Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Kylu

Questions from Daniel.Bryant

1. Given the fact that a large number of current ArbCom members have Checkuser, will you be accepting this ability given the chance; and if you are planning to, what type of experience do you have in this area? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Hiya Daniel! Good luck to you on your candidacy, first. :)

   I've done administrative work on IRC before, matching IPs to hosts, plus I have checkuser on Wordforge though it's been used all of one time. Personally, the technical issues are in my opinion nothing compared to the privacy issues involved in checkuser, and that's part of the reason that I started m:CheckUser privacy. It's not a set of buttons I really look forward to, since those who have them tend to get more than the fair share of hassle related to it, but if it'll help, I can learn to deal with it. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2. What experience do you have, both in real life and on Wikipedia, in judging disputes and the merits of points and evidence presented? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   At the moment, more of my time is spent in my retail management job rather than in music (sadly), so I'm quite familiar with the concept of trying to "keep the customer happy while protecting the company assets" and feel this directly translates into mediation, if not arbitration. Also, I am currently a coordinator for the Mediation Cabal, though this has been shown to be more a technical position than political most of the time. I obviously prefer peaceful outcomes, but when the time comes that it's not possible, I don't hesitate to put my foot down. The hard part, of course, is knowing exactly when to put your foot down and how hard. Fortunately with the Arbitration Committee, there are a number of other individuals who are already experienced with these issues and the staggered approach to committee staffing assures us that there will always be senior arbitrators around to assist those who are junior in such things as decorum and arbitration process. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

3. "* kylu notes, just don't ask about oversight, or I might bury you in page after page of annoyingly long answer" - I'm sure I won't find it annoying :). What are your thoughts, level of willingness, and beliefs on application related to OS? Sorry, I just had to ask :P Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Currently, as an admin, I view Oversight as having two rationales in its development, to be kept in mind with the three approved uses.

   From Wikipedia:Oversight:

   1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
   2. Removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
   3. Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

   Now, the reason we have oversight is to keep these edits off Wikipedia. Why not just use deletion?

   1. Some admins may be tempted to record that information for later for use either our of curiosity or malice. This function renders the edits unrecoverable to administrative staff for the good of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.
   2. Alternatively, it can be used to render a page unrecoverable in the case where an admin might accidentally undelete a page. Some articles have hundreds or thousands of revisions, and if some poor soul were doing a history merge and there is personal information that was previously deleted, it's more responsible to oversight those revisions than chance it becoming accidentally recoverable instead. Now, it's quite possible to move the article to one location and the deleted revisions elsewhere, a process similar to but opposite of a history merge, in the event that there is sensitive personal information in that location it's preferable to not undelete the page, which would be required to move it to a different location, and instead to simply hide that revision entirely.

   I hope that answers your question. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.

• Actually, one situation came up recently in a case I was semi-involved in which really drives home a point regarding the potential effects that a member of the Arbitration Committee has: An arbitrator, having made personal, prior statements in various non-Wikipedia situations (IRC and email, for instance) recused from hearing the case. While this was the right thing to do, and is to be expected from someone in this position, I think it also serves to provide an example that not everyone who is in a position to push their own will will choose that option over personal integrity and professionalism. Now, while I'm sure there are other incidents that have arisen that make the community doubt these qualities in those carrying positions of trust, this one action reinforces to me the importance of choosing those who hold positions of trust with exceptional care. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

1a. What's your take on those who have seriously gone back on their word in their pursuit (or desire) of any important role (or power)? Should they resign? Should they be given a second chance?

• Mmm, I'm not really happy with politicians who have done this, but on the other hand I'm rather forgiving of personal frailties (to an extent)... I'd say, unless they harmed someone doing this, give them a second chance. Things change. I was originally interested in Lar's "admins open for recall" category as the only admin-related category I'd adopt, but afterwards there was a significant debate about it all, and I'd rather not use that category to show "how good I am", but rather propose that all admins remind themselves that they hold the position at the discretion of the community, so I dropped it. As far as my opinion as a potential arbitrator goes, however, I'd have to remind folks that unlike other projects, on en.wikipedia the flags we carry around seem to be more or less permanent until you massively screw up, so please decide carefully. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?

