Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Questions

Questions from Lar

 * Note to readers:
 * This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.


 * Notes 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.
 * It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
 * For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
 * Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.


 * The questions

Submitted by Lar: t/c at 15:06, on 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * A: Nice idea, but a bit wishy washy. I've come across this via OTRS before and it's something the community usually agrees to do. We already have an opt in system - articles for creation. However, there's a problem: Who decides who's borderline and who's not? Doesn't it mean that there'll be hundreds of slightly spammy borderline notable articles from people who are opting in, desperate for publicity?
 * 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.
 * A: Can't say I agree with this, but bear with me and read my reason why: this is already covered by existing policies. If there's no clear consensus in the AfD, but the subject has requested removal, the closing administrator should really take that into account and close it as delete, even if the votes are even. DONOHARM is really an idea that should take paramount importance - you'd be surprised how many people email in complaining about their articles.
 * 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)
 * A: Although I agree with the idea behind this, I must say that it goes rather against the idea that anyone can edit Wikipedia. I've noticed that the general public already see this claim as 'not quite true', and I think that the 'anyone can edit' idea is something we need to keep close to our hearts. I think a much better idea would be the following one:
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
 * A: A straw poll wasn't the best way to do this. I'm not really in favour of straw polls in general because they're a cheap form of consensus, but a lot of people were confused on the different options available during the poll, how flagged revisions worked, etc etc. People were obviously concerned about BLP issues, but they didn't want to remove the 'anyone can edit' nature of Wikipedia.
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
 * A: I think that if applied to poorly-watched BLP articles only - or where the article subject has been experiencing BLP problems from anonymous editors - this could help solve the huge BLP problems we have. Deferred revisions and Delayed revisions showed - and show - promise, but at present I don't think flagged revisions is ideal. It's still useful as a tool to administrators looking for a less drastic form of semi-protection, but it's not a long-term solution.
 * 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?
 * A: Question one is a matter of policy, good morals, and legal issues. This, in turn, has an impact on content.
 * 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?
 * A: Could you clarify which actions you're referring to specifically? I'm not comfortable agreeing or disagreeing unless I know what I'm (dis)agreeing with!
 * Here are three cases or actions where BLPs played a factor, there are many more:
 * Badlydrawnjeff (the proposed decision may elucidate more)
 * The motion regarding BLP deletions
 * Climate Change (again, the proposed decision may elucidate more)
 * As a note, you probably will want to familiarise yourself with previous cases. While they are not binding precedent they are very helpful reading to give you a good feel for how things are done. (this is the same clarification I gave N419BH) ... to elaborate, your initial reluctance to answer the question reflects badly, as you really ought to know what ArbCom has done in the past or else you're really not suitable for continuing the work ArbCom has done. And if you didn't already know, a litle research into past cases is good for the soul. N4 got more latitude, being a newbie, than you do, having been around a while. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the key cases where BLP has played a role, and I'm not reluctant to answer: but my idea of 'key cases' may be different to yours! I want to make doubly sure I'm aware of all the facts and clarifying questions before I answer anything - crossed wires are dangerous.
 * Please list what you think the key cases are, and why. You could easily have just done so from the get go instead of asking for mine first... that was something that some might perceive as a stalling tactic. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than have this questioning session degenerate into a to-and-fro, I think we should go back to the original question you asked. To be clear, I interpreted your original question as 'Do you agree with ArbCom's decisions on policy in cases where BLP violations were an issue?' I have, over the past few years, broadly agreed with the Committee's decisions in regards to BLP policy. They've been putting BLP to the forefront and interpreting it strictly, which I believe is important to the project. On a different note, I'm not trying to avoid your questions, Lar, but there are rather a lot of them and I've used more time answering your questions than everyone else's put together - over seven hours so far, and I'm still not finished. I'm loathe to go back through every AC case in the history of the Committee, pick out the ones I think are key to BLP policy, and list them here with reasons why, simply to prove to you that I am familiar with them. I can, but you understand it would take another seven hours, at least, to do so - to the detriment of the 20 OTRS emails I have in my personal queue, my real life work, and of course the Thanksgiving Turkey currently thawing downstairs. If you really do want me to do go back over all of them, I'd appreciate a better reason to do so than simply 'proving that I have'.
