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.)

Please see my responses to a series of general questions here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

   Peacemaker. We're not here to decree who is right and who is wrong as a judge would; we're not here to decree policy as a legislator would; we're not here to knock everyone about as a dictator would. We are here to seek out a solution to the problem through whatever means necessary; if that means desysopping/banning/sanctioning someone, then so be it.

1. a/s/l?

   I am a 19 year old male near Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

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.

   I am answering this question from the perspective of someone who usually edits project space; I've never been the most prolific article writer, somewhat to my regret. Anyway, such divides largely seem to come from a lack of understanding of the other party. In general, (and this is very general, so please don't take offense, anyone), project editors try to ensure that all of Wikipedia can be run smoothly; this often means setting up noticeboards so that situations can be heard and dealt with quickly, drafting policies and guidelines to deal with perceived problems, etc. The problems arise when the article editors, who are actually out "in the field" run into these noticeboards and guidelines, see them as bureaucratic red tape (which to be honest, it fairly often is), and bull onward because they know what they're doing. The project editors flip out because policies X Y and Z are being violated, the article editors claim they're using WP:IAR and that they're the ones who know what they're doing, and much drama ensues. Trying to help get more article writers involved in the policy discussions would probably help a lot with this - get a message bot to send an FYI to the major Wikiprojects, notify some of the editors who frequent ANI a lot, put things up on the watchlist notices, etc. If such a case ended up being presented to ArbCom, and didn't necessarily need ArbCom's attention, I would definitely consider referring the case to the Mediation Committee to help further resolve the problem. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it's a shame we tend to split into factions such as this at times.

3. What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?

   A banned editor is not welcome to contribute here, for whatever purpose. If they did happen to make a useful edit, it should not be difficult to re-work their contribution into something even better; after all, that is what we do even with users who aren't banned. It's much easier to simply remove everything than to individually evaluate each edit, and get into arguments about what is useful enough to leave and what isn't.

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.

   ANSWER PENDING

5. Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.

   In no particular order, Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park (started), Carcross Desert (started, DYK), Hood Mockingbird (expanded, DYK), and Bertrand Russell (heavy referencing). The fifth contribution I'll go out on a limb and say my work as an administrator, because that is honestly most of what I do these days and I feel I've done a fairly good job at it.

6. Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?

   Yes, however I will not vote for myself. As an editor, I feel I am entitled to and obligated to vote, however as a candidate I feel it unfair to vote for myself. I will vote for who I believe to be the best candidates other than myself.

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?
2. What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?

   As you said, both of these questions I've already answered; my responses can be found here, #'s 28 and 29.

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?

   This would make logical sense - I've said before of administratorship, the community appoints us by virtue of their trust in us to properly use the tools; should we lose that trust, they reserve the right to revoke what they gave. The same should apply here, however if such a system were set up I would caution that it would be necessary to leave a recalled Arb active on any cases they were currently involved in at the time of the recall; this way we don't have the issue of "conveniently timed" removals of Arbs. It would have to be worked out, obviously, to make it feasible, but I would certainly be open to it.

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")?

   ArbCom does not create policy. ArbCom should not, but for exceptional cases, make interpretations of policy that are substantially different from anything previously followed. Any such remedy would need to adhere to those guidelines, as well as have some relation to the case. The most well-known case of such an extended remedy (one with effects beyond those involved in a case) is WP:BLPBAN, the "special enforcement" doctrine passed in the Footnoted quotes RFAR. Such strong measures are occasionally appropriate when the evidence revealed at a case shows that there is a widespread problem that includes more than simply the case at hand. It is ArbCom's duty to see to it that such severe disruption does not continue, so that the entire project can function more smoothly.