• If allowed, I'd rather not choose one at all. While it's imperfect, the system of consensus that we have in creating and removing policy as need dictates works better than anything I could come up with, especially as our policy pages are descriptive and not prescriptive of policy itself. Another way of looking at this, however, is that in a manner of speaking, I already have said authority: shared with everyone else on the project. The only policy that, then, I couldn't affect as part of the community would be WP:NPOV, as it's a Foundation issue, and I'm uninterested in modifying that policy anyway. Sorry. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?

• I've read both the privacy policy, which pertains to both privileges, as well as the more specific checkuser policy and hiding revisions page (which includes policy) before now. Using the checkuser policy as a guide, I'm in the process of trying to clarify the importance and reasoning for the policy at m:CheckUser privacy, stressing mainly why the policy is important and using examples to underscore that point (other than "because the board said so") as well as give some basic hints to those interested in how best to continue to protect their own privacy. On the side of the oversight privilege, I imported m:Hiding revisions to Wikipedia:Oversight and made changes to try to clarify its use and beautify the page for Wikipedians. In addition, since I'm the one who took it upon myself to do this, I regularly review the Hiding revisions page to determine if there are changes that need to be incorporated into the Wikipedia page. I'm aware that there is a little bit of copyediting that needs to be done still. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?

• I'd really rather like to point to the answer for question one to reply to the definition of integrity. That one example, while overlooked by many and I imagine perhaps not seen as anything of importance, is still to me an example that many should strive for. The ability to put aside ones own agenda and work towards the greater good of the community really just can never be appreciated enough, I think. Accountability and transparency are a bit trickier in the case of something such as ArbCom, since some of the actions are taken as part of an "entity" which after your departing the entity is still responsible for, however ultimately each arbitrator (or Wikipedian in generally, really) is responsible for his or her own actions. It's entirely too enticing to simply shrug off that responsibility to the arbitration entity and cling to your actions as "doing your duty". Happily, from what I've seen the current Arbitration Committee is no monolith of solidarity and defiance, and instead is willing to listen to the community and even censure its own members if need be. To move my focus a little now, transparency is the part with the most contention to it. I quite understand that in the course of an arbitration, there may come to light evidence which the parties do not wish to enter the pages of Wikipedia. Evidence pointed to that contains private and personal information, obviously, we don't want to publish on a publicly accessible page, nor do we wish to divulge the contents of emails and chat logs for the same reason. Finally and possibly the most overlooked is that any contributions to the project, even including arguments and evidence submitted to the Arbitration Committee, are licensed under the GFDL and there is the possibility that someone may simply not wish to have the evidence subject to this license, but to be thorough and fair we still must be able to weigh the evidence. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Fys

1. I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
   • In my opinion, if the case has not been disruptive to the community and all the affected parties are willing, I would prefer to drop the case. The problem with forcing a solution on parties is that a disgruntled party can disconnect, use proxies, use AOL, or other methods and harass those they disagree with and disrupt the encyclopedia. If a party, however, voluntarily decides to cooperate because those involved in the case have come to an amicable solution, there's no need to force them to abide by anything at all other than the policies we already have set in place. On the other hand, it may well be worth recording these voluntary decisions and offering to remind those involved of the decisions they have made, to prevent future disruption. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
2. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I'm not fond of personal private discussions, since that might lead to the appearance of favoritism, though I can understand if private evidence were given to an arbitrator and they reposted it to the other arbitrators on the arbcom mailing list. Obviously, if an arbitrator had prior personal involvement with one of the parties (if they had a relationship, for instance) I'd expect that arbitrator to recuse from the case. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Take a look at Wikipedia:Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Probation is used when the editor in question seems to have no internal guidance regarding the issues that resulted in the probation, so in the event that they appear to develop such guidance, I can see a short probationary period continuing (say, three months) then removal of the probation. Human nature being what it is, there will be many cases in which an editor will stay on probation indefinitely. While socially unappealing, I think the most important thing to remember in these cases is that the editor is no less an editor than anyone else, and that they should be treated with the same respect given to anyone else. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Chacor

