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

1. Given the fact that a large number of current ArbCom members have
   T · C ] 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

   From Wikipedia:Oversight:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive

) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?

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

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

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

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to

... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?

• Firstly, to be taken as a serious encyclopedia and not become useless on April 1st (among other days) I'm not fond of having humor injected into non-humor-related articles. No elephant population doubling in the last three months, no "Google buys Microsoft" In The News. I promise I'm not all serious, though. I have no problem with humor elsewhere like in BJAODN and on userpages, and I may even have cracked a joke or two myself. Possibly. The problems I see mostly occur when someone uses humor in a tasteless fashion that hurts others or that which could be regarded as "trolling", such as some of the more radical (but considered humorous) userboxes. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

1. Please describe a recent ArbCom decision that you feel was handled well and why. Please describe a recent ArbCom decision that you would have handled differently.
   • Wow, where to start...
   1. Honda S2000:^[1] the remedies to SpinyNorman are both numerous and potentially confusing, I think I'd have rather suggested that they were simplified, but I'm not totally sure how.
   2. Marudubshinki:^[2] was handled well, though as he seems to be a dedicated bot user, I think I'd have suggested that he be sent to BRfA and perform technical assistance there, if they'd have him.
   3. Israel-Lebanon:^[3], Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of enforcing a remedy which is article-specific like this instead of editor-specific. I can see the logic behind this, but I think that similar remedies might put undue stress on editors who accidentally wade into an article with this sort of arbitration attachment.
   • Now, I'm just showing the concerns that I felt when reading over the decisions (Some, especially the pedobox wars case^[4], are still mid-reading as the arguments and points on both sides tend to be rather convoluted at points) and aren't criticism of the current arbitrators. Personally, I feel that as I wasn't in the situation, I really can't criticize the actions too much, as in each case there seems to be an amount of evidence that the public never sees, or opinions and forethought that aren't perfectly translated into the remedies. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Can you explain how you manage to be such an awesome coordinator for MedCabal, a kind and gracious administrator, and an all-around excellent human being? --Ideogram 09:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • Lots and lots of practice being awesome, kind, gracious, and excellent. Oh, did I mention my incredible modesty too? I'm not conceited, but it appears I have every right to be. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. What have you learned from being MedCabal coordinator that you would apply to being on ArbCom? --Ideogram 12:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • There is a lot of work that simply never gets seen in any sort of dispute resolution. Parties who seem to dislike each other don't want to talk at first, so you have to talk to them separately (or privately, in email or on IRC, for instance) to get them to agree to discuss a resolution in the first place. I've had to do this with mediations I wasn't even the mediator for, simply because your title confers some apparent authority upon you. Now, while we know that having a position, like coordinator or arbitrator, doesn't inherently make you someone special, it is reasonable to expect some sort of special mindset of those taking the job, and therefore that they can be trusted to be fair and discreet in handling the situations that arise.
   • People are people are people. Every username on Wikipedia has a human behind it: Even the bots are ultimately run by people and those people have feelings. We make mistakes. We are all broken, emotional, stubborn, cranky wretches, and yet we've all come together to try to give every ounce of our knowledge to this project, to try to make the world just a little bit better place. Our disagreements (just a spat, mediation, RfC, arbitration, or otherwise) are (for the most part) simply our disagreeing as to what information is appropriate for this medium. The point of all that is that arbitrators have to remember that we're all human, not cookie-cutter robots, and we all deserve to be treated as such. The point was also hammered home during the Giano case proceedings, though perhaps others learned somewhat different lessons. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. A current Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
   • This is a rather specific case, and while I feel the the Arbitration Committee can certainly hear it, there are restrictions upon the Arbitration Committee to where they're required to abide by the decisions of the Board of Directors. In this case, I would probably suggest to the Board that they draft the least restrictive policy that our Legal Counsel (Mr. Patrick) feels comfortable with, then give it to the community and allow the community to build upon the policy. Strictly speaking, the Committee has exactly the amount of power that Mr. Wales and the rest of the Board of Directors allows it to have, remembering that it's limited to the Wikipedia site alone. Short version: That's not my decision to make, and if I were in the position to have to rule on it, I'd ask the Board for clarification as this is a new situation with specific legal consequences. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