 * You said you were "aware of the key cases" but then said it would "take another seven hours, at least" of research to name them???? Which is it? Why do I get the feeling you're being evasive? This was a simple question. Why the dodging and weaving? ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, then: I think you're after my feelings on BLP issues. As far as I'm concerned, the motion regarding BLP deletions was sensible and "a good idea". I know many of the community will disagree with me on this, but I've seen (through OTRS) the damage that our articles can do. Even well-sourced ones have resulted in threats of suicide through OTRS. Faced with the massive amount of damage done to peoples lives by unsourced BLPs, we'd be negligent if we didn't delete them. I know of one example where a high-ranking military officer was described as a 'politician', which nearly landed him in severe trouble with his civilian bosses. It's imperative in all these cases that the BLP policy comes first, and that there's never any fear of deleting an article outright because of massive BLP issues. The tendentious edits against their real-world opponents displayed by some editors in the climate change case was simply abhorrent, and in most cases I support ArbCom in their sanctions against said editors.
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * A: I'll need clarity on 2b before I can answer this.
 * You've had clarity for several days now. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * 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? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately 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 do support this principle. One of the key ideas about Wikipedia - and one we're pushing in this year's fundraiser - is that anyone can edit. This is crucial to the project's growth. I know for a fact (through my OTRS work) that several contributors on Wikipedia are very well-known people. If, for example, Professor Smith from University A decides to edit, revealing his identity would cause several problems: he'd be lambasted in the press, people would demand he recuse himself from article X or article Y - people might even assume he's a competent authority and let him WP:OWN articles.
 * 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 2008 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 2008)
 * Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * 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?
 * Disclaiming? We already do on various policy pages, not least of which the COI and BFAQ pages. If anyone highlights it, it should be Wikipedia - possibly when editors become admins - but highlighting it won't stop problem users from making fools of themselves or intentionally disclosing information - it'll just discourage new users from joining by exaggerating a basic fact which is present on any internet site, anywhere.
 * 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.
 * The WMF has a basic responsibility to assist appropriate legal agencies in preventing and prosecuting stalking, but no more than legally required. It also has a basic responsibility to protect those being victimised, but again no more than legally required. The Foundation is not the police, nor is it the Samaritans, and it shouldn't get involved in the legal jungle that surrounds those two areas.
 * 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?
 * Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterized 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?
 * We cannot prevent outside discussion of Wikipedia, whether we want to or not. WMF cannot shut down WR, for example. I think it's healthy that there are sites such as WR who, even though they cross over the line sometimes, give us an external point of reference. As long as what happens on Wikipedia is backed up by discussion on Wikipedia pages (and not 'per IRC' or 'per WR'), I see no problem with it, although I don't really indulge in it myself.
 * 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 do not have anything that would fall into that category. I don't even have a blog. This is for one simple reason: I don't find the philosophy or politics of Wikipedia all that interesting. I'm more interested in actually helping the place run :-)
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * WR is, as I said, an external reference point. In short, it's full of trolls and has a big attitude problem. I think you can guess my opinion of people like Greg Kohs. I read it myself from time to time to see if I'm mentioned, but don't participate. That said, there are valid viewpoints on there from time to time - mixed in with a fair bit of 'conspiracy theory crazy', and of course those who have a bad experience on Wikipedia. There's also a sizeable majority of unsavoury characters. I'm not a fan of the outing that goes on there, or of the real life stalking that comes from some contributors on there, and I think that sort of behaviour is immoral and unjustifiable. In many cases it's criminal. I've even been a victim of attacks from there myself on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, I find that there are people on WR who are good editors, and there are people on WR with valid opinions. It's just a shame that most of the site is so negative.
 * As to the question about my ideal criticism site: it's whatever the rest of the world comes up with. 'Invisible hand of the market', and all that. WR is probably the best we can hope for in a criticism site, I think.
 * 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 (in each case)?
 * It's appropriate for anyone to have an account on a criticism site. My opinions apply equally to admins, arbs and 'regular' editors. The sites are external to Wikipedia and interfering in external criticism smacks of whitewashing and hypocrisy, even if that interference is occasionally justified. If we want these sites to be less critical of us, we should either disregard their concerns completely, or address them up front. If a user outs someone or attacks someone on an external site though, that's a different matter.
 * 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? )