1. What is your opinion of ex-admins who have not voluntarily given up their sysophood? Do you think they should be resysopped at AC's will, or do you think that they should go through another RfA? What are your thoughts on the current re-adminship process for involuntarily-desysopped admins? – Chacor 12:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I can see reasons either way, though I personally feel that in general an admin who was deadminned for abusing those bits should simply go through the same process as anyone else. If there is a situation where a former admin would otherwise be eligible for resysopping, I feel that instead of ArbCom unilaterally granting those permissions, the former admin should undergo RfA like anyone else. If the community has put a policy in place, the Arbitration Committee should work with those policies, not simply side-step them. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Rama's Arrow

There are a few areas of concern that I'd like to discuss with you:

1. You have a composite experience of about 8 months, but as an admin it is 3-4 months. Many will feel this is insufficient experience for an arbitrator. How will you respond regarding this concern?
   • Experience is definitely important, and they're right to be cautious. As I've said above, there is a lot of trust that the community puts into electing the arbitrators, and I actually have decided that in my opinion the best way to get the best arbitrator for the job is to have a wide selection to choose from. I've "put my money where my mouth is" so to speak and as a result am here as a candidate. Frankly, I'm not here to win for myself, I'm here to give the community the widest possible selection with the hopes that whoever is selected will be the most appropriate choice. People have varying standards for who they want representing them, after all. I wish every candidate the best of luck. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Out of the 3-4 months as an admin, your activity was low in August and September - this will be a part of the concern in Q1. Knowing that real-life is often unpredictable, are you confident that you'll be around to serve as an admin and an arbitrator fairly consistently?
   • There are, unfortunately, some real life concerns that I have to deal with and may even someday prevent me from returning entirely. In the event that I am unable to return to Wikipedia, however, please feel assured that there are those who will make contact with Arbitration Committee members and the community in general to explain this, and that there will likely be a replacement selected. In addition, part of my contributions have been spread out to other related communities, such as Meta and Commons, which either directly or indirectly affect Wikipedia. I've performed a number of needed administrative actions, I feel, though balancing the action with forethought tends to result in a lower overall count. Hopefully this is a benefit and not a hindrance. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
3. I don't see much in terms of mainspace contributions, but you're fairly active on MedCabal. How do you associate and correlate the role of working on processes with the job of building an encyclopedia?
   • All the behind the scenes work in Mediation Cabal is designed to make the work of others more efficient. If we have a dispute that causes an article to stagnate and attract vandalism and violations of WP:NPOV, then we're wasting the time of the editors who have worked on that article. If, however, we can bring those involved in the dispute to a resolution and by doing so, improve the article in question, the encyclopedia has been improved and our efforts have been worth it. Arbitration is similar process: If an arbitrator spends all her time trying to come up with solutions that will affect a large number of articles, one well thought out and carefully placed edit could have wide and welcome effects over the entire project. On the other hand, a poorly thought out (or worse, a malicious) edit could be incredibly disruptive. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Your promise to recuse yourself seems not well-advised. How is the call to be made on whether you're prejudiced or not? What if you feel confident that you can still do your job properly?
   • I make the judgment call myself, though I'll certainly listen to others if they suggest that there is an issue. The catch to this all is that more important than any other consideration, the community must elect those arbitrators that they feel they can trust. If you trust that I will make the correct call, and you trust that I'm able to retain my integrity in these situations, then feel free to call on me for this duty. Select those you trust to keep composure and honesty for this. If someone feels that I can't handle this position, I'd ask them to please select someone else. If they'd like to explain to me why they feel I'm not capable of this (preferably nicely :) I'll happily listen. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Will you marry me? Can you please describe the way you will go about examining and arbitrating a contentious case that has provoked an uproar and diverse opinions. What factors will you allow/disallow from influencing your decision-making? Rama's arrow (H. B. K.) 17:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I'd listen to the concerns, remove these concerns from the emotional envelope surrounding them, then try to place them in the situation and predict what the results would be. One odd thing I've discovered while reading over mediation cases (I imagine the cabalists will be surprised to learn that I like to review the cases while they're busy working them!) is that oftentimes a disruptive party, disliked by many, actually has a good point that others are dismissing ad hominem. When taken out of the context of someone being disruptive, then represented to the parties, the exact same argument is then seen in a new light and is often acted upon. It's simply a matter, then, to explain to the disgruntled party (who may feel that you stole his argument) that perhaps it just took a different approach. Similarly, in arbitration, in order to fairly weigh the arguments of those involved, you have to remove the arguments from the shell of the dispute and determine its worth on its own merits. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from User:Ideogram