   • I've noticed that our "real life" judiciary works the same way: Legal decisions attempt to set as little precedent as possible, until they're painted into a corner and are required to judge one way or another based on the law as it is at that time. Part of the problem is that we're trying to determine, with no guidance in place, if one body is required to answer in its official capacity to another body. From my understanding, both bodies are equally important and have to answer to both the community and the Wikimedia hierarchy (that is, the Stewards and the Board of Directors). Personally, I feel that the Arbitration Committee acted appropriately in this situation, though if given a hypothetical case where (for instance) a Bureaucrat promoted a user to Admin without consensus in an appropriate Request for Adminship, or worse unilaterally promoted that user without community input at all, I can see ArbCom requesting that the Bureaucrat and Admin be immediately demoted, then it playing out in the case as to other potential decisions against those involved, depending on the circumstances. Now, looking at it from the other side, I can't see how the Arbitration Committee could bypass requesting consensus and simply decree that a person be given adminship or bureaucratship, as if the Bureaucrats decide to not grant these permissions, it's (in my opinion) quite within their prerogative to demand that consensus be built first. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
   • I can think of a few situations where this has come up, most recently mentioned (though not acted upon) in the Giano case, as well as the cases for Ed Poor (^[6],^[7],^[8]) and the Highways case. While I feel that some understanding should be extended to users who already have a proven track record of beneficial contributions, I am specifically against letting this understanding be translated as allowing "free passes" (as it was phrased during the first mentioned case) to violate Wikipedia policy. Similarly, simple editcount and length of service should not be taken into consideration by themselves. While these may be important, it would be all too easy to allow people to determine "who is more important" to the project, which is completely the wrong attitude to have. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
   • I don't think either group of contributors is more important, and disagree that they're mutually exclusive. I know of several admins who not only perform administrative duties, but also are FA writers. Likewise, I was recently involved in a dispute with a user who was a prolific FA writer who was neither an admin nor inclined to request those permissions at all. I know several admins who perform "janitorial" actions almost exclusively, and those who perform such functions as bot maintenance, those who serve in the Mediation Cabal and Arbitration Committee, and those who sit on the
     Admin Noticeboard constantly, trying to prevent problems before they start. That's not to mention our Bureaucrats themselves, who are typically quite busy. If we removed any of these groups from the project, there would be problems, and the whole place would bog down and be unmanageable. None of them are any more important than the others, and quite frankly I feel that every last Wikipedian on here is a volunteer who is, outside of Wikipedia at the very least, unknown and under appreciated. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
   • I've been accused of being a "civility patrol" admin, typically on IRC, so I can think of a few decisions off the top of my head (^[9],^[10],^[11]) where I rather wish the "incivil" parties would've walked away with a bit more than a warning. The problem, in my eyes, is that while we're all human, but if the parties apparently feel that incivility is enough of a problem that prior steps in dispute resolution can't have handled it, then they already know they've done something wrong and need a more firm reminder of what is and is not appropriate. On the other hand, I can think of one case ^[12] where perhaps the penalties were slightly much. It really varies depending on the case. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
   • "It depends." If Mr. Bauder's decisions are obvious and/or the feelings of the Arbitration Committee (given that we know they discuss cases in private) then I have no problems with this practice continuing, or in the absence of Mr. Bauder, another mouthpiece for the Committee being appointed, assuming that this is a role that ArbCom is comfortable with him having. When I have my own decisions, I have no issue with positing them to the Committee on my own. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • If a non-administrator wants to be on the Arbitration Committee, they're welcome to do so.
     1. Deleted articles can be retrieved by another arbitrator and placed on the mailing list for the non-admin arbitrator(s) to view. Not a problem.
     2. If the arbitrator has not earned the community trust, they wouldn't be an arbitrator in the first place. This is a much, much harder "race to win" than simply going through RfA. Also, there are a number of highly respected users whose opinion is valued more than those of many admins who simply have no desire for the bit. Remember, Adminship is no big deal. It's not a validation of your worth or community respect.
     3. If the arbitrator does not want the admin-bit duties, please keep in mind that arbitration duty is no less involved and stressful, and this may actually be a benefit to the arbitrator, as they have less that they need to focus on at Wikipedia.
     4. Lastly, I don't think "non-administrators" are a group that specifically needs representation, as we're not talking about "peasants" or "serfs" that we as administrators whip into working on articles constantly. Admins are not overseers, and far too often we all tend to forget that while everyone has a niche that they like to work in, admins are simply editors with a few more buttons.
   • ~Kylu (u|t) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may remember that you even refused to contribute to the

]

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

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

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

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

Actually it is far from "inappropriate" to question your conduct here but don't worry we are not going to waste any more time on your behaviour in that incident. As one of Wikipedia's most respected and uncontroversial editors,

That block is part of the background to this case" When I left you a polite request to discuss it you responded with this uncivil edit summary here [1] so your actions rather speak for themselves and as you claim you can't remember with whom you discussed it on the Admin IRC Channel, there is no point furthering this conversation. You have been judged on your answers and found wanting. I'm sure you will agree with me that in your one and only brush with a difficult Arb-com case your behaviour was not that expected of a future Arb-Com member.