2. What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

   Arbitrators are elected because they are considered among the most experienced and most trusted members of the community. Their conduct, within ArbCom, elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I'd in fact go so far to say on any public site where they may be reasonably connected to their Wikipedia persona (such as Wikipedia Review, or another site where their username is the same, or they publicly declare "I am a member of site X with account Y"), ought to meet or exceed those expectations. It is entirely hypocritical to interpret policy and lay out sanctions on other users while wearing a "Arbitrator" hat, then act like a complete dick elsewhere whilst wearing an "Editor" hat. Regardless of what "hat" you're wearing, users will realize that the same person was just wearing a hat of another color, and will follow from your lead. Arbitrators are expected to conduct themselves in a manner firmly in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines at all times during which they may be reasonably connected to their Wikipedia username. They are a public figure within, and outside of, our community, and have the potential to represent Wikipedia to the rest of the world.

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)[reply]

   General complaints, I feel, should be directed to a request for comment or other public discussion. ArbCom should only be used for a history of problematic actions, or an instance of a particularly severe problem (wheel warring, for example). ArbCom is and should be the last resort, because their remedies are far more binding than any other form of dispute resolution. If a case regarding administrator conduct is brought to ArbCom, I would expect it to address one of the situations previously mentioned, not just a simple review of action X. That said, I would be open to the acceptance of cases that deal more with the conduct of the administrator rather than their use of the tools; as I said for a previous question, administrators also tend to be high-profile figures in and out of our community, and poor conduct even amidst proper usage of the tools is not acceptable. If that's not entirely clear, please let me know and I'll try to clarify.

   There is no apparent method of removing the sysop flag under non-emergency conditions other than by ArbCom decision or Jimbo's consideration (which latter is hopefully moribund); an RfC or Admin Recall does not have any authority should a sysop disagree (for instance, I am not open to recall) and could therefore be considered a hollow vessel which simply acts as a step toward an RfAR. I am therefore questioning whether ArbCom candidates feel that the existing permissions need to be exercised more often, or at least such cases accepted for review, in view of the growing numbers of admins and the lack of any other method of removing the bit from individuals who no longer have the trust of the community they had when they gained the tools. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Provided the blocking admin was not involved in the dispute, and there was a clear policy based reason to do so, I would see it as appropriate. Note that these requirements for a block should be no different than if the blocking admin was blocking a regular editor. No special considerations should be made, unless the admin is invoking non-tool-related administrative actions such as BLP Special Enforcement. If blocked for such a reason, the blocking administrator should not unblock themselves; they should appeal their block through the normal channels, or they may be sanctioned for wheel warring.

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?

   In that case, I would expect an administrator to attempt to discuss the situation with the admin misusing the tools; if that did not resolve the situation, then an ANI report or an ArbCom case should be opened. Blocking an administrator for perceived misuse of their tools could constitute a form of wheel warring; using administrative tools to actively oppose one another. If misuse of the tools is evident, I would support sanctions as outlined in my response to this question; if a block was made as described in this question, I would caution the blocking administrator to seek other forms of dispute resolution before resorting to technical means. It would also be worth reminding them that some administrative rights can still be used while blocked. Special:Nuke, for example, will be available to blocked administrators when activated, despite the delete right being disabled.

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)[reply]

   The only situation in which I know for certain I would recuse myself is if User:Orangemarlin was entered as a major party. The two of us have had some disagreements in the past, which ended with a mutual pact to leave the other well enough alone. If elected, I would attempt to discuss this subject with OrangeMarlin, as I know he has been involved in several RFARs to date, and may well be involved in more in the future. At this time, I do not forsee any potential issues with other users or subject areas, excepting of course any in which I may be involved.

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?