 * WR is the only external criticism site that's of much consequence, and although I occasionally see something on there I'd like to reply to - usually to defend myself - I don't have an account there due to the email restrictions (WR only allows non-webmail addresses). I can't give up my MOD address for external websites, so I can't join. Niether do I have accounts on other criticism sites, although I do read them to see where I'm going wrong.
 * It is acceptable for someone to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such sites, but I'd expect them to declare it if running for adminship or ArbCom. It's only polite, and hiding it is not exactly in good faith.
 * 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 vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: Sadly, yes. The IP/registered editor divide is a perfect example, as is the Editor/Admin divide and the 'evil cabal' which some users see in the arbitration committee. It's a problem because it not only breeds resentment, but leads to drama and eventually open and hostile factionalism (for example, the divide between Giano's supporters and detractors). Openness is the best way to deal with this - openness about opinions, openness about reasons for decisions, and - where possible - openness in areas like the Arbitration Committee. That said, I'm against some of Giano's radical ideas for ArbCom - I'm all for having a more open system, but I don't want it so open that all the common sense falls out.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: The best way to put this is that the English Wikipedia has problems with factionalism, but not an overarching problem. To put it another way: there are occasional issues which crop up, but I don't think there's a huge problem. Current processes deal with this rather well in most cases.
 * You mean like the CC case? That went rather well? Please elaborate. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the primary problem there was with factionalism - the primary problem there was users violating other policies, such as BLP and COI, not to mention incivility. There were two factions in place even before the debate moved onto Wikipedia, and the 'tag teaming' you're alluding to could have been resolved amicably if it wasn't for the other policy violations (BLP, COI, CIV). Whether 'tag teaming' is occurring isn't always very clear, and even when it is, the problems only occur when other policies are broken in tandem with factionalism.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * A: I'm surprised you can't guess this!
 * It's appropriate for anyone to have an account on a criticism site. My opinions apply equally to admins, arbs and 'regular' editors. The sites are external to Wikipedia and interfering in external criticism smacks of whitewashing and hypocrisy, even if that interference is occasionally justified. If we want these sites to be less critical of us, we should either disregard their concerns completely, or address them up front. If a user outs someone or attacks someone on an external site though, that's a different matter.
 * 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? )
 * WR is the only external criticism site that's of much consequence, and although I occasionally see something on there I'd like to reply to - usually to defend myself - I don't have an account there due to the email restrictions (WR only allows non-webmail addresses). I can't give up my MOD address for external websites, so I can't join. Niether do I have accounts on other criticism sites, although I do read them to see where I'm going wrong.
 * It is acceptable for someone to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such sites, but I'd expect them to declare it if running for adminship or ArbCom. It's only polite, and hiding it is not exactly in good faith.
 * 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 vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: Sadly, yes. The IP/registered editor divide is a perfect example, as is the Editor/Admin divide and the 'evil cabal' which some users see in the arbitration committee. It's a problem because it not only breeds resentment, but leads to drama and eventually open and hostile factionalism (for example, the divide between Giano's supporters and detractors). Openness is the best way to deal with this - openness about opinions, openness about reasons for decisions, and - where possible - openness in areas like the Arbitration Committee. That said, I'm against some of Giano's radical ideas for ArbCom - I'm all for having a more open system, but I don't want it so open that all the common sense falls out.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: The best way to put this is that the English Wikipedia has problems with factionalism, but not an overarching problem. To put it another way: there are occasional issues which crop up, but I don't think there's a huge problem. Current processes deal with this rather well in most cases.
 * You mean like the CC case? That went rather well? Please elaborate. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the primary problem there was with factionalism - the primary problem there was users violating other policies, such as BLP and COI, not to mention incivility. There were two factions in place even before the debate moved onto Wikipedia, and the 'tag teaming' you're alluding to could have been resolved amicably if it wasn't for the other policy violations (BLP, COI, CIV). Whether 'tag teaming' is occurring isn't always very clear, and even when it is, the problems only occur when other policies are broken in tandem with factionalism.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * A: I'm surprised you can't guess this!
 * I don't think the primary problem there was with factionalism - the primary problem there was users violating other policies, such as BLP and COI, not to mention incivility. There were two factions in place even before the debate moved onto Wikipedia, and the 'tag teaming' you're alluding to could have been resolved amicably if it wasn't for the other policy violations (BLP, COI, CIV). Whether 'tag teaming' is occurring isn't always very clear, and even when it is, the problems only occur when other policies are broken in tandem with factionalism.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * A: I'm surprised you can't guess this!

