Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Vassyana/Questions for the candidate

This utility is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may also ask a question, via one of the following methods:

1. Ask a general question: post a question on that link. All candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit.
2. Ask an individual question: pick the statement of the candidate you wish to pose the question to from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements, click the "Questions for the candidate" link, go to #Individual questions, and post the question there. Only this candidate will respond to that question.

Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do make an effort to ensure you aren't overlapping a general question that has already been asked (even if the candidate hasn't yet copied it over to his or her individual question page), or indeed an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to answer all questions that are put to them, including all general questions, to ensure the Community is as fully informed as it wishes to be before voting commences. You are, of course, welcome to refuse to answer a question if you feel uncomfortable doing so, but do remember that that may well result in a voter choosing to oppose you. If a question is a near-duplication of another, you are—of course—welcome to as an answer to that question simply refer the editor to your response to the similar question.

General questions

Questions that an editor would like a majority of the—or all—candidates to answer should be asked as general questions. General questions are asked here, and copied over and answered by the candidate as s/he sees fit. Editors should ask general questions at that link, and not here; only the candidate should place questions here. (See top of page for guidance.)

Answered

Questions from FT2

These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged.

1. There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
   • No single arbitrator alone is going to be able to "reform" the entire body, especially as a freshman member of that body. Neither I, nor any other candidate, can force other abitrators to change their style or their methods of handling cases. The best that can be expected from any individual arbitrator is for them to lead by example. One arbitrator can take the lead in pushing discussion on the list to reach an agreement about what should be stated about evidence while being cautious about privacy concerns. One arbitrator can take the lead to comment on a RfAR talk page that discussion is ongoing between arbitrators on the mailing list. One arbitrator can take the lead to use the workshop pages extensively during the decision making process and/or to provide brief explanations of their votes. There are plenty of such examples and some current arbitrators are already undertaking such actions. When enough arbs start participating in these ways, the culture of the body will shift towards such practices. My main candidate statement and answers to other questions clearly indicate what direction I would choose. If anyone has any additional questions about my intentions or approach, I welcome the queries.
2. Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?
   • It is exceedingly difficult to assess this participation as an outside observer. I have mostly hearsay and speculation on which to base such an assessment. It is my impression that Jimbo is far too busy to involve himself regularly in ArbCom business and that he does so exceptionally rarely. The impression I receive about ex-members of ArbCom is that in at least some instances that former arbs act and provide feedback as though they were active members of the Committee, even in rare occasion going so far as to act "on behalf of the Committee". (I'm not interested in stirring up drama by pointing to particular cases, but I will provide some examples if you feel it necessary to demonstrate my awareness of the situation.) I am not privy to the ins and outs of the situation, but I've seen more than enough "in the open" to be deeply concerned about the level of influence/interference taking place "behind the scenes". See #29 under Questions from MBisanz for more information about my general view of the situation.

3. Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.

   a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?

   b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?

