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.

I'm happy to answer questions, of course... :-)

Should this page get a bit long, or difficult to navigate, I may try out a few things to try and keep it readable etc. - feel free to offer your own thoughts on that aspect, or ping me on my talkpage to draw attention to a particular matter.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General questions, copied over by individual 'askers'

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.)

Questions from rootology

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

Questions:

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

It was an extraordinarily bad decision in my view. Most particularly troubling was the inability of the committee to articulate its thinking in taking that approach, and it's steadfast unwillingness to engage in communicating with a wide range of very reasonable questions various folk raised. Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

This was a serious misjudgment on James' part in my view - it came across to me as clumsy, lacking grace, and seemed to me to be a weak way of communicating something better stated plainly. Obviously an arbiter must be impartial, or recuse (which should be much less of a big deal than it is currently), and it's my belief that content editors should be afforded greater respect generally, as the 'kings of the wiki' I believe them to be :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Broadly speaking, the community should be sovereign. Despite some thorny issues, that principle is important to me.

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.

I think the german system is far superior to our own, and I'd like to see it adopted here (1 year terms, no oppose voting, community 'owned' election process etc.). - happy to explain further... Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I would like to see no oppose voting, and the candidates with the strongest support elected (in the future... not now!) - in this election, I would like to see the candidates with the highest percentage of support elected (I expect this will be the case too) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

geez... I dunno! - I think one of the key weakness of the committee is communication, so I'd somehow enforce 'arbcom will communicate better' as policy :-)

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.

bit tricky, 'cos it's apples 'n pears in some ways... the arbcom in my view is solely a community body - so I'll answer a) alone for now :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology (C)(T) 00:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no worries :-) - feel free to follow up if you'd like more detail.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Arbcom's lineup has great individual strengths, yet in my view the system manages to produce a committee far less than the sum of its parts (to illustrate, I believe the committee has a worse reputation as a collective than any individual on it!). Here are some 'good things' about arbcom;

• Arbcom 'the institution' has a strong community mandate, in my view - much disquiet seems to me to stem from the desire to have a better functioning committee - it's a good thing that the community supports the concept of a structured peak to dispute resolution.
• Some aspects of the process have evolved well - the ways in which cases are requested, discussed etc. have structurally evolved reasonably well, and offer the basis for a strong process - we now need to build on things like the 'requests, evidence, workshop' pages to ensure good communications are possible.

The two 'core changes' I would advocate for strongly are related to Communications and transparency - I believe there can simply be a huge increase in 'on wiki' activity as a proactive part of arbitration - on the part of the arb.s. It's not easy to find solutions to systemic problems, but it's important to try - and to do so publicly. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

this was discussed in some detail at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee/Arbitrators_prepared_to_answer_a_few_questions - an initiative I took to try and help the community and arbcom communicate better - in fact there's much of great interest on that page, and I'd recommend it to all :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

A key plank of my candidature will be to seek external advice on sensitive matters such a privacy. As an arb, I would seek advice from external agencies, as well as advocating within the foundation that arb.s receive such training / advice as is prudent. It's my strong assertion that the arbcom has failed to communicate publicly enough however, and I would advocate the primacy of the 'on wiki' record in all cases wherever possible. Privatemusings (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

I have walked a rough old wiki road in some ways, but fundamentally find myself as convinced of the ability of this project to do good, as I am concerned about its ability to do harm. I'm around for the long haul, essentially (I believe) because I thoroughly enjoy (overall) my wiki contributions and interactions. I hope to serve a full year before putting myself up for re-election if I'm so minded.... Privatemusings (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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"?

At this point I think arbcom, and individual arbs need to be prepared to speak plainly and simply - I believe there has been far too little of this sort of communication. I do believe individual arbs can offer far more leadership in project and policy space through the regular wiki processes of proposal, discussion etc. - I would point to Brad in this regard as rather exemplary :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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.)

I would attempt to vastly improve arbcoms communications immediately (reply to emails being a clear example), I would also increase the general level of activity on the part of arb.s 'on wiki' - see my statement for further examples of some of my ideas.... Privatemusings (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

My main joy in editing remains 'wiki gnoming', and I get an almost embarrassing amount of pleasure just from knowing that a photo I've taken, or bit of text I've tweaked has improved an article in some way - I suspect my role on arbcom will leave this unchanged, and in general terms, I would hope arbcom doesn't change much, to be honest :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)} 01:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no worries :-) - I'd like anyone to feel free to drop in any 'follow ups' also :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You once re-inserted a comment made by banned user Daniel Brandt in which he threatened to out more users unless certain policies were adopted to his liking, stating that you happily accept responsibility for such comment. Why should the community trust you with private information and to enforce policies when you are in apparent agreement with such a radically divergent viewpoint?