Questions from Sven Manguard
I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard  Talk


 * 1) What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
 * A. I see three major threats: new users being overwhelmed and driven away by poor administrative/editorial conduct, the ongoing BLP concerns, and the recent resurgence of editors with a conflict of interest (re: the Israeli project to train editors to 'remove pro-Arab bias', and the WikipediaExperts paid editing controversy.) That said, the barbarians are not at the gates and the project is healthy. The community are already handling these problems - albeit slowly. I'm happy that the current system is producing an encyclopaedia which is widely used by the world and widely acknowledged and thanked by those who use it - but that doesn't mean we should be complacent. Continued discussion on these problematic topics will, I'm certain, produce the right outcome.
 * 1) What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
 * A. Wikipedia's greatest strength is, I feel, its momentum. Even given problematic cases, banning users, and generating 'spin off sites' like WR, Wikipedia is still going strong, and although growth has slowed, there are more articles every day. This year's fundraising statistics are a perfect example of how well we're doing and how much support we have from the readership - we've generated eight times what we did last year so far ($4m vs $500k). However, Wikipedia has a steep learning curve. A new user comes along, and decides to write about their band: but gets blocked. Instant turn-off, instant dismissal, and instant anger by the new editor, who then goes on to vandalise for the next few months, before finally writing off the whole project as a 'big fascist waste of time'. My first edit on this account was about the company I worked for - often it's the only thing new contributors know much about! We need a 'new contributor' system that takes people through their first edits - the Youtube videos released by WMF explaining verifiability and NPOV are a brilliant example of the sort of thing we should be doing to help newcomers.
 * As far as content goes, we excel, in general, at well-established, historical subjects (Military History being a sterling example) - but we fall down on 'pop culture' articles, like Dan Bull, or Frank Turner. They're both notable, and there's a wealth of information - but the content likely won't become FA-level for at least 5 or 6 more years, which is a shame given as that's one of the key advantages we have over Britannica.
 * 1) What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
 * A: This'll seem like a very short answer, but really, we've got a fair few, but we can never have enough. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone raise the idea that we've got 'too many' before!
 * 1) Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
 * A. We could do a better job at retaining our contributors. There's a core number of regular users, but as more and more people get banned or leave, it's more and more important that we replace them with fresh blood. The retention itself is affected my two main factors: the user themselves, and the level of bureaucracy. Overall, I don't think the high-profile burnouts are too much to worry about, as they tend to be few and far between compared to those of us who take small breaks. Wikipedia is awesome in moderation, but it's important to ration, or at least vary, things so you don't get carried away. In my case, there's that gets rid of stress quite like an automatic weapon.
 * 1) Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
 * A. I'm not overly sure about a 'ratio'. I don't think there's an ideal one. Even though I'm borderline socialist at heart, I can't bring myself to control the community, even hypothetically. I might sway slightly towards improving current content - if only to get the BLPs up to scratch - but I think we can safely leave the growth of Wikipedia to the invisible hand of the market.
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A. Of course! Anyone can edit Wikipedia. You don't even have to log in to edit. Hundreds of our IP users make small gnomish edits, and even those who vandalise learn a bit about the wiki process and may well come back to become useful editors in a few years. Who knows!
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A. I'd like to be able to galvanise the community into making a solid decision about a paid editing policy. It's been hanging around unresolved since MyWikiBiz and the illustrious Mr Kohs were rightfully disowned from our family. There's more and more paid editors, or editors with a huge COI, each day, and it's time for a review of the policies we currently have, and if they're sufficient.