   • It is a bit difficult to answer questions where the factors are largely unknown to outside viewers. I would generally trend towards some degree of openness. However, I am familiar with the community norms and expectations in relation to privacy and BEANS, and would respect that culture, including the usual practice of erring on the side of caution. There are clearly demands from the community for both greater transparency and strict respect of privacy. I would try find a balance between maximizing communication with the community and minimizing harm. I am hard pressed to imagine a case where it would be inappropriate to divulge at least some basic details about why some evidence is being kept private and what general indications the evidence gives. That is not to say such evidence does not exist, but rather that with my current experience I am unfamiliar with what would require such secrecy. I believe it would be appropriate, for example, to reveal that some private evidence contains personally identifying information that establishes sockpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing/edit war coordination. It would clearly inform the community of the essential substance of the evidence and the reason it cannot be shared publicly. At the same time, it would protect the private details involved. After being exposed to the internal workings and mailing list of ArbCom, I may form a more nuanced position or alter my position somewhat in order to respond to the evidence and realities before me.
4. Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?
   • In my opinion, any reassurance someone could give in response to this question would be little more than an expanded version of the simple assurance that the candidate will not burn out. I honestly cannot assure any voters what my state of mind or life situation will be in a year. It is entirely possible, though unlikely, that circumstances will cause me to change my mind, reduce/stop my participation in Wikipedia, or otherwise impact my ability to serve on ArbCom and remain a responsive abitrator. As such, I'm not going to provide iron-clad reassurances as they would potentially be dishonest, even if unintentionally so. I can promise to do my best to remain active, open to communication, and stick to the principles I have expressed, no more or less.
5. Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
   • This is a very difficult question. Much of the answer depends on the specific context and case being considered. In general, if there is a significant lapse in the expression of the rules or something that is commonly interpreted as conflicting statements, I would support the committee "officially" raising the issue on the appropriate policy talk page. This should be accompanied by notifications at the policy village pump and administrators' noticeboard, as well as filing a policy RfC. I would avoid pushing for any specific resolution to the issue, instead pointing out the flaw(s) as clearly as possible. ArbCom can't really force the community to change the rules and the community has reacted very poorly to actions perceived to be "legislating from the bench". However, I believe if ArbCom raised the issue neutrally and used the existing forums for such policy discussions that results would be more forthcoming than a simple statement from the Committee indicating a need to address the issue. That all said, I tend to believe there are less contradictions inherent to the rules and principles than often presented, as indicated by my candidate statement.
6. If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
   • My three main "campaign planks" express my "agenda" fairly well. I intend to focus very heavily on underlying principles and the most complementary readings of those principles. This goes hand-in-hand with my intent to clearly indicate to the community (and administrators) of the abilities and tools they have at their disposal to resolve disputes and problematic behavior. A focus on our foundational principles and empowerment of the community are very important to me, for both philosophical and pragmatic reasons. I believe a greater focus on fundamental principles (implicitly deprecating a focus on specific policy wording) and the community's ability to act will result in more action being taken to resolve disputes and behavioral issues before a case has a chance to reach ArbCom.
7. How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?
   • I intend to recruit one or two MedCab volunteers to take my place as a coordinator. I intend to be cautious about any perceived conflicts that may arise due to cases in which I may have previously acted in my capacity as an administrator or a (formal or informal) mediator, recusing myself as necessary and appropriate. Otherwise, I intend to be generally mindful of my actions and statements, realizing (for better and worse) that my activities will be held to a higher standard as an abitrator and (in the eyes of some) will reflect on ArbCom as a whole.

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If any points need clarification, or if you have any follow-up questions, please do not hesitate to respond.

Questions from MBisanz

• 1. How long have you been an editor of Wikipedia?

• A. About 3 years, when I first created this account. I largely edited as an IP until January 2007.

• 2. How many total edits do you have on Wikipedia? What is your % of edits to the article space?

• A. 10818. 23%.[1] These are almost all "by hand" edits, as I make very little use of automated and semi-automated tools.

• 3. Are you an administrator? If so, how long have you been one?

• A. Yes. Since 31 May, 2007.

• 4. Do you hold any other userrights or positions at the English Wikipedia? (crat, medcom, WPPJ, etc)

• A. I am a member of MedCom and a MedCab coordinator.

• 5. Do you hold any userrights or other positions of trust at other WMF projects? Which ones?

• A. No.

• 6. Have you ever been named as a participant of a Request for Arbitration? If so, please link case(s).

• A. No.

• 7. Have you ever been blocked or subject to restrictions such as WP:RESTRICT, WP:BLPLOG, WP:AER, or WP:SANCTION? If so, please link to the relevant issue.

• A. No.

• 8. Have you ever been blocked or formally sanctioned at another WMF project? If so, please describe.

• A. No.

• 9. What is your best work at Wikipedia? (an article, list, image or content template)

• A. I brought Laozi and East Asian religions up to good article status. I think more "core" topics need attention and improvement. Image:Save a Little Dram for Me.ogg is a featured sound I helped restore (and quite a fun little song). I am also very proud of my participation in mediation and third opinion requests.

• 10. If elected, would you request the Checkuser and/or Oversight userrights?

• A. No. While the tools may be useful for an arb, they are not necessary to carry out the responsibilities of a seat on ArbCom.

• 11. Please list any disclosed or undisclosed alternate or prior accounts you have had.

• A. I have not utilized alternate accounts. I did edit as an IP somewhat regularly from October 2005 until January 2007. I have not edited under another account nor edited logged out since January 2007.

• 12. What methods of off-wiki communication do you use to discuss Wikipedia related matters? (IRC, Skype, WR, Mailing Lists, blogs, etc) Please link to any publicly available forums you use.

