Audit Subcommittee.

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: Where possible we should reduce anything that encourages a combative or stressful situation. Under this premise, more generic case names such as Highways 2 should be used were possible. Cases should be renamed as soon as it becomes apparent that a single editor is the entire locus of a dispute and it is more widespread than an single location.

(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: Right now, this very second, the BLP approach on the English Wikipedia is one which cannot continue. BLP articles are selectively protected, with most of them remaining unprotected and are easy targets for libel. This is not in the best interests of this project, the editor community or the subjects of our BLP's. It is/was my hope that flagged revisions would be in place by this time or sometime in the near future. I am unsure how realistic this is but it is in my opinion that flagged revisions should be applied accross all BLP articles.

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A:

(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.

Question from AGK
Q: Your activity level is my only concern about your otherwise strong candidacy. To arbitrate is a time-intensive job, and perhaps the most useless arbitrator is an inactive one. How many hours per day do you intend to devote to your duties on the committee if appointed? Good luck in the election. AGK 18:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A: {Question withdrawn.}
 * Since posing this question, I have submitted a candidacy. When I asked this, I was still not sure whether I was running in the election or not. In light of the change in circumstances, I withdraw my question. Again, I wish you good luck. Regards, AGK 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * Although not a party, I was somewhat of an outside observer on the case. Personally I think the case was too content orientated and had too few serious conduct issues. I think that is what caused the unneccessarily long length of time associated with that case.
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * I do not believe that WikiProjects case enforce standards in the same way as a poilcy unless those standards become accepted by the whole community and become part of a WP:MOS guide. I do not however have issue with projects encouraging certain accepted practices, but in the end consensus should prevail. If that cannot be achieved then the dispute resolution processes should be used to help solve the dispute.
 * 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) Question removed
 * 9) Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
 * 10) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 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?
 * The purpose of the committee should be to resolve disputes within the confines of community endorsed norms and policies because there are many issues with the committee ignoring such norms. It could be a good short term stopgap in a dispute, but given that policy is being undermined, it is likely to cause friction with(in) the community and so the long term issues could be far worse than any short term gain. The other issue is that sometimes, arbitration decisions can be incorrectly as setting some of precedent (case law) and muddies the waters as to how policies can be interpreted.
 * 1) How should the desire to be fair to every individual involved in arbitration be balanced with the need to expediently resolve disputes?
 * 2) 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 look to either of these. Its purpose is to solve conduct disputes not mould the project one way or another or maintain balances of power. Should a change in power occur after editors have been sanctioned, then it is simply a natural evolution of the project.
 * 1) Should every infraction discovered in the course of an arbitration proceeding be sanctioned?  Why or why not?
 * Any block, ban or sanction should be in force to prevent disruption and not punish it. So the infractions that should be sanctioned are those that form a history of disruption. A single instance of revert warring may not be part of a long term pattern of disruption and in this instance sanctioning an editor for it does not result in a better editting environment and can alienate editors resulting in a net negative for the project.
 * 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?
 * 2) Are admonishments, reminders, and warnings effective as arbitration remedies?  Why or why not?
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) 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?
 * Individual arbitrators will always bear collective responsibility. It is a burden that comes with being on the committee and individual arbs should respect collective decisions. However, should an arbitrator feel that the committee is not acting in a suitable fashion, he has the responsibility of being an elected individual and has a duty to the community to uphold the policies and practices that govern our project.
 * 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?
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) Are the main systemic problems with arbitration a result of the Committee's failings, or consequences of the environment in which the Committee functions?

Good luck! Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Manning Bartlett
In your candidate statement you discuss the idea of an "Arbitration Oversight" ("ArbOS") body to review the decisions of ArbCom. This is ostensibly to fulfill the role you state was formerly held by Jimbo.
 * How would you respond to the counterargument that this is "an attempt to solve a bureaucratic problem with more bureaucracy"?
 * As this ArbOS would ostensibly be the "court of appeals" with the ability to overturn ArbCom decisions, it would effectively be the highest power on WP. How would we go about electing such a committee?
 * If (for argument's sake) this ArbOS committee was explicitly prohibited, what other methods/processes do you think could be used (or developed) to achieve the same outcome (ie. ArbCom decision oversight).?