   I'm gathering from the question that the first editor (for the sake of clarity, I'll call them POVPusher) has been pushing his viewpoint to the point at which it can be reasonably asserted that they are being disruptively racist. I'm also gathering from the question that the second editor (call them WhistleBlower) failed to provide such evidence when making that accusation, or else made the accusation in a particularly incivil manner (that is, even more incivil than simply saying "you're being racist"). Disruptive editing to push a biased viewpoint, as I'm assuming POVPusher did, is unacceptable. Calling out such instances of abuse in an objective manner, as I believe WhistleBlower was trying to do, is expected to help prevent disruption and abuse of the site. WhistleBlower's mistake here appears to be that the "calling out" wasn't done in the most objective manner, and the administrator misunderstood the situation. I would encourage the blocking administrator to take a second look at things and reconsider the block, however at the same time cautioning WhistleBlower to watch how he says things which could very easily misinterpreted. A statement such as "I notice you're promoting a rather disruptive and racist viewpoint, as seen in diff diff diff." will go a lot further and be much less open to interpretation than "You're being a racist on article." Likewise, a review of POVPusher's contributions would be in order, and blocks, editing restrictions, or warnings applied as necessary.

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?

   I would at the very least privately confront the administrator about the accounts. The way this is described, there seem to be far too many coincidences for this to be a false alarm. An effort should be made to assume good faith, however when evidence begins to substantially point the other direction, some sort of action must be taken. I would say that the type of vandalism would make a difference - childish and basic vandalism could probably be disregarded, however vandalism that demonstrates a moderate understanding of our defenses would raise further suspicion.

   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.

   I would choose B - this way, there is a slight check and balance against potential "fishing," and as mentioned there will be a much reduced appearance of a conflict of interest. Granted, if there is no relation and no information is released, the point made in A would be perfectly valid; however, if the scan is inconclusive or confirmed, the case will be abruptly brought into public view. Even if the case is borderline, A would give the chance for a confirmation bias to cloud the CU's judgement.

   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?

   A ban should only be lifted when it becomes clear the behavior that led to the ban has stopped or will no longer be a problem. If the harassment is continuing on a public site that is known to be affiliated with Smith, then there is no indication that it will stop. The actions of the Smythe account, while not disruptive, was against policy (avoiding ban, avoiding scrutiny) and somewhat dishonest. On the other hand, the Smythe account was much improved over the conduct of Smith.

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?

   Arbitration should result in remedies that are appropriate for the case at hand. If there are arguments going both ways, then perhaps the best option would be to find a middle ground. Not everyone can agree on everything, and this will certainly be the case with the arbitration committee as well. I see no problem with arbitrators publicly disagreeing with one another when they are able to back up their position. However, the arbitrators do have the private communication channels for a reason, so severe disputes would be best worked out on a one-to-one level instead of on a public forum. Constant unanimous agreement on every issue could in fact be more damaging to the ArbCom's reputation than the occasional division; conflict is what leads us to make change, especially on Wikipedia, and should be expected. A complete absence of conflict, or an unwillingness to compromise, may show that the Committee may not have the community's best interests at heart.

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?

   As I've mentioned previously, my Wikipedia work focuses mainly on administrative actions anyway. If I were elected, the community would not be losing an avid article writer. In my nearly two years here, I can only honestly claim substantial contributions that I am satisfied with to four articles. I have tried previously to devote time to writing articles, but for whatever reason have not been able to. I do not believe there will be difficulty balancing my work with ArbCom. As for email, I check my email very frequently and don't expect that to be a problem. Should I happen to be dissatisfied with something that occurs in my absence, I will be sure to remain aware of any clarification requests stemming from that decision later on; should I have a severe problem with the case, I would work with the other arbitrators to see if some form of amendment could be sought out, perhaps through the closed motions process.

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?

   Never all in one sentence, however the information is floating about the Wiki and on numerous IRC logs for people to patch together should they be so inclined. Should other private information, such as contact information, be unwillingly be disclosed, I would take steps on my end to see that the breach of privacy was nullified as much as possible. I do not forsee it being a problem towards my participation on the site.

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).

   The only task I would not feel prepared to undertake would be F, running checkuser reports. As I stated here, I don't feel entirely secure with the checkuser tool, and would seek assistance from another checkuser before fulfilling any requests of that nature. As for the remainder, while I have little experience with ArbCom itself, I feel as though my work as an administrator and elsewhere in "real life" has prepared me adequately for those roles, perhaps somewhat less so for A (drafting decisions). I would be particularly well suited towards reviewing ban and long-term block appeals due to my work on the unblock email list.