• A. I openly make myself available to contact via email. I am a member of the MedCom mailing list. I have used IRC, but my participation there has been very limited for some months. I occasionally use Skype. IRC and Skype are largely been used for socializing, but they are also used to coordinate on projects (such as for joint-nomination featured sound candidates), privately discuss mediation efforts, discuss wikiphilosophy, and so forth.

• 13. Do you have OTRS access? If so, which queues?

• A. No.

• 14. How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/MONGO and RFAR/Jim62sch as to off-site activities by users?

• A. I do not believe there is a contradiction. The former states that those participating in some places may be placed under greater scrutiny, which (for better or worse) is little more than stating an observable fact. The latter (correctly) clarifies that off-wiki activities are not subject to sanctions unless there is a clear threat of disruption to the project or harm to its participants. Taken together, it essentially means that an editor cannot use demands for privacy and/or claims that their activities were "off-wiki" to defend against clear evidence that they were involved in (as examples) organizing a POV-pushing edit war or the posting of private information.

• 15. What is your opinion on the new closed motions process?

• A. I have a mixed, leaning towards negative, opinion of it. It has a great potential to be used as tool to "legislate from the bench". I am very wary of "clarifications" unrelated to existing ArbCom cases. Generally, if a dispute needs to be addressed by ArbCom, there should be an ArbCom case opened.

• 16. Besides compromised accounts, under what circumstances would you support or initiate an emergency request for desysopping?

• A. Emergency desyssoping should only happen when there is a serious threat of disruption to the project. For example, if an administrator were to wade into the pop culture notability debate by speedy deleting articles that could be seen as "borderline" or of "questionable notability" and showed an intent to continue by ignoring community concerns, it would be appropriate to desysop the admin until the situation can be sorted out. As a counterexample, if an administrator displays some civility issues or is accused of bias, it is highly unlikely that emergency measures would be needed or appropriate.

• 17. Currently, only Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee are authorized to perform/request involuntarily desysop an administrator whose account has not been compromised. What is your view of community-based desysopping decisions?

• A. It would be best if a means of desysopping were available to the community, but exceptional care would need to be taken to avoid it becoming a forum for revenge. A poorly-designed recall process would provide a strong disincentive for administrators to become involved in difficult disputes and certain contentious areas of the wiki, where admin intervention is needed most.

• 18. If you owned Wikipedia as the WMF currently does, what would you do to fix the BLP problem?

• A. Delete unreferenced articles and articles regarding subjects whose notability is questionable, upon request from the subject. Strongly encourage the enforcement of BLP provisions. Strongly discourage BLP articles lacking references and clearly reliable third-party sources. Strongly discourage the use of references with questionable reliability.

• 19. In 2004, the Arbitration Committee referred issues to the Mediation Committee. However, as of recent, the Arbitration Committee has not referred issues to the Mediation Committee. Would you refer more content-based disputes to MedCom or continue the current practice?

• A. Content-based disputes with minimal behavioral issues should generally be referred to the means of addressing content disagreements. Mediation is voluntary, so recommendations should not be confused with mandates. In cases where behavioral issues are prominent, but legitimate content disputes are present, should be resolved to address the conduct problems and thereafter referred to mediation or other avenues of dispute resolution. Mediation is not the only option. For example, if a dispute has had limited outside participation, it may be appropriate to post a neutral request for outside input on an appropriate noticeboard (such as WP:RSN) and/or file an RfC.

• 20. In the past the Arbitration Committee has taken a checkered view of wheel wars, desysopping in some cases and not desysopping in others. What do you believe constitutes a wheel war which would result in a desysopping?

• A. Every case has its own context and facts to be considered. In general, wheel wars where the participants have a clear intent to perform such actions in the future or a blatant disregard for the community's wishes should result in desysopping. Wheel wars over policies, high-profile articles, and similar areas of high impact to the wiki should probably result in emergency desyopping while ArbCom determines what, if any, long-term sanctions will be imposed.

• 21. How involved must an administrator be to be unable to enforce policy on a user? Given that it is expected that all admins understand policy when they pass RFA, under what circumstances would you not desysop an administrator who was clearly involved with a user they blocked or an article they deleted/protected?

