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.

For a variety of reasons (mostly because they are questions that are irrelevant to my candidacy) I have declined to answer several questions that have been asked of me; I see no point in wasting time answering many mostly irrelevant questions, and I have removed them so they don't clutter up the page and make it more difficult to find the questions I have answered. If you want to see what they are (with an explanation of why I have declined to answer them), I have moved them here.

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.)

• 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]

A. I wouldn't try to restore their trust, because if it ever existed it was misplaced. The community at large needs to develop the revolutionary courage and heave off Jimbo's chains, abolishing this body once and for all. I'm not interested in restoring trust. I'm just interested in minimizing its negative impact until that happens.

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Thank you in advance for your answers.

1. In regards to Arb Com you say that you wish to "minimize its negative impact on the community". I was wondering if you could go into more detail. What exactly causes the negative impact and why?

   A. Fundamentally, the problem with the AC is the manner in which it was created. It was not something the community created because the community saw a need, but rather something Jimbo Wales created to delegate his exercise of authority that was becoming too time-consuming for him. However, this authority is something he never should have held or exercised to begin with, because he simply asserted it for himself rather than having it explicitly granted to him by the community. There are several specific problems with the workings of the AC (first and foremost of which is the shroud of secrecy and lack of accountability surrounding it), but those are not on nearly the fundamental level as the manner by which ArbCom came to be in the first place.

2. You say a vote for you is a vote for restoring power to where it rightfully belongs. Lets say we scrapped Arb Com, and kept Jimbo out of it. Then what? (basically, where do we go from here/your ideas or vision)

   A. If you're asking about what I think the specifics of what an ArbCom replacement (if any arises) would be, it's not an area I have given too much thought to. Creating dispute-resolution systems is not something I'm particularly well-suited for. It may be that whatever arises is exactly similar to the current AC in everything but the manner in which it was created. As long as it is the community's decision, that's fine. As I mentioned above, though I have problems with much of how the ArbCom operates, that's nothing compared to my problem with the circumstances surrounding its creation. I'd be totally willing to accept as legitimate a replacement that operates in exactly the same manner as the ArbCom operates today, even if it included the particular aspects of the current ArbCom that I loathe most, so long as it was created and instituted through the will of the community rather than the fiat of Mr. Wales. I would certainly argue against those aspects during the initial discussion of it, and I would continue to advocate for reform if it was created with those particular facets included, but as it was created by the community I would still accept its authority as legitimate.

3. I've watched WT:RFA, and a number of different proposals (that have nothing to do with adminship) that have been interesting and well thought out, yet get shot down pretty fast with questionable logic. With this in mind: Do you think the community can decide on a replacemtent for Arb Com?

   A. Sure it can. A lot of the resistance to change we are seeing is due simply to the intertia of the status quo, and the protestations of those with a vested interest in it remaining so. While the irony of me borrowing a Marxist-Leninist concept is quite palpable, by abolishing the AC altogether we would create a "blank slate". There would be no inertia of the status quo because there would no longer be a status quo.

   It may be difficult to get a husband and wife to agree on how to remodel an existing house, but if a tornado comes through and blows it away they can come to an agreement on a new house to build in its place pretty quickly.

4. Why, when a community so diverse can not agree on simple matters such as reform and change, would you suggest that a decision such as this be left in their very hands?

   A. Because they're the only ones with the legitimate authority to make this decision. There is simply no other choice.

Is it possible to get a community consensus, now, on the legitimacy of the ArbCom? Or is getting rid of it and starting fresh the only way to get a legitimate ArbCom in place? Giggy (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Starting from scratch is the only way, because it'd be the only way to ensure that the decision is free of any institutional inertia that could put a stranglehold on truly open discussion.

Assuming that you are elected as an Arbitrator, I don't think it's likely that your votes to not hear cases are always going to result in cases not being heard. So, how do you plan to "minimize [ArbCom's] negative impact on the community" in cases that the Committee still elects to hear and decide on? lifebaka++ 18:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. You're right; however, I have to try. When it doesn't work (which will probably usually be the case), I can protect those who wish to defy the final decision, and do whatever I can to make any "temporary injunctions" unenforceable or toothless, etc.

I see you removed NYB's (very germane) questions. On what basis do you justify removing questions from an eligible voter? You can decline to answer them, as you like, (although I suspect it will win you few votes) but I don't think that it is justifiable at all to completely remove them. Please explain this.

A. I explained why in the edit summary. Please do not restore questions I have removed. There's no sense in leaving them there if I'm not going to answer them; they only add clutter.

1. How do you think that your intention to decline all ArbCom cases will accomplish anything?

   A. By declining all cases up front it will no longer be engaged in rendering "decisions," thus making giving it absolutely no practical effect.

2. All (or almost all, I'm not 100% sure) previous electees to ArbCom have been administrators. How will you manage ArbCom duties without admin tools? Stifle (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   A. What duties? Remember, I'm not actually going to be doing anything except running interference.

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

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

   A. Other than some IP edits I have made when I was logged out without realizing it, no. And no, I don't remember what those IP addresses were.

1. 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?