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?

   I approve of the proposed changes; these seem to reflect current practice well, and where they do not the reasoning behind them is well-reasoned. I don't have any comments at this time, however I will try to review these again in the future and comment on them then.

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.

   The decreasing case load is a good sign, in my opinion. It shows that the majority of disputes are being resolved or otherwise dealt with through lower levels of dispute resolution. ArbCom is a last resort for a reason; our cases take much longer to complete than any other form of discussion, it's not as open as other forms, and our remedies are, on average, far more binding and severe than you'll see anywhere else. I don't, however, expect this to be permanent; it could simply be that we're in the midst of a temporary lull and things will pick up once again. Only time will tell.

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?

   There are a lot which overlap each other, and I feel could very easily be condensed into a single policy, however I would remove Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. It basically serves as a cop-out way to speedy delete something; it does not seem to me that merging this with AfD would cause a significant drain on the community; obvious deletes can be easily snowballed as they already are. With the AfD closing script, it is now far less tedious to close discussions. Should it become a problem, then it may be possible to consider a limited expansion of the speedy deletion criteria.

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?

   No. Such matters should be left wholly to the community to decide. ArbCom only interprets policy, and may in extreme cases insist that special measures are taken to see that a given policy is enforced (the most well-known of these would be BLP).

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

   I believe that the Foundation needs to formalize their position on the IRC channels before ArbCom can take jurisdiction of them. If the IRC channels become a formally adopted part of the Wikimedia project, then they can be regulated as we regulate conduct here. As it currently stands, that distinction is fuzzy at best. Imagine, if you will, a company. After the business day, all employees of the company walk across the street to a bar. This bar gets all of its business from the employees of this company. The company, however, has no business regulating the employee's conduct there as they're off work time and not on company property. Only if something truly severe happens (harassment of another worker) should the company intervene. If the company were to purchase the bar, however, then they would have some ground to stand on. That, I believe, is how the situation should be handled here.

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?

   As I mentioned in NYB's questions above, I support the revisions to the policy that are currently underway; once I get the chance, I will make an effort to more actively contribute to them. As for more immediate concerns, I would work to push for faster resolution of cases; not to the detriment of the usefulness of the remedies, but to ensure the remedies are provided in a timely manner so they don't end up making themselves a moot point. As I also said above, I would be greatly in support of an "arbitrator recall" program where the community would be able to seek the removal of a standing arbitrator should they feel they are not fulfilling the role expected of them.

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?

   The dispute on which the case was focusing seemed to be much larger than it was originally presented as. In addition, the nature of the dispute was considerably different than anything the ArbCom had faced before; rather than a single editor causing disruption, there was a breakdown in operations within a WikiProject, leading to widespread disputes and disruption spanning across many different pages and even other projects. Looking through the Proposed Decisions, it seems Arbitrators and parties were hard pressed to come up with an appropriate decision. Where such unusual cases occur, such is to be expected. While not desired, it is better to take a longer than usual period of time deciding a case than to push through and make a decision that doesn't properly address all aspects of the case. I strongly support faster solutions, but not to the degree at which the purpose is lost.

2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

   A WikiProject is intended to be a collaborative group of editors who share an interest in a given topic and wish to work together to improve articles relating to that topic. In order to maintain a high level of quality on the articles they edit, Wikiprojects may come up with a basic template format for new articles created within their scope, as well as other expected standards which have been formed through a consensus of the project. However, they do not have the right to enforce such guidelines, or treat them as policy, unless they have brought them to the attention of the wider community for consensus there. Wikiproject Biographies, for example, is in the position to help in enforcing WP:BLP and WP:BIO; as with anything, however, if supposed enforcement of either of these policies becomes disruptive, a user's membership in a Wikiproject cannot be used as a police badge to avoid administrative action directed to stop the disruption.