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754
Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE  b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
 * A: They're both sensible essays, and both are linked to me quite closely given and her illness. I agree with parts of the first particularly - as long as people operate only where they're capable, it's not a problem. As far as WP:NOTTHERAPY goes, I don't include mental illnesses when judging people at all. I judge them on their merits, not their medication. If we included mental health in the equation, I doubt many of us would be allowed to register an account, let alone go for RfA ;-) Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?
 * A: If there's significant opposition, then no, they certainly don't have the right. However, I admit freely that standardised conventions are very useful, particularly when looking at userboxes: the amalgamation of several userboxes into the 'ship' template makes it much easier to update, collate, and compare information, and easier for editors to understand the single large template rather than hundreds of varied small ones for submarines, warships, ships of the line, tankers, ferries etc. What needs to be taken into account in situations like this is whether or not it'll benefit the project, and that's something which is decided by that most wonderful of tools: consensus.

Questions from tofutwitch11
1.Why do you want to be on the Arbitration Committee? What is your goal?
 * A: I don't have a goal per se, other than to offer up my services. The folks at Wikimeet London said I'd be good at ArbCom, a few admins agreed, and there weren't many candidates, so I put myself forward. Having the OS tool would be mighty useful for OTRS, I suppose, and CU is a useful tool, but they're not really why I want to do this either. I think perhaps part of me is looking for a new challenge that's a bit more intellectual than Above Water Force Protection.

2.Will being a member of Armed Forces of The Crown affect your position as an Arbitration Committee member?
 * A: I've mentioned this previously: there'll be a few times in the year where I'm out of contact for a few days, maybe a week. Once every five years (roughly), I get deployed for 9-12 months, some of which I will be without email for. I can defer said deployments until after my ArbCom period is over in almost all cases, however, so it shouldn't affect me. I would, of course, have to recuse myself from cases like the Gibraltar and British Isles cases, given that I'd have a conflict of interest there. I've discussed this with current Arbitrators and they agree that there should be no problems with my absence from the committee for short periods.

Best of Luck, Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?    19:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from NuclearWarfare
What was your opinion of the climate change case? What were your opinions on the decision as a whole? What, if anything, could have been done to improve it? How does the fact that there is significant academic consensus about anthropogenic global warming affect your thinking? NW ( Talk ) 04:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Giacomo
In your question to me you mention the secret information available which you clearly feel necessary to be an effective Arb. Indeed, the Arbcom deals with much "secret" data of a personal nature and does have individual files kept on editors it considers problematic. Wikipedia, rightly, discourages "legal threats." However, sadly, as an Arb, one has to have one foot in Wikipedia and the other in the real world; you will have access to these files and be encouraged to read them on your computer. With this in mind:
 * (A) As a known and identified member of HM Armed Forces and British subject how will you comply with the Data. Protection Act (1998) and Directive 95/46/EC should an identified "problematic" UK user(s) demand you reveal personal information downloaded to your British based computer?
 * Your question shows a lack of knowledge in the area yourself, something which I don't blame you for. Privacy law is a tricky business. First of all, I'm not a British subject - the term has a specific legal meaning. I'm a British Citizen, and as such I'd follow exactly the same laws as every other British Citizen (and by extension, every British Arbitrator) ever has. My status as a member of the armed forces has absolutely no ramifications with regards to the DPA. As to Directive 95/46/EC, it's irrelevant for this discussion, since the DPA is bringing that directive into force. You also need to bear in mind that we've had several British arbitrators before, including at least one who holds a higher equivalent military rank than myself.
 * I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the DPA either, as I'm not qualified to offer legal opinions, however it's my understanding that Arbitrators act as Data Processors under the meaning of the act; not Data Controllers - as such, it's my understanding that I would not be directly subject to the Act. The Data Controller would retain full responsibility for the information I was processing, the Data Controller presumably being the WMF, who aren't subject to the act. If you have any other questions about my status as a reservist, please check out http://www.sabre.mod.uk/ or ask me on the talk page.


 * (B) Are you aware of the personal ramifications, if the "problematic user" then claims the information is erroneous?
 * A: Potentially, yes - although it's a complex issue which I don't think has been tested in a UK court. I would essentially be a UK Citizen volunteering and working on behalf of a US charity, which complicates the matter. I have taken professional advice on this - I wouldn't be running for ArbCom otherwise. Thanks for the good luck - I think we'll all need it!

Thank you for your time and good luck in your candidature.  Giacomo  09:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Offliner
Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)