1. Please describe a recent ArbCom decision that you feel was handled well and why. Please describe a recent ArbCom decision that you would have handled differently.
   • Wow, where to start...
   1. Honda S2000: the remedies to SpinyNorman are both numerous and potentially confusing, I think I'd have rather suggested that they were simplified, but I'm not totally sure how.
   2. Marudubshinki: was handled well, though as he seems to be a dedicated bot user, I think I'd have suggested that he be sent to BRfA and perform technical assistance there, if they'd have him.
   3. Israel-Lebanon:, Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of enforcing a remedy which is article-specific like this instead of editor-specific. I can see the logic behind this, but I think that similar remedies might put undue stress on editors who accidentally wade into an article with this sort of arbitration attachment.
   • Now, I'm just showing the concerns that I felt when reading over the decisions (Some, especially the pedobox wars case, are still mid-reading as the arguments and points on both sides tend to be rather convoluted at points) and aren't criticism of the current arbitrators. Personally, I feel that as I wasn't in the situation, I really can't criticize the actions too much, as in each case there seems to be an amount of evidence that the public never sees, or opinions and forethought that aren't perfectly translated into the remedies. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Can you explain how you manage to be such an awesome coordinator for MedCabal, a kind and gracious administrator, and an all-around excellent human being? --Ideogram 09:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Lots and lots of practice being awesome, kind, gracious, and excellent. Oh, did I mention my incredible modesty too? I'm not conceited, but it appears I have every right to be. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Chilifix

1. What would you do if there was an ArbCom decision that involved one or more users that you considered a friend? Would you risk losing their friendship to be fair, or would you take their side, even if there was clear evidence of wrongdoing?
2. Suppose there was an ArbCom case involving someone that you had a heavy dislike for. How would you handle any stress that might come up, especially if your foe was getting their way?--Chilifix 17:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
   • These are easily both answered with the same answer: The Arbitration Committee has more than just a handful of arbitrators, and quite honestly I'd personally like to see between twelve and twenty, in various interests and stages of Wiki-life, to maximize the cross-section of the Wiki population. Why? Because if someone feels they have a prejudice either way, I'd expect them to recuse. For instance, if you were to be involved in an arbitration case, I'd recuse. Once in that position, I'd view my involvement as a spectator or uninvolved party rather than as an arbitrator. I don't see that as something I need to negotiate or worry over, and the only possible problem I could foresee would be if a party were added to the case that I have personal involvement with, in which case I would rather just recuse on any details regarding that particular individual, or failing that ask another arbitrator to give their opinion or ruling instead. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Newyorkbrad

(There are already a lot of questions here, but this is a standard question I've posed to every candidate, so it should go here as well:)

1. What steps can be taken to reduce the delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I think the most important thing would be to have more clerks available, perhaps with some license to pass along arbitration opinions for ArbCom. After a recent case involving the distinction between a clerk in clerk-capacity and as an editor , obviously there would need to be exceptional care in this sort of situation, perhaps a seperate "clerk signature" to use instead of a normal signature to identify that post as being a request handled by the clerk on behalf of ArbCom. There's a similar suggested remedy in the Giano case, though I think it should have a bit of off-case discussion to clarify the situation first. As far as simply speeding up cases goes, I'm all ears until it deteriorates the quality and fairness of the case. Fast is fine, sloppy isn't. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. If elected, do you anticipate being actively involved in drafting the actual decisions of cases? If so, do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this activity? Newyorkbrad 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Not with Arbitration Committee itself, however I've handled suggestions to mediators as far as proposals of actions for MedCab cases, I've suggested outcomes on WP:AN/I, and have handled decision making (though admittedly not much) for the VCN as senior staff. In addition, I have management duties off-wiki which include handling complaints and employee counseling/coaching, which oddly enough seems to be the experience most closely related to arbitration. When you have to "write someone up", it oftentimes seems to include very familiar remedies to what ArbCom is doing now. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from jd2718