  A:As you've read, "I happily accept(ed) responsibility for reporting the following comment" - which was present in the page's history, had been replied to, and was just generally a bit silly and unhelpful to remove in that context at that time, in my view. In terms of whether or not the community can trust me with private information - I would absolutely never compromise any person's privacy, and treat confidences very very seriously. It is in that spirit which I ask for the community's trust. Privatemusings (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

• What actions would you recommend to users who have;

1. been sanctioned by ARBCOM
2. community banned or
3. long term block

to re-establish their standing with community. Gnangarra 10:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good questions, Gnangarra - and of course they apply very strongly to my own personal situation. For me the crux of the answer relates to a good look at the reasons why someone has been sanctioned, banned, or blocked. The easy answer is that it's very important that absolutely everyone follow all policies, and the guidelines are generally very sensible (as in they apply in most / virtually all contexts), so you'd need to have a fairly compelling case for ignoring them too.... exactly how 'standing' is assessed is a tricky one - it's incredibly dynamic, and my general advice would be for a user who is here to contribute in good faith (and I'm one of those optimistic folk who believe that this represents by far the largest majority, even amongst 'problem' users), is to follow all the policies and guidelines, to always always de-escalate all tension (so walk away from disputes etc.), and to encourage wiki-friends around you to criticise any wrong steps you may make along the way.... other than that, it's probably good advice to not worry too much about what others think of you :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are elected and during your term an arbitration request is made that involves the handling and/or reporting of a threat of violence, would you recuse yourself from the case? Mr.Z-man 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you brought up recusal, Z - because it's my opinion that this should be much less of a big deal, and it should be something we see far more of. It's transparent that on any given case, many arbs (and sometimes the entire committee) take a back seat, and I for one will be happy to recuse myself both from cases in which I've been active in the policy area (so that's a firm 'yes' if the matter is a question of policy assessment) and from cases which I don't have the time or energy to involve myself in. I would expect to recuse from quite a few cases, and would be happy for the community to be able to see what positive impact I may have on the cases I can work on. Privatemusings (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not run for adminship, so you cannot be sure that the community trusts you with the admin tools. Do you think the community would trust you with the admin tools? If so, why have you not run? If not, why, and why should the community trust you with much more sensitive tools such as oversight and checkuser? Even if you don't request the tools, you would still have some limited access to the output through the mailing list/private wiki. Mr.Z-man 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question, Z - and you're entirely correct that I have not run for admin - the main reason is that I haven't felt (yet) that my having the 'tools' would actually serve the community in any particular way. I absolutely am asking the community to trust me with private data - I value my integrity highly, and fight hard to defend one's individual rights to privacy, respect etc. - in terms of my experience with private information, I can only point to my maintenance of the ChapCom mailing lists, my (small thus far, but fortunately getting busier and busier!) communications with the board, and my extensive public scrutiny - I think it's reasonable to believe that had I betrayed any confidences at any point a firm whistle would no doubt have been blown :-)

I have some concerns myself about 'private data' and some aspects of dispute resolution, which may come up elsewhere, but I think it's appropriate for me to say loud and clear here that I would not, as an arb, approve of a dangerous double standard where private transcripts (eg. IRC logs) are entered into evidence on the mailing list (and in some cases actively sought), whilst also sanctioning editors who share such logs themselves.

happy to answer any follow ups, Z - and thanks for your questions... Privatemusings (talk) 02:37, 12 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]

thanks for your good wishes, land :-) - feel free to poke me for answers to the above, and thanks for your understanding that there's quite alot of material to work through at the moment! - on a side note, it is exactly this kind of note which is sadly lacking from many arb. processes currently, leaving good-faith participants such as Land somewhat hanging - a rather frustrating position, and ultimately harmful to the process as a whole. Apologies for sneaking a point of my own into a non-answer to your questions, and I'll certainly return to comment substantively presently..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:V and WP:RS - Because of a recent interaction with you on this issue, I am asking you the following question:

• How important do you think the core policies of Wikipedia, WP:V and WP:RS are? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're vitally important, Mattissee - and I understand your perspective on wanting to ensure Augustan literature complies as firmly as possible. It's my view that an arbitrator needs to have a good solid grasp of the age old 'rules vs. principles' tensions, and as I mentioned on that page, I firmly believe that that particular article complies fantastically well with the principles contained within WP:V and WP:RS - as indeed all our articles must. Happy to follow up with more detail, if you'd like - and thanks for coming by :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. The article is currently in Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Augustan_literature, so we will find out what the community thinks. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, mattisse - we shall indeed :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has already degenerated into ugly attacks on editors making sincere criticism by irate defenders of the article, Augustan literature. To be expected, as the editor of that article has a cabal of defenders who refuse to allow a group of articles to be improved by "outsiders". I discovered that on a previous article Augustan drama when I received personal attacks on me. Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Augustan_literature link to get a flavor of what happens when anyone criticizes an WP:OWNed article. Is this the behavior you really want to defend as an arbcom member? Are you a member of that group of defenders of this particular editor? If so, I would like to know. I believe it was he who entered a "joke candidate" for these elections and has a "joke sockpuppet". I would like to know if you are a member of this particular wiki-group and approve of "joke sockpuppets". If so, I expect you will agree as an arbcom member, should you be elected, that we are all allowed to have "joke sockpuppets" equally. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< I'd seek to de-escalate, and remove the heat from the discussion Mattisse - and indeed have posted briefly at the review page. I really hope good comes from the review, and as an arbcom member, should something like this blow up into dispute resolution, and end up on the arb table, I'd still be encouraging folk to see each others' perspectives more, and to focus on the common goal of great articles in an online encyclopedia.... thanks heaps for commenting about this, and mentioning the review page :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did give your opinion in a non confrontational way. However, the comments following yours disagree with you. As one disagree noted, much pleasure in an article arises from following the sources and learning so much more. Plus, the reader does not have to take on faith the decision-making processes of the writer, however skillful that writer is, regarding issues of accuracy and emphasis. Since many cases that come before Arbcom involve the issue of sourcing, directly or indirectly, how will you handle this? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the benefits of having 'followable' sources, and I certainly support consensus building at the specific featured article review currently under discussion (it's ok to disagree, and still respect the dialog :-). My approach as an arb to some degree would echo my approach there - to try and 'pan out' and carefully examine where the best path forward for the project may lie, de-escalate and discuss things with folk of all perspectives. I hope I've demonstrated that a little by example in this case, most particularly how easy (and important) it is to be able to disagree politely, I believe that will benefit the project long term :-) Happy to continue discussion, Mattisse - the pace of questions appears to have slowed somewhat! best, Privatemusings (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are extremely likable in all your answers. A child of the 1960s perhaps? However, I'm not sure that when there are core policies at stake like WP:V and WP:RS, all things can be negotiated away. There are particular articles that are WP:OWNed, as is the one in question. So I do question your support of, from my point of view, an entrenched editor if you intend to be a member of ArbCom. It is amusing to look at the old RFA's of people now holding great power, as an insight to the Wikipedia of the past. Typically, these admins received three or four supports, and that's all it took in those days. Do you believe that a "changing of the guard" in the evolution of Wikipedia is desirable or possible? (I know you are advocating what sounds like an evolution, but your actual beliefs do not seem to match, or am I mistaken?) —Mattisse (Talk) 04:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, and I hope you're mistaken, Mattisse! - and I certainly hope I'm in touch with the 'hippie within', even though I missed the 60s (though not by much ;-) - I do try to find common ground, and be polite in all my posts, but I'm also quite pragmatic, and the truth is that I have very little chance of success in these elections. I do however, hope to be able to share my 'big ideas', and maybe help positive change in that way. In regard to an individual arb.s relationship to policies like WP:V, and WP:RS (and WP:OWN too!) - although it's not really within the purview of arbitration to manage content issues, I agree that it's important that such important pillars of our processes are well understood by all. You're aware that my vote would be for Augustan literature to keep its featured status, because I believe we can make an exception for such an excellent article with unconventional sourcing, I hope it may be possible for you to support me as an arb even so :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 05:30, 25 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]