• A. Generally, if a majority of participants from both sides and/or uninvolved users feel that an administrator is neutral and uninvolved, it is probably true. Each case has to be considered in context because different areas of the wiki have distinct scopes of dispute and editing dynamics. An editor involved in a large number of Latter Day Saint movement articles would still probably be an uninvolved party to a dispute at Early Christianity, even if some of the same editors were involved in the article. That would preclude evidence that the administrator is carrying out "revenge" actions for losing a dispute in their regular main topic area. Other areas of the wiki have much broader (and more heated) areas of dispute. An administrator involved in acrimonious edit disputes over parapsychology and homeopathy (or otherwise involved in a broad manner in the skeptical/fringe dispute) would probably not be considered an uninvolved party in a dispute over cold fusion or acupuncture. Religion articles generally have fairly limited areas of dispute, while fringe science and alternative medicine articles have broad disputes that range over a wide variety of articles with a relatively small group of editors repeatedly involved in the same disputes. Under almost no conditions, except those of clear community disapproval and/or extreme controversy, should prior administrative actions involving a user or topic area be considered "prior involvement" for these purposes.

• 22. Besides the technical capabilities administrators have, the Arbitration Committee has granted administrators the rights to enforce certain general sanctions with regards to specific editors and articles. What is your view on these new non-technical privileges being considered part of the "administrative" function for purposes such as RfC, Recall, and RfAR?

• A. I believe it is a common sense extension of administrative abilities. Administrators can fully lock down articles and completely block users from editing Wikipedia with a few clicks of a mouse. It makes sense that administrators can opt to impose lessor restrictions, such as topic bans or editing constraints. These actions are subject to administrator and community review, just like any other administrative action.

• 23. Current checkuser policy at the English Wikipedia prohibits checkusers from fulfilling "fishing" requests. However, global privacy policy does not prohibit such requests from being fulfilled, so long as personal information is not disclosed. Would you support the alteration of the en.wp policy to permit fishing requests?

• A. I do not see why permitting fishing requests should be necessary. On the contrary, I believe permitting them would lead to significant discontent in the community and cause unneeded drama.

• 24. In 2006 the Arbitration Committee asked the community to address the issue of protecting children's privacy on Wikipedia. To this day there is still no policy on how to handle children's privacy on Wikipedia. What steps would you take to ensure children's privacy is protected under policy?

• A. It seems to be common practice to remove personal information posted by minors. Policy is often formed by common good practice. It should be relatively uncontroversial to document the community practice on this issue, which is already de facto policy "on the ground".

• 25. How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/LevelCheck and RFAR/Durova as to what may be considered justification for blocks of educated new users?

• A. I do not believe there is any contradiction. Taken together, they establish that there should be clear evidence of disruption and/or clear evidence of sockpuppetry linking the "new" account to the "old" account in order to justify a block. This seems to echo general community sentiment and standing good practice.

• 26. 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 RFAR/Zeraeph?

• A. If a case is specifically addressing the conduct of (a) specific user(s) in a context unrelated to broader disputes, naming it after the user(s) is appropriate. Otherwise, cases should generally be named in relation to their disputes, usually by topic area or the specific type of behavioral issue being considered. This is simply the best practice for ease of reference and transparency. Cases should be renamed as necessary to best conform with this naming convention.

• 27. A case is presented between two administrators who have repeatedly undone each other's administrative actions with regard to the deletion of an article. The basis for the deleting administrator's action was an OTRS ticket showing the article to be a copyright violation. In performing the deletion, the administrator clearly referenced the OTRS ticket number. Assuming the undeleting administrator did not have OTRS access, do you penalize him more or less for wheel warring? Do you penalize the deleting administrator for wheel warring?

• A. Regardless of OTRS access on the part of the undeleting administrator, OTRS deletions should never be overturned lightly and/or without consultation. The matter should be discussed with the deleting administrator and it would not be inappropriate to contact another editor with OTRS access to verify the ticket. Even absent an OTRS ticket, repeatedly restoring a copyvio that has been clearly identified as such is extremely inappropriate. The deleting administrator should not continue to wheel war. They should try contacting the undeleting administrator to let them know the seriousness of situation. Failing that, a post to the administrators' noticeboard would help resolve the matter with community support. This is a situation where communication by either wheel warring admin could have quickly and relatively painlessly resolved the situation. Restrictions, desysopping, and other measures would be based on whether or not this was an isolated incident, whether the involved admins recognize their error, and whether either involved party is likely to disrupt the project in a such fashion in the future.