Kylu, what qualities, knowledge, experience, etc, would the ArbCom be missing if you were not elected? Jd2718 08:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is going to sound like a very odd answer for someone who "wants the job": I hope ArbCom will not end up missing any of my benefits, since that would imply that better people have been chosen for the job. If I can insert myself into the list of candidates, this increases the size of the pool that the population can elect from, and thereby increase the chance of electing good candidates. Now, to answer more directly, I imagine that among other traits that I may have, I'd prefer to think that the traits that I'd like to bring the most of are kindness and approachability. There are numerous people who seem to fear ArbCom and consider them aloof for whatever reason, and they're simply elected out of the general population like the rest of us. I tend to think of myself as someone that, if you have a problem (and this stands whether or not I end up on the Arbitration Committee, by the way) you can contact me and I'll try to help you with your dilemma. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse

Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)

1. A current Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
   • This is a rather specific case, and while I feel the the Arbitration Committee can certainly hear it, there are restrictions upon the Arbitration Committee to where they're required to abide by the decisions of the Board of Directors. In this case, I would probably suggest to the Board that they draft the least restrictive policy that our Legal Counsel (Mr. Patrick) feels comfortable with, then give it to the community and allow the community to build upon the policy. Strictly speaking, the Committee has exactly the amount of power that Mr. Wales and the rest of the Board of Directors allows it to have, remembering that it's limited to the Wikipedia site alone. Short version: That's not my decision to make, and if I were in the position to have to rule on it, I'd ask the Board for clarification as this is a new situation with specific legal consequences. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
   • I've noticed that our "real life" judiciary works the same way: Legal decisions attempt to set as little precedent as possible, until they're painted into a corner and are required to judge one way or another based on the law as it is at that time. Part of the problem is that we're trying to determine, with no guidance in place, if one body is required to answer in its official capacity to another body. From my understanding, both bodies are equally important and have to answer to both the community and the Wikimedia hierarchy (that is, the Stewards and the Board of Directors). Personally, I feel that the Arbitration Committee acted appropriately in this situation, though if given a hypothetical case where (for instance) a Bureaucrat promoted a user to Admin without consensus in an appropriate Request for Adminship, or worse unilaterally promoted that user without community input at all, I can see ArbCom requesting that the Bureaucrat and Admin be immediately demoted, then it playing out in the case as to other potential decisions against those involved, depending on the circumstances. Now, looking at it from the other side, I can't see how the Arbitration Committee could bypass requesting consensus and simply decree that a person be given adminship or bureaucratship, as if the Bureaucrats decide to not grant these permissions, it's (in my opinion) quite within their prerogative to demand that consensus be built first. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
   • I can think of a few situations where this has come up, most recently mentioned (though not acted upon) in the Giano case, as well as the cases for Ed Poor (,,) and the Highways case. While I feel that some understanding should be extended to users who already have a proven track record of beneficial contributions, I am specifically against letting this understanding be translated as allowing "free passes" (as it was phrased during the first mentioned case) to violate Wikipedia policy. Similarly, simple editcount and length of service should not be taken into consideration by themselves. While these may be important, it would be all too easy to allow people to determine "who is more important" to the project, which is completely the wrong attitude to have. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
   • I don't think either group of contributors is more important, and disagree that they're mutually exclusive. I know of several admins who not only perform administrative duties, but also are FA writers. Likewise, I was recently involved in a dispute with a user who was a prolific FA writer who was neither an admin nor inclined to request those permissions at all. I know several admins who perform "janitorial" actions almost exclusively, and those who perform such functions as bot maintenance, those who serve in the Mediation Cabal and Arbitration Committee, and those who sit on the Admin Noticeboard constantly, trying to prevent problems before they start. That's not to mention our Bureaucrats themselves, who are typically quite busy. If we removed any of these groups from the project, there would be problems, and the whole place would bog down and be unmanageable. None of them are any more important than the others, and quite frankly I feel that every last Wikipedian on here is a volunteer who is, outside of Wikipedia at the very least, unknown and under appreciated. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
   • I've been accused of being a "civility patrol" admin, typically on IRC, so I can think of a few decisions off the top of my head (,,) where I rather wish the "incivil" parties would've walked away with a bit more than a warning. The problem, in my eyes, is that while we're all human, but if the parties apparently feel that incivility is enough of a problem that prior steps in dispute resolution can't have handled it, then they already know they've done something wrong and need a more firm reminder of what is and is not appropriate. On the other hand, I can think of one case where perhaps the penalties were slightly much. It really varies depending on the case. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
   • "It depends." If Mr. Bauder's decisions are obvious and/or the feelings of the Arbitration Committee (given that we know they discuss cases in private) then I have no problems with this practice continuing, or in the absence of Mr. Bauder, another mouthpiece for the Committee being appointed, assuming that this is a role that ArbCom is comfortable with him having. When I have my own decisions, I have no issue with positing them to the Committee on my own. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
   • If a non-administrator wants to be on the Arbitration Committee, they're welcome to do so.
     1. Deleted articles can be retrieved by another arbitrator and placed on the mailing list for the non-admin arbitrator(s) to view. Not a problem.
     2. If the arbitrator has not earned the community trust, they wouldn't be an arbitrator in the first place. This is a much, much harder "race to win" than simply going through RfA. Also, there are a number of highly respected users whose opinion is valued more than those of many admins who simply have no desire for the bit. Remember, Adminship is no big deal. It's not a validation of your worth or community respect.
     3. If the arbitrator does not want the admin-bit duties, please keep in mind that arbitration duty is no less involved and stressful, and this may actually be a benefit to the arbitrator, as they have less that they need to focus on at Wikipedia.
     4. Lastly, I don't think "non-administrators" are a group that specifically needs representation, as we're not talking about "peasants" or "serfs" that we as administrators whip into working on articles constantly. Admins are not overseers, and far too often we all tend to forget that while everyone has a niche that they like to work in, admins are simply editors with a few more buttons.
   • ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean

You are currently a coordinator at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Coordination Desk. Please describe what you do there. How much time do you devote to that process? If not successful in this Arbitration Committee election, will you remain at the Mediation Cabal? ·maclean 08:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

While I can't speak for the activities of the other coordinators, I can explain my own activities fairly easily.

I maintain Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Opentask, inspect the new cases to be sure that they actually are situations requiring mediation, and if not I inform the users (politely of course!) that there are other avenues of correcting problems. I keep a close eye on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Coordination Desk and determine when there's a situation that requires intervention, ensure that cases are created correctly and conform to MedCab naming standards (which makes it easier to find them in the future once they're archived), and finally I do of course actually mediate cases from time to time, though I tend to prefer to handle "special issue" cases. In the event that a page requires protection/unprotection during a mediation, I've handled those administrative tasks for our mediators also, though when possible I suggest they use RFPP instead, as it makes the Cabal look a little less...Cabal-like. Oh, also, I (and I assume the other coordinators, also) get a number of emails regarding "situations" that arise and need to be taken care of, and give suggestions to those who feel article talk-page discussions aren't going anywhere the option of taking the dispute to MedCab.

I'd say it all probably takes maybe 2-3 hours a day in total, including MedCab related emails, excluding case discussion on chat. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why I'd move away from MedCab if the election fails. I'm more wondering how much I'd have to scale back my involvement or if I'd have to release the coordination role entirely if I were elected, though it's occurred to me that it'd be better to put my MedCab work on complete hiatus while on ArbCom, that way I don't end up with any conflicts of interest.

One question which was not asked, but perhaps deserves answering anyway, is Can you feel you can arbitrate a case that one of your Mediation Cabal associates has worked on previously and failed?