Thank you for your time and good luck with your campaign. Manning (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer your point about solving a bureaucratic problem with more bureaucracy, it all comes down to the form this body takes. The structure, remit and even existance of an arbitration oversight body will be down to the community. I do not think that this body should be given powers like that of a court of appeal. My thinking was that this body should act in a manner similar to auditors (maybe what I have referred to it as is misleading), simply reviewing the actions of ARBCOM in relation to a decision or case and giving a review and assuming good faith that the arbitration committee will honour that review. The issue with this is that the audit/oversight body has no "teeth" and could be a percieved weakness. However such a body does fulfill the lack of accountability and oversight of the arbitration committee.


 * In terms of how we would elect such a committee, it should be through 100% community elections and not appointments by arbitration committee, however this is again something that would need to be decided by the community.


 * Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 14:10, 15 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.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * 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?
 * 3) 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)
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 2) 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?
 * 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)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 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?
 * 2) 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?
 * 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)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 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?
 * 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)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 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)?
 * 2) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 15 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?
 * Also, as has been mentioned above, several editors have indicated some arbitrators become less active as regular contributors, either because of the "politics" or because of the demands on time. Do you anticipate being able to continue to function as an active content contributor while an arbitrator?
 * Also, do you anticipate that your exposure to the seamier side of wikipedia might make you less interested in continuing as a content contributor on the conclusion of your ArbCom term?
 * A.

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) 17:13, 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?
 * 5) What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?
 * 6) What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
 * 7) What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
 * 8) Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
 * 9) Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 10) Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * 11) Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
 * 12) 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?
 * 13) 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?
 * 14) 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?
 * A: I think that it is key to pervent any frustration from the sender. This is something I have experienced myself when emailing the committee mailing list and having known that the message was passed on to the list but still having had no response . Understandably emails and messages can go astray or prehaps cannot be responded to instantaneously, but every effort should be made to acknowledge the email or message as soon as possible even if an informative response cannot be made at the time. There can questions about case length, inappropriate evidence (such as private emails) or participants unsure with process asking what to do and its important where possible to repond to those questions. These tasks are typically done by the clerks but it is important for arbs to keep up to date on what is going on in a case, even if they do not respond.
 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * A: I think it is very important, particularly for drafting arbitrators, to monitor discussion on case discussion pages.
 * 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?
 * A: Given the tensions that have likely to have built up to near breaking point before an arbitration case, little can be done but what can help is:
 * Ensure that conduct is maintained through a case
 * Respond quickly to queries from parties
 * Try and keep case time to the minimum
 * Ensure that the scope of the case is set and kept to.
 * These are fairly simple tasks that should help.
 * 1) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * 2) 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.
 * A: Yes I do use wikimedia IRC channels, though these days I tend to be more selective which channels I am active in. Unfortunately I cannot give blanket permission for all logs of my conversations to be posted in full, as I cannot speak for others who may be involved in the conversation and for the larger IRC channels, that could be alot of people.

Question from NE2
Have you read War and Peace?
 * A: Unfortunately not, though I have been told that it is a fantastic read and have always had that little urge every now and then to take it out of the local library but simply never got around to it. I have posted a reponse question on your talk page.

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) 22:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Tango
Your term as a Wikimedia UK board member does not end until April; your potential term as an arbitrator would start in around mid-December. Do you feel you will have sufficient time to perform both roles to a good standard during the overlap? --Tango (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Short Brigade Harvester Boris

 * 1) Under what conditions would you consider recusing from a case?

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.

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

2. Related to the above; I believe that there is cultural difference in the acceptability of robust and frank language between America and Europe. An illustration of this is the censorship of "bad language" on US television, words which would pass unnoticed on TV in the UK or Ireland for example. How do you react to the charge that US standards of "civility" are being imposed on Wikipedians from places that happily embrace forms of expression that some Americans seem to find "uncivil"? Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)