• 28. To what extent do you believe policy on Wikipedia is or should be binding?

• A. I believe principles behind the basic policies are strongly binding and relatively non-negotiable. The policies themselves are subject to change and revision, but their underlying intent is fairly consistant and supported by the consensus of the community. Editors should avoid overly relying on the particular wording of policies, but the fundamental concepts are firm. Regardless of what our policies on edit warring and the three revert rule say in particular language, it is undisputed that edit and revert wars are undesirable and frowned upon by the community to such an extant that blocks are a common (and widely supported) tool for dealing with such behavior. To get a better idea of my views, please see this essay.

• 29. Do you believe that former arbitrators should be on the Arb Comm mailing list? Why or why not?

• A: No. ArbCom should consider private matters before them amongst themselves. The few cases where former arbs need to contacted can be handled individually, while including them in private ArbCom deliberations and lists as a matte of fact has a great potential to harm the reputation of ArbCom and engender significant ill-will in the community. It may be useful, on occasion, to consult with former members of ArbCom to access a bit of "institutional memory". However, due to the length of arbitrator terms and the staggered election tranches, access to this institutional memory should be available within ArbCom itself. If one, or a few, former arbitrators need to be contacted about previous cases they were involved in, this rare circumstance can be handled on a case by case basis by contacting those editors directly.

Question from Ultraexactzz

Good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?
   • Unnecessary.

Question from MBisanz

1. In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond? If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.
   • I would not be overly concerned, except under specific circumstances. In the interest of not making an obvious target, I will not elaborate further. If you need further details or clarification, please email me to discuss the matter.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

1. What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
   • I would expect to be in the top tier of candidates. For seven seats being filled, I would expect to be in the top seven, if I were to accept an appointment. I would not serve unless I was one of the community's obvious choices for a seat, as judged by such a metric.
2. Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
   • While I understand the desire for such a system, I cannot help but think it would cause more bad than good. Very often, the results of an arbitration case will make at least some people very upset, due to the nature of arbitration cases. It would be very difficult to institute a system that could not be gamed. That is not to say that nearly all such recall requests would fail, but instead that it would be difficult to avoid the use of recalls (and their likely drama magnet effect) as a weapon against an arbitrator.

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. – iridescent 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?
   • No, I would not. See #1 of NuclearWarfare's questions.

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.

1. To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
   • I believe principles behind the basic policies are strongly binding and relatively non-negotiable. The policies themselves are subject to change and revision, but their underlying intent is fairly consistant and supported by the consensus of the community. Editors should avoid overly relying on the particular wording of policies, but the fundamental concepts are firm. Regardless of what our policies on edit warring and the three revert rule say in particular language, it is undisputed that edit and revert wars are undesirable and frowned upon by the community to such an extant that blocks are a common (and widely supported) tool for dealing with such behavior. To get a better idea of my views, please see this essay.
2. What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
   • ArbCom should consider private matters before them amongst themselves. The few cases where former arbs need to contacted can be handled individually, while including them in private ArbCom deliberations and lists as a matte of fact has a great potential to harm the reputation of ArbCom and engender significant ill-will in the community. It may be useful, on occasion, to consult with former members of ArbCom to access a bit of "institutional memory". However, due to the length of arbitrator terms and the staggered election tranches, access to this institutional memory should be available within ArbCom itself. If one, or a few, former arbitrators need to be contacted about previous cases they were involved in, this rare circumstance can be handled on a case by case basis by contacting those editors directly.
3. At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?
   • See my reponse to #2 of NuclearWarfare's questions.

I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.

Partially answered

Questions from Giggy

1. a/s/l?
   • Generation X/male/Rust Belt
2. What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.
   • There are elements of a culture clash between exopedians and metapedians, but outright conflict is fairly limited. There are a small handful of high-profile cases creating an image of a broader and deeper problem than exists. There is certainly a trend among some mainspace editors to feel like "the reality on the ground" is not understood by other editors. Similarly, there is a trend among some project space editors to feel as though the "nuts and bolts" of process and policy are not understood by other editors. However, disagreements are limited to peaceful philosophical differences in the vast majority of cases. On the average, it is far more likely to see editors with distinct mainspace focuses sharply disagreeing (for example, over the appropriate application and/or expression of policy) than to see a clear conflict between an expodian and metapedian. Regardless, most disagreements between expodians and metapedians can be resolved through normal discussion and channels of dispute resolution, probably best served by an outside party able to help both sides understand each other's views.
3. What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
4. Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.
5. Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
6. Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?

Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?

1. • I wouldn't abolish any policy, as such, though I would gladly merge a number of policies to reverse a bit of sprawl. I will provide a few examples. No personal attacks could be merged into civility using only a paragraph or less (each). Three revert rule could be rolled into edit warring with a small amount of text similar to the previous example. Both of the merge targets are rules that can be clearly stated in a concise manner and can be seen a subset of another policy. Clearly, civility precludes personal attacks and edit warring includes revert warring.

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?

1. • 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 generall be allowed to resolve the matter.

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?^(AC/IRC)

1. • To be answered.

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?

1. • See my response to #1 of FT2's questions. There is no particular proof that I can offer besides my earnest word that I intend to stick to the principles I have espoused.

Questions from Maxim

1. What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
   • To be answered.
2. What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
   • Only a well-designed system would be satisfactory. Most suggested implementations (that I have seen) would effectively be disincentive for administrators to moderate high conflict areas. The potential for "revenge" recalls is generally very high. It also be very difficult to produce the consensus necessary to create a clear policy and process for administrator recall.
3. What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?
   • To be answered.

Unanswered

Questions from Celarnor

1. What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
3. What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

Question from LessHeard vanU

This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction.

1. Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.

Question from Carnildo

1. How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?

Question from WilyD

1. During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:

1. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations? If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
2. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when? If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?

Questions from PhilKnight

1. In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?

Questions from Thatcher

1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?

(a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.

(b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.

(c) Write your own answer.

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Wikipedia they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?

Questions from Newyorkbrad

1. 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 WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;

(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;

(E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;

(F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;

(G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.

Questions from Rschen7754

Arbcom questions 2008 - these will be asked at the December 2008 elections and scored on a hidden rubric, which will determine my level of support.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, 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.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
4. Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
5. a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
6. 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?
7. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
8. a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
9. (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions from rootology

Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?

7. Please rank these in order of whom the Arbcom serves and answers to, in order from first to last (the party who should have the most power over the AC goes first, the one who should have the least power over the AC goes last:

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology (C)(T) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Davewild

1. Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from roux

This question is to gauge your general thoughts on how civility applies as a general principle across WP. Please read the proposals here first.

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?

2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?

Thank you for answering, and best of luck with the election. [roux » x] 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

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.

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.
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. 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?
5. 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 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)
6. 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?
7. 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?
8. 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? )
9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
10. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

Questions from Heimstern

1. Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at 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?
2. Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?

Questions from UninvitedCompany

1. Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
2. Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
3. Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
4. Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
5. Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
6. Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
7. Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
8. Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia? What are their user names and their relationships to you?
9. Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
10. What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
11. What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
12. How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
13. What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
14. Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
15. Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
16. To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
17. What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
18. To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
19. Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?

Questions from TomasBat

1. In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)

Questions from Pixelface

1. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
2. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
3. Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).

Questions from Badger Drink

1. It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
2. What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
3. This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?

Question from BirgitteSB

Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases [2]. Which follow slightly clarified:

• Have at least two arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence in isolation.
• Allow all parties concerned to review at least the portions of the evidence presentations regarding their owns actions before any decision is reached.

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. So I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?--BirgitteSB 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

1. In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community? As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy" [3], which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT#CENSORED? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.

Questions From ϢereSpielChequers

For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.

1. How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
2. In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
3. In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
4. How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?

ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question(s) from LtPowers

• There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment? If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust? (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with. My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.) Powers ^T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Questions from Jossi

Hello Vassyana, and good luck with your candidacy. Questions:

1. What are the three most important things you have learned about WP:DR in your different capacities at the MedCab and MedCom?
2. How will you apply that learning to your role as arbitrator?

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor

These are questions I am putting to all candidates - apologies if they have already been asked you before.

1. Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself. On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki. On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days. Which definition do you prefer?
2. Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
3. Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
4. Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right. It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly. But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back. Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented. In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
5. Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR. All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests. Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use? If so, what should those be?

I wish you the very best with your candidacy, I hope it goes the way you would like, but also that it goes the way that is ultimately of benefit to the community and the project. The Land Surveyor (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Will Beback

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?

2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?

3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?

Question from harej

Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Rspeer

Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)