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your response

]

I'm sorry, but I don't think that any further discussion here with you is going to clarify matters. I do encourage those reading to view the diff that you linked to and determine if it constitutes incivility however. Again, if you'd like to seek dispute resolution elsewehre, the offer stands. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate that standing for the Arb-com can be very nerve racking for one with so little experience of Wikipedia's problems so lets pass over what you are unwilling to answer. Yours is an odd link Kylu, but never mind, lets not go there. However, you have though voluntarily put your self up for election, and subsequently public scrutiny so now to continue, surely the last question is within your capabilities of answering, so I'll repeat it for you - just a few examples and diffs will do. Here it is again:-

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

Giano 21:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Q: 1. Who are you?

A: I am a Wikipedian, until recently my time was split between professional music and managing a small retail location. Due to personal issues, I've been unable to continue my music. Otherwise, I'm a very private person and dislike disclosing personal information: You'll never see me run for the Board of Trustees, I imagine.

Q: 2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

A: Well over 21. :)

Q: 3. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?

A: While theoretically ArbCom shouldn't have to arbitrate policy disputes, guidelines, and other matters best left for consensus, it appears that there is a growing role for ArbCom to do so. While I dislike the fact that arbitration has grown outside the field of conduct disputes, and would like to try to steer it away from forming unilateral decisions involving policy, it will take community assistance to find a solution. We don't actually need to wait for any particular candidate to be elected to change the situation, though: We just need enough unity to effect it.

Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?

• Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View is significantly different than the Scientific Point of View: They both have value, but also they both have hindrances which affect the situations in which they're applicable:

• Verifiability
  , The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
• The SPOV on the other hand is more appropriate for hard sciences and applying the scientific method. This is the search for the Truth, whatever that truth may be. We employ the scientific method with SPOV, perform research, develop new theories, and refine old ones.

• As an example, if the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia were Truth and adhering to SPOV, there would be no article on
  Intelligent Design and even the inclusion of Religion and God would be tenuous. Pokémon wouldn't have a chance, but then many other subjects would be also. As this project is the largest single repository of human knowledge and not a scientific journal, having a neutral point of view seems far more appropriate. Diverse points of view are important, but on Wikipedia they must all be treated with the same respect. This is, of course, both our greatest strength and greatest challenge. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Question from Bishonen

I saw an interesting question above which I'm reposting from myself, since the original questioner

or something in your opinion. There is nothing provocative about the question itself that I can see. This is it:

Can you explain to me what attracted you to Wikipedia? No one decides: "I think I'll join Wikipedia and become an admin" do they? We all find articles and edit them because they interest us first, what pages have interested you, and where do you feel you have made your most positive mainspace contribution to Wikipedia? Bishonen | talk 03:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• About two years ago or so, I was recovering from a hospital stay and decided to read up on a subject that I'd read an article about (Hedy Lamarr possibly) and realized that while terribly interesting, the article contained an error. I noticed the "edit this page" link and, nervously, decided to fix the error. I'd creep into that "edit" page with its esoteric syntax and use preview often, at times completely messing up the page and just closing it in frustration until I discovered the Wikipedia: and Help: namespaces and learned that there were tutorials for all this. The next year was a combination of IP edits and reading about all the metapedian aspects of the place, during which I changed to a static IP and could finally see what I've already edited. It was a short jump from there to finally registering a username. While I have started a few new articles (mostly stubs) I don't feel the attraction to bringing them to featured article status by myself. I tend to put down something thin for others to come across and edit when they feel the urge. Vandalism reversion, spell checking, stub sorting, all little things that I can do when I'm in the mood, then I move on to something else. Once I joined Mediation Cabal, however, I found that I can be more productive by trying to assist others in their own exopedian activities, especially when disputes actively cause multiple editors to waste time from editing. That, actually, is one of the reasons I decided that I'd like to assist on the Arbitration Committee. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?

• Yes, it's a possibility. The only current candidate who has undergone the experience of being on ArbCom previously is UninvitedCompany, though as you've noted many others have resigned or, in the example of this new tranche, have simply not applied for reelection. It's a tough job, you're relied upon far more than the role would indicate, and there is always a chance that you're going to annoy someone who will make life tough. At the moment, my reaction to those who have some existing negative feelings towards me is to ask for peaceful resolution and, if that fails, simply refuse to give in to what many refer to as "trolling". As far as odds go, I really would prefer to not speculate at this time: I simply have no basis for any reliable estimate. I plan on being a bit stubborn about sticking to the job, though. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgment in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?