I'm not totally sure how scientific consensus relates to neutrality (which is what I believe the 'parent concept' of 'NPOV' to be). Broadly speaking, the scientific consensus on a specific subject is almost certainly worthy of mention, though I believe ideally we can find a way for it to co-exist with other aspects of the subject. I think it's just about handled ok over at Astrology - where the fact that scientific consensus views the subject as pseudo-science, or superstition, is noted in the lead - though I'd like to see the tension between this fact, and the general attitudes to the subject downplayed a little - the tension between an article subject and the scientific community's stance upon it is only one aspect the article needs to cover calmly :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

1. How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?

   I'd likely support a community process to establish whether or not a larger number would be a good idea - I much prefer the idea of increasing the pool considerably, and having only 5 / 7 arb.s per case. I believe there's merit in that approach. Privatemusings (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?

   1 year - I will stand for re-election at that time, if I so wish.... (and please do see my 'big ideas' (linked from the top of the page) too! Privatemusings (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?

   I think it would be much better for arb.s to be more active at the case pages, making talk page posts unnecessary - it's a sad indictment of the status quo, that a talk page post to an arb usually has a higher success rate than any post on an arb page. Privatemusings (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

   I believe that policy should be descriptive - so yes, I'm happy for the pages to be editable (I also think it's quite important)

5. Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

   Not with their 'arb' hats on, and their voices (of course) carry equal weight with others - baring this in mind, it's really a question of good ethics (arguing for a change in policy whilst 'legislating' it at the same time through arb ruling seems a poor choice to me). Privatemusings (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?

   Arb policy is obviously a sensible page to be circumspect - but fundamentally I believe it should be open to be edited - and this is good thing. Privatemusings (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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"?

   hmmmm. carefully! - We have a huge problem with systemic responsibility at the moment, with BLPs really only being the tip of the iceberg. The notability guidelines are pretty useful, and I broadly support them. Privatemusings (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   Well yeah, it does in some ways - but it's quite clearly a statement of principle, with the notability guidelines being imperfect rules which flow from it.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I'd be very surprised if the community (of admin.s at least) didn't resolve this type of situation prior to arbitration - but the answer (as with everything) is that it's bits of both, and the arb.s job is to unpack it, de-escalate, and resolve. Privatemusings (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

    If the heat were rising despite admin. attempts at resolution, or with the inability of the community to form a view, I'd accept 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?

    I think most of the wikia / wikpedia issue are external really - I haven't really been that bothered by wikia staff attempts to build their brand using the big brother's reputation. As such, I don't really think there's an issue here :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the questions, pixel - they were thought provoking, and interesting :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Questions, copied across by me, and with answers

I intend to re-format this page from time to time to try and highlight questions and follow ups etc. - but do feel free to poke me for any reason whatsoever if you'd like to hear more about a particular idea or response. thanks very much for reading! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ultraexactzz

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?

because 'sorter-outer' and 'resolver' aren't yet words (/me heads over to wiktionary!), and 'Arbiter' seems rather trite! - my answer will have to be 'Communicator' - it's the most important aspect I believe. Privatemusings (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Giggy

1. a/s/l?

   I'd describe myself as a middle aged pommie ex-pat chap currently loving life in beautiful Sydney, younger than many around here, but older than most, at a guess :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   Good content is the sole fundamental purpose of the project, and good content editors are the kings of the wiki. Kings should be held to the same conduct expectations (respect, get-able-on-with-others-ness etc.) as everyone else, of course. Privatemusings (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Case by case, but pretty silly as a blunt rule - we can do better :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   I'll take the easy one - Mantanmoreland should have been banned based on the evidence - I think that was pretty clear :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

   In content terms, I love having a bunch of (albeit not so great) photos around the place, I'm also proud to have created WP:Linking to external harassment, and WP:Advice for parents.