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)

   Articles in the scope of a child project are, by definition, also in the scope of a parent project. The general layouts recommended by a parent project should generally be followed by its children, provided other arrangements have not been made within the projects themselves. However, the same guidelines I outlined in the previous question remain - these general layouts and guidelines are still subject to the input of the wider community.

4. Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?

   Project newsletters are generally solicited by members of the project, and relate to subjects an active member would be aware of anyway. I don't see them as problematic canvassing, provided of course the newsletter is not aimed to be clearly biased. Posting notices in IRC is not always solicited, and can easily be done in a biased manner. Calling neutral attention to the general community - once - is not problematic, as that's how you get people there to build consensus. Pushing people one way or another, however, is inappropriate.

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?

   If an edit is clearly, or reasonably seems to be made in good faith, it should not be considered vandalism. The problematic edit should be reverted (NOT through rollback), and an attempt should be made to work directly with the user to correct the problem. If the edits continue without response, hidden comments could be used to ensure that the user is aware of the problem (assuming this is to the same article), and a more forceful (but still polite) attempt should be made to explain the problem. If the edits continue, a short protection (hour or two) or short block (<= 24 hours) may be in order, again with a detailed explanation of the problem and how to prevent it. Only if an edit cannot be thought to be made in good faith should we proceed directly to sterner measures.

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?

   Such behavior is incivil and disruptive. Gaming the system such as this editor seems to be doing is just as problematic - if not more so - than vandalism sprees. Were I faced with such an editor, and attempts to work with them directly failed, I would bring the situation to greater attention at a public forum such as WP:ANI or WP:RFC. If nothing was gained there, and the community appeared to echo my concerns, a block would likely be in order to stop the disruption.

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?

   These are problematic. If the user does not understand English, I would make an effort to figure out what their main language was, and find another speaker of the language to work with them or politely direct them to another project where they would be able to communicate better. Failing that, I'd go so far as to find an online translator - even though it's likely to be pidgin to them, they'll have a better chance of understanding it in their own language. MORE COMING, THIS ANSWER NOT COMPLETE

8. a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?

   ANSWER PENDING

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?

   ANSWER PENDING

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?
2. What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
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)?

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.

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.

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?

   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?

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)[reply]

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)?

   It really depends on how well I did in the election; presumably this would only happen if I was 1st or 2nd runner up, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that I could still fail miserably. If I was very close to winning a seat myself, I would probably accept; if I had a majority of support but not enough to be a top candidate I would consider accepting; if I failed to gain a majority (which would likely be the case) I would not accept. Mind you, this is assuming someone resigns or something. In the event Jimbo actually refuses to appoint someone, I would also consider his reasoning for the refusal. If I felt that the person passed over would have done an adequate job as Arbitrator, I would likely decline the offer.

   If that is terribly confusing, please let me know. It is 3:00 AM here now and I'm about to go to bed for the night.

Note: 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.

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? :) :)

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?

1. What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?

2. Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?

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?

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?)

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.

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).

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?

Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases [1]. 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)[reply]

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" [2], 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.

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

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?
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?

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?

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?
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"?
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.)
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 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)} 11:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"if elected, I would work to push towards faster solutions of cases" (from your candidate statement)

How? Giggy (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if you have already answered similar questions above.

1. There appears to be a belief among some editors that if someone has contribtued a lot to Wikipedia and/or are well-known/liked, they are exempt from certain policies, such as civility. What is your opinion on this?

2. In the past, some users have remained on perfect behavior as an non-admin, yet upon obtaining the tools, they become uncommunicative, uncivil when they actually do communicate, become negative or annoying, take a hard-line stance against other RfA candidates, etc. What is your opinion on this?

3. In relation to question 2, under what circumstances would you agree that someone should be desysopped for reasons other than abuse of the tools?

Thanks for your time. Acalamari 18:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
2. See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
3. Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
4. Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).

Good luck with the election! Al Tally ^talk 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]