All of the mediators have made mistakes before, and we've all had failed cases that have gone on to MedCom or (more often) ArbCom for further resolution, and if I see a case where I feel disinclined to be fair, or any case where I was personally involved, I'd recuse myself from the arbitration. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Alphax

1. A/S/L? [ælfəks] 13:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
   • Old/No thanks/Earth. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
2. You're a violinist. How many violists does it take to change a lightglobe? [ælfəks] 13:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
   • "I don't know, they can't reach that high." ~Kylu (u|t) 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
3. What POVs do you have? When would you recuse yourself? [ælfəks] 13:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I don't really have any strong political leanings, though I'm rather Libertarian by nature, so that might come into play in the future. I'm religious, but not terribly active, so nothing there. I feel my strongest reason for recusal would be if the case were to involve one of my good on-wiki friends, though after reading the arguments before acceptance I'm sure I could identify any cases which I feel have the potential to strongly affect me. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Giano

I am surprised that so soon after your controversial and misguided blocking of me, where you chose to consult on the secretive admins channel rather than in the proper place, and subsequently received the wrong advice. You now feel you are qualified to be a member of the Arbcom.

You may remember that you even refused to contribute to the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano case to explain your actions because you were "frightened". When pressed you allowed other editors to scream rubbish at me claiming I was hectoring what they inferred was a poor frightened timid little girl - incidentally you did absolutely nothing to alter that impression - so my question is Kylu - What has changed in less than a month? That from being frightened of appearing in cases you now feel fit to adjudicate. How can we be sure your nerves and inexperience won't hamper you again in the future? I don't want to drag out the diffs again, but you know what I'm talking about, so some answers will make interesting reading. I'm sorry I don't think you are ready for the great responsibility and pressures of the job, but can you convince me otherwise? Giano 16:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the situation was quite that clear. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings_of_fact#Giano_was_blocked_during_the_Carnildo_RfA.

To clarify, I don't recall ever having stated I was "frightened" by the case, you may be misinterpreting my having said "I'm afraid I would rather not be involved," at some point. I realise that we have unresolved issues, and I'd be happy to work them out with you on or off-wiki via e-mail. Let me know on my talk page and we can work out a venue for discussion, but it's inappropriate to do so here.

I don't imagine that you're one of my strongest supporter for the position, though instead of attaining popularity, the role of ArbCom is to decide upon the cases based on the merits. By the time a case rolls around to requiring arbitration, things are already seen as "out of hand".

Take care. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is far from "inappropriate" to question your conduct here but don't worry we are not going to waste any more time on your behaviour in that incident. As one of Wikipedia's most respected and uncontroversial editors, ALoan said in The notorious Giano case. "If an IRC discussion persuaded Kylu to block in circumstances where no block would have been made without that discussion, then it would be interesting to know who was involved in that discussion, and why it was not undertaken in a more public and transparent forum, such as WP:AN or WP:ANI That block is part of the background to this case" When I left you a polite request to discuss it you responded with this uncivil edit summary here [1] so your actions rather speak for themselves and as you claim you can't remember with whom you discussed it on the Admin IRC Channel, there is no point furthering this conversation. You have been judged on your answers and found wanting. I'm sure you will agree with me that in your one and only brush with a difficult Arb-com case your behaviour was not that expected of a future Arb-Com member.

I'm declining your invitation to discuss the matter off-wiki or by email, I'm afraid I don't do important wiki-matters "off-wiki" in fact one of the things that concerns me most about you is that you seem to operate mostly in secret "Off-Wiki". That is why I saw you as a personal attack - coming out of nowhere, with no previous interaction, and blocking me, against accepted policy.

However that is past, let us now pass on to my next questions.

1: Will you continue with your "off-wiki" activities and IRC chattering if you are elected?

2: One of my editing colleagues has coined the rather unkind term "IRC Fairy" - meaning one who chats for ages on IRC, has their IRC friends vote them into adminship, and occasionally for the sake of appearances does a little reverting and admining, can you explain why that term does not apply to you?

3: Your recent edits do not include main-space ones (that is in terms of informative contributions) can you explain to me what attracted you to Wikipedia? No one decides: "I think I'll join Wikipedia and become an admin" do they? We all find articles and edit them because they interests us first, what pages have interested you, and where do you feel you have made your most positive mainspace contribution to Wikipedia?

I look forward to your response Giano 14:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)