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

   I (think) I intend to support a few people because I think they're great candidates, yes. Privatemusings (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

no worries! - I've been concise, so feel free to bung in any follow ups :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

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

1. To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?

   I don't think we should stick slavishly to either prescriptive or descriptive models - I mean conceptually, it's fair enough in my view to define 'policy' as a function of the sum of behaviours on the wiki. I believe it would be very healthy for our community to evolve some additional layers of governance which could provide leadership however - perhaps occasionally in the form of prescriptive policy. Privatemusings (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I think the ways the arbcom currently operate are so obfuscated from the general community, that it's jolly hard to form a view - I can see benefits and dangers, as (I presume) we pretty much all can :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I will sit on the committee for 1 year only if elected, and will certainly engage in any discussion on any case should editors feel I should recuse (I'm likely to comply with such a request - there's certainly no shortage of other work to be done!). Privatemusings (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

well thankee you, sarc :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Celarnor

1. What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?

   I think the arbcom needs to develop a stronger idea of what exactly it's seeking to do! - Generally speaking it's my view that the committee has been singularly unsuccessful at communicating the merits of such approaches. I see nothing wrong with any arb instigating a discussion on any subject, and making his or her views known, though perhaps when the current case load is better managed, with vastly better communications, arbcom leadership could help steer discussions outside of cases - I dunno..... The arbcom must be respected for such an approach to work, and I'm afraid we're no where near that yet.... Privatemusings (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Importantly, the whole range of general responsibilities we all have apply to the arb.s - to show respect and to lead by example etc. - beyond that, I echo my point above which is that the arb.s really really have their work cut out to improve dispute resolution, and this (their 'duties on the committee') should be their focus :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from LessHeard vanU

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

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

   I believe it would be far healthier for the community to have far (far) great 'throughput' in adminship - meaning I may be likely to support 'de-adminship' than some / many - equally, I'd waive the flag for 're-adminship' in the due course of time. This is one area where arbcom would benefit greatly from a much more lightweight approach, and a gentle touch - so for example if an admin. seemed to be crossing the line a little (perhaps getting a bit 'bitey') - I'd happily immediately post a motion 'on wiki' to de-sysop. A couple of weeks later, I'd be equally happy to swing by said admin.s talk page, have a bit of a chat, and likely post a 're-sysop' motion if things were returning to an even keel. This can be handled without escalation, and would, I believe, really help in these difficult situations :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

cheers :-) Privatemusings (talk)

Question from Carnildo

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

   I would expect this to be flexible, based on the usual 'real life' commitments etc. - I'm likely to take a structured approach involving perhaps 8 hours per week over the 7 days. As is the cornerstone of my candidature, I also promise to communicate clearly and fully as to how I'm finding it, and most specifically when I'm taking a step back for whatever reason (likely to be semi-regular in a 'recharge your batteries' kind of way) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WilyD

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

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

I'll answer these together, and say that there's no hard and fast rule, nor should we seek to impose / define one. In principle, all admin actions must be justifiable on the basis of protecting / enhancing the project, and I'd seek to talk this through on a case by case basis. The most common problem that I perceive is escalation, where admin.s should have a firm commitment to de-escalation - I would likely support sanctions over such behaviour in whatever context I perceive it. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from PhilKnight

1. In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question - I've written elsewhere that I feel recusing should be far less of a big deal than it is currently, and will certainly be prepared to recuse based on a desire to move other matters toward speedy resolution, for example. Recusal is a question of personal ethics, and as such is very hard to pin down - there may be individuals I have been specifically critical of whose strong involvement in a case would lead to recuse, and I'd also step back from any case involving any discussion I've been active in advocating a particular idea or opinion on. Privatemusings (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

through discussion - again, I've written this elsewhere, but there is absolutely no need to escalate a situation, regardless of the whys and wherefores of your rationale. Tempers are going to flare, and it's arbcom's job, in some cases, to step in and say 'that's not helpful, though I understand your perspective'. The pushing of any viewpoints is problematic, and may warrant sanction, though we don't need to start a shoving match..! Privatemusings (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thatcher

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

The answer to all is 'carefully' really - more detail below;

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?

Were I privvy to this information, I would ask the admin. for an explanation - if that explanation didn't stretch the bounds of credulity, I may accept it - but I'm not really a fan of people 'getting the hint' - honest words carry far more weight in my book. I'd seek to ensure the admin did all they could to avoid further problems. Privatemusings (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

b) obviously, and easily :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

for me this rather depends on the nature of the 'harassment' - my personal definition would seem to be rather stronger than some, however I have no doubt as to the extreme ugliness, and genuine harassment which does occur. If the behaviour fitted this definition, then I would without doubt ban the alternate accounts, and not consider unbanning until a) full and clear apology, and recognition of wrong-doing and b) substantial amount of time has passed. I'd also try to listen to the views of the harassed party, and strongly denounce any 'blame the victim' culture. Privatemusings (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Well the fundamental problem there is that private discussions about a pending case are unlikely to actually help the committee serve its function in many cases - I will certainly speak my mind, and share my views to the fullest degree permissible within the sensitive handling of private information, and believe the idea that the committee should somehow be homogeneous is foolish and dangerous. Privatemusings (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I will recuse from many cases for the exact reasons you give - if it's systemically impossible to keep on top of the workload, then we need an arb who will stick his hand up and communicate that fact loudly and clearly - I see nothing wrong with noting my opinion or ideas as an arb at a later time - the committee really should be able to handle such input, and it's a weakness that we currently lack it. Privatemusings (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