   A. As long as they're not being used for malicious purposes, I don't see a problem with them. I don't have a problem with a sock--outed or not--being a community servant or anything else; as long as this particular account is only used for good purposes, why do we care whether or not the person behind it is using other accounts as well, for any purpose?

1. 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?

   A. I'm afraid we can't, short of total lockdown, which I would hope we would all agree is unacceptable.

Is it a fair summary of your campaign platform to state that if elected, you will do your best to sabotage the work of the committee? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Yes.

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 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. ...what?

Hundreds of users participate in each Arb Com election. Does this not show that these users believe the Arb Com is a legitimate body? Raven4x4x (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. They participate in it because it was forced upon them. That is not what creates legitimacy. It is only legitimate if it was created in the first place by the community, on the community's own initiative. Participation in the AC does not automatically give it legitimacy, any more than my handing over my wallet legitimizes a mugging.

Am I to believe that users are being forced to vote in the elections? No one is holding me at knifepoint. Raven4x4x (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. That is not what I said. Please pay attention.

You said that users "participate in it because it was forced upon them". I agree that users are forced to abide by Arb Com decisions, but they are not forced to participate in elections. I believe that if several hundred members of the community have voluntarily elected a person to a position of authority, then that authority is legitimate. Is this not a fair belief? Raven4x4x (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. No, because that is not what gives a body legitimacy. It's just voting to minimize the bad in an inherently bad and illegitimate system, either because these people have not developed the revolutionary consciousness and instead are operating under a false consciousness that keeps them from realizing this, or because they have developed the revolutionary consciousness but have not yet developed the revolutionary courage to speak out against what is in fact illegitimate, as I and a few others have. It appears that you fall into the first category; I look forward to your revolutionary development.

What do you think about Jayjg, his POV pushing and former work in Arbitration Committee. --Milop Den (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Not familiar with the specifics, and don't care enough to find out. My own interactions with him have left a very unfavorable impression, though.

• I am more than a little concerned that my questions will be perceived as... Bad Faith questions, hints or suggestions, and perhaps even as attacks... but I assure you they are sincerely well-intended, Good Faith questions. Specifically, I am not mounting a sneaky/dishonest opposition to your candidacy. Here are the questions:

1. In the context of this self-nom, would it be fair to say that you might be perceived as standing alone, or nearly alone, against something resembling a super-consensus that supports the continued existence of ArbCom (in something generally resembling its current form)?
2. If the answer to the first question is "Yes", then do you think it is fair to suggest that a negative outcome with respect to your candidacy is in fact quite likely?
3. If the answer to the second question is "Yes", then is it fair to suggest that this candidacy may be described as life-draining or enervating; may place strain on (or at the very least, do nothing to improve) your spirits, encouragement, attitude, etc., and might in fact be described as "self-damaging"?
4. If the answer to the third question is "Yes", then would it be fair to suggest that maximizing your self-benefit by discontinuing this self-nom might be described as the most rational path to pursue?

• I am not calling for you to drop out. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. The most rational path is for me to promote what I know to be right, in any way possible. Even if I lose, my ideas will be spread to individuals who may not otherwise have heard of them, thus helping to develop the revolutionary consciousness of the community and make a future run more viable, and eventually overthrow the Arbitrary Committee altogether.

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.

   A. Neither should exist in the first place. Tracking down sock puppets should not be such an important concern. Either the sockpuppet is engaging in improper behavior itself, in which case it can be dealt with on those grounds alone, or it's not being used for anything that is wrong in itself, in which case I don't see why whether or not it's a sockpuppet is important. Oversight is a bit less noxious...however, its potential for abuse by an unscrupulous oversighter is sufficient cause to not make it too convenient to remove edits from history (not to mention the obvious problems this causes with GFDL compliance--a book in itself).

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).

   A. There's no need for the community to "overturn" AC decisions, because they have no legitimate weight. The community is the ONLY entity that can legitimately ban someone.

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?

   A. Ehh...see answer to #1.

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).

   A. Ehh...see answer to #1.

Good luck with the election! Al Tally ^talk 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated today on Wikipedia Review here that if you lose the AC election, it is rigged, and even went so far as to say that User:Newyorkbrad was in on some scheme. Can you elaborate here on how the present AC election is rigged against you, when all votes are public? rootology (C)(T) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Oh, I just got bored between classes. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. In light of the fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, how do you consider anything here to be "forced"? Unlike the political system of one's country, which you are born into and therefore forced to accept until enfranchised (or not) as a voter, no individual that I am aware of is forced to participate in Wikipedia. Couldn't the establishment of a Kurtopedia, or a Fullyconsensuspedia just as easily achieve your goals? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. No, because my goal is to achieve openness and honesty and accountability and legitimacy specifically on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your response. Would you also care to entertain responding to my first question? Thanks, and good luck. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
• Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
• Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. A bit pretentious, if well-intended. But you're right--the only relevant question when determining whether or not an action is acceptable should be, "Does this hurt the encyclopedia?" Not that this has any relevance to the Arbitrary Committee elections, of course.

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

1. How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
2. How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
3. What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
4. Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
5. Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
6. Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?
7. Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
8. Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
9. Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
10. Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
11. Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]