No, I haven't disclosed my real name and employer to anyone, although I have shared some details with the arbcom, and with some other folk previously. I'm cautious in this area, and still feeling my way through the philosophical minefield. In short, there's nothing particularly interesting about me, but I'd rather friends and family not be bothered by my involvement here. Were they, I would leave immediately. Privatemusings (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newyorkbrad

1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:

(A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;

I would primarily seek to post in general terms ('I feel that this aspect of this case is clear in this way' etc.) - I would also expect to propose a number of motions in all cases in which I am active. I think that's a good energy to put into cases :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;

Yes Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;

Yes Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mailing list only discussions seem the least useful application of time and effort to me - however, never say never!

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

Yes Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very unlikely, though I would like to chat with the checkusers on appropriate occasions Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pro-activity in the public case pages - the creation of a 'Q & A' 'room', early posting of motions for parties to indicate their agreement with / acceptance of etc. etc. Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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'm not certain I totally buy into the specific process evolution system seemingly under way - I'd certainly be encouraging wider wiki input. Happy to chat (far more) substantively about this, though I don't consider my voice as an arb candidate (or arb) should be particularly weighty :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Perhaps it's related to the general uselessness of the arbcom over the period, perhaps it's indicative that the community at large just sort of ignore them, and 'get on with business' - or perhaps it shows that we're all growing up, and evolving healthy resolution systems that don't require the arbcom as initially envisaged. Perhaps it's bits of all of the above - either way, I strongly believe that there's a much much better way of doing things, and that the arbcom could provide fantastic leadership and help de-escalate and resolve disputes in a way which would provide a genuine service to the community... but then I'm an incorrigible optimist! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Mailer Diablo

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

Oh I probably wouldn't bother! - Maybe I'd just randomly make a couple hundred regular editors admins... I think that'd be cool :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I don't really think arbcom needs to involve itself in making policy - it's not really a sensible part of dispute resolution in my book :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe #wikipedia channels should be owned / managed / 'group contacted' by the foundation, whom I would trust in their smooth running, which may involve devolving dispute resolution to individual project arbcoms. Privatemusings (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I'm a pretty consistent sort of chap - and I believe I genuinely represent some fresh ideas, new energy, and am a bit of a 'new broom' - I've said elsewhere that I intend to step down after one year, seeking re-election if I so wish, so the community will have a good chance to register its views on my 'arbing' at that point :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754

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

Gosh! Hidden rubric! - I never really conquered the rubric cube, so I hope I do ok here :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

embarrassingly long. Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WikiProjects should support work in key areas, but have no role in 'enforcing standards' - that's creep in my book.... Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think we get our knickers in a twist about canvassing really - so 'not really' is my answer. Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

blocks if there are a ton of edits happening that are making a mess are fine in my book, but it's a rocky road. Better to get some more eyes and brains on the problem. We're a wiki, so pretty much everything can be put back - edits often more easily than noses out-of-joint. Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

Keep talking, and de-escalate. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

see above - keep talking and de-escalate - and I'll add that it's unlikely to be an editor's intelligence which is the block to constructive editing, it's more likely that idea in fact that can cause problems! Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm very wary of 'community bans' which sometimes have seemed to me like 10 / 20 folk buying into a nasty confirmation bias, and unhealthy (toxic) social pressure, on occasion. Very unlikely 5 - 7 would be anywhere near a ban in my book. Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. (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?

Folk often choose to end conversations instead of applying rigour to consider alternative viewpoints, and care in finding the value in what the 'wiki powerless' might be saying. People need to communicate more, and with a higher quality - that would help the wiki enormously! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Questions from Maxim

1. What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?

This is another 'knickers in a twist' situation - we need to calm down a bit about definitions, and 'rules' and focus on the principles of each matter on a case by case basis. Privatemusings (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reading the above, you'll see that I believe it would be much better to have far greater 'throughput' of admins - so more folk becoming admins, and more folk having the tools turned off (without prejudice to their regaining them a bit later) - I drafted a proposal which would allow the crat.s to desysop if consensus were clear for that action (consensus read in the same manner as at RfA, for example) - I still support that position. Privatemusings (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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)?

More knickers, and more twists! - I think we're (as a community) moving forward nicely on this front... hopefully it'll all stay settled, and with good progress :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Davewild

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

   Leading by example really, Dave - I will only serve for 1 year before seeking re-election if I so wish. I would hope others might follow that example, and believe it's a much better system :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Questions from roux

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

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

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

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

I'll answer this together, if I may, Roux - because I think it's a very important issue, which has caused all sorts of problems all over the wiki. Civility, like beauty, is really in the eye of the beholder, and as such we're tying ourselves up in knots to try and codify what is and isn't acceptable. I think parties on all sides of this debate should just try to keep the trifecta in mind, and we'd do a lot better :-) De-escalate at all times, keep talking about the substantive issues, and the wiki way will work its magic - we just need to get out of the way! (happy to follow up if you'd like a bit more detail :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

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

No - and I would hope others would at least raise an eyebrow. In some ways this 'election' would appear to be a rather odd 'advisory process' - and it does concern me that the benefits of a deeply obfuscated process of 'higher governance' aren't really to the project..... happy to field any follow ups on this one, of course.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.

1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

   a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

   b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

   I began, and support WP:OPTOUT (non 'public figures' can, upon request, have their articles removed), I further believe all BLP articles should be semi-protected immediately. b) is a sensible measure also, in dealing with the truly remarkable amount of poison that wikipedia as a website puts out there. That the community haven't addressed this problem speaks to the effectiveness of the culture in many ways, in my book. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

   I wouldn't see it as arbcom's role to make the changes I support, and don't really feel that their involvement in policy development has helped at all. Individual arbs are, of course, free (per NYB notably of late) to show leadership in promoting necessary change. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Posting my concerns regularly, starting proposals (and indeed a long term straw poll), and trying to keep a spotlight on the sheer scale of this immense problem has been the approach I've taken to date :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   We've got problems, actually primarily related to the recognition of our problems, in my book! I harbour hope that wiki culture can evolve into a more functional state :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

   They should be switched on immediately. The inability to evolve a sensible governance structure has prolonged the 'herding cats' problem of big decision making. I don't see arbcom invovled per se, but I'd hope individual leaders can make a difference. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

   a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

   I think there are significant downsides, and we'd do better to discuss them rather than ignore them. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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)?

   I'd encourage one and all to really think about why they should be permitted to (for example) write about a real living person whilst 'hiding' behind a cloak of pseudo-anonymity - engagement in the downsides may help one and all tread a careful, respectful path in their work on the project.

   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?

   This one's a minefield - I've discussing at the CoI noticeboard, for example, that there are many, and regular discussions speculating the real identity of a pseudo-anonymous contributor which are quite clearly acceptable / permissible by the project as a whole. Leaving this tension unresolved is a bad thing. My root position is that if information is being shared on wikipedia that an individual can reasonable ask to be kept private, I would support the use of oversight. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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?

   Maybe - it's best not to try and codify these 'rules' too much - we'll only tie ourselves up in contradiction and double standards, I'd say.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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)

   I don't, and right at the moment, I don't plan to, because I don't really want to. Happy to go a bit further if you'd like :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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?

   I think the foundation should probably seek more external advice on some of these matters, I think this would be a good basis for disc

   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)

   I'm loathe to jump into broad brush answers without rigourous examination of definitions - so 'dunno' is the most honest answer here atm. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.

   a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

   per the above, I'd strongly support the WMF seeking external advice, and am not certain my own 2 cents would help at this point. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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.

   per a) really... Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

   difficult - ideally none would be necessary, but understanding and human kindness are always good things :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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.

   see a) really - I'm not very comfortable offering a lay opinion on this important, sensitive subject. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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?

   again, I'd seek external advice on this important sensitive matter - in terms of arb cases however, it's been my observation that I have on occasion disagree with the application of the terms 'stalking' and 'harassment', and would evaluate such on a case by case basis. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

   I'd try not to play this game where possible - it's my view that the existence said 'rule' perpetuates the 'game'. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

   I'd encourage people to talk everywhere and anywhere! It's polite to let people know if you're talking about them, mind :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

   I have a blog, which contains a few musings here and there, but nothing particularly interesting! Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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)?

   WR is a forum site, in quite a state of flux from what I can gather... I personally read, and post occasionally (though not quite as much as yourself, and NYB, I think?). Wikback made a great start (I think I was the 'top poster' there?), and it's a great shame that way too heavy a hand led to its demise in my view. Ultimately, of course, it failed because UC turned it off! Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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?

   I think folk are understanding a bit more that we can relax several notches on this one... this is a good thing! Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   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? )

   heh... are there any other 'outside criticism sites' except Wikipedia Review? - your coyness made me smile! - per my previous, I think it's great that folk are understanding more and more that we can relax a bit on this one :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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)?

   It's my view that the problems stem not from the 'vested contributors' themselves, but the odd 'power eddies' which we (the community in totality) have allowed to evolve around them. I've said previously that some of the most difficult cases at arbcom this year have been examples of the system really (really) letting down some of wiki's best and brightest (on my kinder days, I even include the arb.s themselves within this!) - I think wiki-friends should be encouraged to be tougher on each other, and to be far kinder to your wiki-enemies (or to put it in a friendly way, folk you might not get on with quite as well). I think we're getting better on this front though, which is a great cause for optimism :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

   Purples. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Heimstern

1. Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?

   This is a very challenging area, and I think the solutions lie in developing, and occasionally enforcing things 'best practice' - things like 1RR (or 0RR), outreach mediation (the 'guerilla mediation cabal' is a great idea!), and generally as many cool heads as possible in these difficult areas. Not all of this is arbcom's remit per se, and despite the best efforts of many, I suspect cases along these lines may continue to be brought... each of which must be assessed on it's own terms within arbitration. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   there's a bit I've written on this further up the page - broadly, civility is subjective, so isn't really a great fit for an arbcom sanction in my book... Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

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

   I believe the election should be judged purely on percentages of support, and I don't think it's necessary (or healthy particularly, but that's another story!) for the process to be merely advisory... I like the idea of 'winners' taking tea with Jimbo, who appoints them - but I don't think our 'queen' (as in 'of england', a constitutional monarchy) should do much more. Short answer - I'd accept the appointment if the percentage of support is in the top x, where x is available seats :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I will step down after 1 year to seek re-election if I so wish, I believe this system would help smooth the arbcom's running considerably. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from UninvitedCompany

1. Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?

lots of gnoming, some policy work, ear to ground all over the place. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can you summarize your education and your professional background?

I have fewer degrees than my wife, and have worked industriously in several industries :-) - I'm a pseudonym on this wiki, and stand by my edits as 'who I am' here :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?

never as involved elsewhere as I've gotten here, but active all over the place :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?

I'm an advisor to ChapCom, and active under this username on many WMF wikis Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

I believe we all have areas of potential CoI, and I'm certain that I do! - per some answers above, I intend to set a 'low bar' for recusal in such cases, and in a variety of other circumstances. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?

In all seriousness I once helped coach a 5 a side team of kids who went on to beat their teachers in an event which certainly meant a lot to all concerned! Not my most high profile endeavor, but one of the most fun :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

with care - I try to edit as if my identity were known (ie. with the belief that my editing is ethically sound, aside from the philosophical minefield of the anonymity question) - as I've said above, were my 'real life' (friends of family) comprised in any way, I would leave immediately (and would strongly advise all others to do the same). Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

No-one interestingly active enough, to my knowledge. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?

all over the shop - I gave a talk at a recent Wiki Wednesday, and plan to do more such stuff in the future, because it's fun! I also strongly advocate the use of audio communications, and have run regular podcasts on Wiki stuff at WP:NTWW (and WP:WikipediaWeekly) for most of this year. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?

I certainly have a platform, but I'm not sure I would consider myself as having a constituency per se - possible a constituency of ideas, and like-mindedness? I hope my views on many matters are clear above, and all around the place :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?

The committee needs to work harder to understand where it can help, and where it can't - it should accept all cases where it can help. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?

Carefully. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?

None of the above - the true value in arbitration should be the discussion, and opinion (of the committee) that it generates - it's a shame that the committee has more in common with a clumsy sort of local government (handing out fines for folk who put up a fence too far to the left) than it should with a leadership in ideas, and clarification of principles sort of thing (I hesitate to use the 'supreme court' analogy, but there you go... I just did!). Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

I sure do! - You'll see my 5 'big ideas' shortly, on my extended candidate statement page (linked to from my short statement) - one teaser is that I strongly advocate much much more 'on wiki' activity, as a great help :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?

I hope it's no biggie - but 'admire' is really far too strong for me... I think they're great, but tend to keep my admiration for folk of a different suit. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?

depends... bit hard to expand the answer without defining terms a bit :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?

I think it's a real interesting time for the WMF at the mo - and have a bunch of thoughts on the matter - you can hear my discussion with Sue Gardner, and Jay Walsh earlier in the year at WP:NTWW where we talked through much of this :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?

My sense is that they do a great job in adversity, but I do have some questions about the systemic cracks some aspects of the process seem to want to paper over... generally a big thumbs up for those who've stuck their hands up for this :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?

I doubt it - sounds a bit reckless. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from TomasBat

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

Not totally convinced they're in tension, Tomas :-) - ultimately though it's all about human respect, and the encyclopedic content Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MBisanz

1. In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond? If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.

We're a big beastie over here, you know - and I'd actually consider it pretty fair for others to speculate as to 'who is that chap who's an 'arb' on the english wikipedia?' - it's a pretty fair question for journalists, those interested politically etc. to ask - so much so, in fact, that it's quite illuminating to read the community's response to what is such a cultural no-no around here. I don't plan on revealing my identity at this time. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Pixelface

1. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?

Well there was an eponymous one, which was regrettable, and I've commented on several others. We need to be rigourous in examining the effectiveness of remedies, and indeed the committee's competence as a whole in generating them, and managing cases in general. I have some ideas about improvements (5 big ones, coming soon!) - so feel free to examine them further :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

There have been many, though I'm unsure as to how best prepare such a list for you. There's a common response to 'freedom of information' requests in many jurisdictions where the office concerned denies the release of information based on 'it'd be too hard, for too little public interest / gain', a frustrating argument which I'm afraid I'm going to rely on here! Feel free to follow up, mind, and I'll certainly chat further :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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).

per the above :-) ( 'I refer the honorable editor to the answer I gave some moments ago...' - from 'Prime Minister's Questions' :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Badger Drink

1. It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?

Mantanmoreland is a canonical example of arb.s winding themselves up in knots, and acquiting themselves very poorly.. sadly there are many others. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?

I believe every arbcom decision must be certified with an on-wiki arb vote, and sadly this case is not the only example of this practice being ignored. I consider it highly problematic. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

Many! - You'll get the gist of my platform for reform from the '5 big ideas' coming soon :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BirgitteSB

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]

These are very sensible suggestions, Birgitte - and I hope you have the energy to continue to encourage wide acceptance of them. I believe every arbcom decision should be certified with an on-wiki arb vote, and am concerned that this continues to not be the case. I'm not 100% convinced that purely a systemic improvement, such as yours, is enough to completely solve the problem (though I believe it would help greatly!) - I think we also need a new, and different sort of energy and activity within the arbcom.... I'll expand further in my extended candidate statement shortly, though please do feel free to ask any follow-ups you may have... Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

1. In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community? As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy" [2], which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.

I'm a bit old fashioned in thinking that the arbcom should really run a mile from offering any sort of such advice! - I suppose there's no problem in sharing ideas, thoughts, and opinions, but I'd hate to see motions along the lines of 'x is a reliable source'! Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I believe there is a significant culture gap here - and I believe it's an issue which will explode in due course, sadly (on a side note, I created Wikipedia:Advice for parents essentially to communicate and inform as to our site's policies and content etc.) - again I'm not sure of the role an arb, or arbcom can play in positive change, but I will certainly continue to share my thoughts on this issue going forward. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

In some ways this is an extension of your previous question, I guess... I think the principle of neutrality is important (and that's how I view the 'WP:NPOV' policy spirit), and I think you've raised areas of great concern, and strong importance. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions From ϢereSpielChequers

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

1. How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?

Many - perhaps 20 - 50? (happy to go into greater detail with a follow up :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?

I strongly believe the process could have been improved in a very large majority of these cases. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?

I'm a big fan of arbitration occurring 'on wiki' wherever possible, so am glad to see 'splits' as a sign of positive discourse - to answer - I refer you to my previous. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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]

well there's far (far) too much inertia currently, something I will actively seek to address. Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from LtPowers

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

This is a bit of an echo of a question above (well a couple of questions, I guess!) - but broadly, I've been very critical of arbcom myself for most of this year - I've described them as 'not fit for purpose', 'a bit useless', and have suggested in several cases that the current system is unlikely to be competent in helping resolve matters. I have 5 'big ideas' which you'll see shortly which are the central planks of my platform for improving things, and restoring a friendly, active, and effective face to the highest level of our dispute resolution - I hope you'll take a look at them soon, and do feel free to through out any 'follow ups' if you'd like :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my belief that having access to the tools doesn't really speak to one's ability to arbitrate (it's also my belief that it doesn't really speak to one's ability to edit either, but that's another story!) - I believe it's a very 'good thing' to have a non-administrator representative on the arbcom, and I'd be proud if that might be me! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions which came a bit later :-)

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

you'll find all the info. on my userpage :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

well it's quite important in my view we don't get too stressed about this sort of thing - bottom line is that the wonderful world of human interaction contains plenty of functional forms which offend or displease - it's the smooth running of the project in a reasonable fashion which is paramount. In a matter related to my own behaviour, a formal arbcom motion stated clearly that 'socks are not to be used in internal discussions' (or somesuch) - which to my way of thinking was probably trying a bit too hard to pin down a rule where deeper understanding of a principle would do better... the nature of User:Cruftbane, for example never bothered me a bit, though possible double standards certainly rankle. Bottom line is that if we focus on rule-making, we promote a game-playing culture, and that's a bad thing. I totally agree that undisclosed alternate accounts should be used with care in limited circumstances. Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I think it was 'WAS 250.' who said that the easiest way to drive yourself crazy is to have a project where anyone can edit, which also has mechanisms to ban users - you can see the problem there! We need to continue to drive standards of behaviour, and rigour in article work, upwards, to the (perhaps unreachable) utopia where the culture as a whole only tolerates good edits. As you'll have read above, I also support many shorter-term measures to protect others from the harm wikipedia can do in the interim. Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's a funny old statement! - I'm reminded of Dr. John for some reason.. (although I don't think he used the word 'promulgate' often?) - arbcom should be providing leadership in dispute resolution, and effective timely and demonstrable ability to resolve difficult problems 'on wiki' - in the sense that 'the good times' are when we all get along, or at least don't rub each other up the wrong way, sure... I concur! Privatemusings (talk) 02:22, 20 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.

I think the 'oversight of oversight' issue is a big one - not just in determining how the 'rights' are granted, but I'm also nervous that we don't have the systemic checks and balances quite right yet. I feel the same about 'checkuser' - I don't believe we administer the system as well as we could, and I believe some simple changes would help a great deal - none of which is really anything to do with the arbcom role specifically, and I would certainly support the unpacking of some of these processes. I don't believe the role of arbitrator fundamentally qualifies (or disqualifies) one to be a 'checkuser' or 'oversighter' - I'd support community discussions in choosing suitable volunteers for these roles. Privatemusings (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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).

I'm not totally sure it makes sense in this context to talk of 'the community' as a cohesive whole - it's pretty clear to me that a present consensus amongst volunteers is required for pretty much everything long term, and that's the way it should be :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?

I'd hope there are ways to keep communication channels with various wise folk open without maintaining their user rights indefinitely - the mailing list in particular is quite fuzzy in terms of purpose and effectiveness, though there are, of course, multiple mailing lists now. I think the honest situation at the moment is that there's a bit of a mess, and it needs clearing up. Privatemusings (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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).

Talk to me? - I think a strong commitment to be willing to substantively engage all comers is a big plus, and to strengthen that position, I've committed to only serve for 1 year, and seek re-election at that point if I so wish. Privatemusings (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

well thankee you! - Vote me! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:51, 25 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)} 15:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ling - I enjoyed your question, and your essay - it was only the other day that I was musing with a friend about the similarities between the foundation and the foundation ;-) (I think I also mentioned that Jimbo 'ain't Hari, so I'm not sure who gets to play that part!

I think the essay makes a lot of sense - and is related to the general 'do no harm' vibe that I'd like to think many around here share, and which I certainly subscribe to. I hope you don't have trouble getting everyone to agree that the 'laws' you suggest are totally in tune with the spirit of the wiki...now I'm off to find a copy of Robocop, which your essay also reminded me of :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Marlith

What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years?  Marlith (Talk)  03:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marlith - this is a classic question, which I wondered if anyone was going to come up with :-) - I'd like to see wikipedia focus on quality - of both content, and governance... I'd like us to be far far more responsible for the information we publish to such a huge audience, and I'd like Wikipedia to become not just the biggest and most used information resource in the world, but one of the best :-) I hope you're up for helping.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]