• I'd encourage those involved to include the information and simply mark it as controversial, or at worst make a separate article page for the controversial information and link to it from the main article as is done now. Preferably, this can all be done via community consensus and never reach ArbCom. In the worst case scenario, arbitration would involve careful weighing of the arguments for and against inclusion before making a decision, of course. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If elected to the Arbitration Committee will you continue active editing? Will you not lose interest in contributing to articles. Will you be available to any users who seek your help or advice.

--Dakota 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't see my activity level changing, since I'll just be changing the section of the dispute resolution process that I already work on, except now that instead of there being three coordinators there will be n arbitrators (depending on if Jimbo decides to expand the Arbitration Committee or not.) More total work, but a higher number of people who actually perform the work. I've always held my door open for those who wish to talk civilly and refrain from personal attacks, and see no reason why I can't continue this. I do expect that people will realize that the talkpages of arbitrators tend to get a lot of people watching them, though, and therefore more people replying to questions other than the arbitrator. :) ~Kylu

(u|t) 21:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it? Guy (Help!) 14:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first instance that comes to mind is the problems between EinsteinEdits on one hand and SonicAD and Hu12 on the other. I'm used to simple NPOV issues and had assumed (incorrectly) that this is what it was, until after trying to settle things between the editors (and being buttered up by Einstein) I thought the situation was in hand and the editors somewhat mollified that it had gotten that far out of hand. It turns out, however, that the situation really was worse than it seemed after CheckUser verified that EinsteinEdits indeed was editing from the same block as the anonymous AOL vandal that was targeting the same users that EinsteinEdits was having difficulty with. Voice-Of-All indefinitely blocked EinsteinEdits and it took me a significant amount of time to undo the damage that the AOL vandal initiated, finally requiring that I rangeblock the AOL proxies for a short period of time so that the damage wasn't being caused faster than I could clean it up. Sadly, I think this is a case where I took AGF a bit farther than I should have, as I gave him another chance after CheckUser already verified the situation. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking these questions all applicants:

1) How would you handle a situation where an error of judgment has occurred, especially if evidence is provided to confirm that the position is incorrect?

• If you mean my judgment, I'd apologize and if it seemed appropriate try to make amends. If it were someone else's judgment, I'd suggest they do the same. If you mean the judgment of a party in an arbitration case, I'd suggest that same line of reasoning, and if the lapse were egregious, it's possible it could strip that person of the trust the community has placed in them, such as adminship, bureaucratship, or other position of trust.

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?

• In the event that I have to choose between doing what's right and doing what's popular, I'm going to choose to do what's right. No prestige or popularity is worth jeopardizing your integrity.

3) Place each of these policies/guidelines listed in order of precedence (to you) starting with highest priority. There is really no right or wrong answer. I'm interested in seeing what you would normally look at first when assessing an article.

• It's tempting to reply something such as "They're all equal" but in my opinion this has an actual answer.
  1. Neutral Point of View is a Foundation Issue
     and also the foundation that all our other policies are built upon. Everything else is secondary to NPOV. Without a neutral point of view, this is no longer Wikipedia.
     • Reliable Sources
       are the means for backing up NPOV. I don't think they're either separable or more important than eachother.
  2. Copyrights
     exist to keep the Wikimedia Foundation out of trouble legally. While, as Wikipedians, these two are important that we may continue editing without fundamental changes to where Wikipedia exists and our own editing patterns, Wikipedia is a greater dream than the Foundation itself. If the Foundation were to vanish, Wikipedia would still continue on in forks and mirrors and, if need be, underground torrents and the like. Without Wikipedia, I believe the Foundation itself would vanish. On the other hand, covering our rears legally is of tremendous importance. :D
  3. What Wikipedia is Not
     is not treated as important as it should be, in my opinion. It's seen as a catch-all for things we don't want here. It is, however, still policy and still important.
  4. Notability
     is important to the project as it stands and is still an important guideline. I'm a bit of an odd mix between an eventualist and a deletionist: If we could have all the world's information, even obscure grade schools and garage bands, hosted here with no impact and the ability to manage all that information, I'd be all for it. The problem, basically, is that we do need the Notability guideline around to make sure we're not inundated with more information than we can manage.

~Kylu (u|t) 02:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you deal with abuse of authority by administrators, meaning by this application of blocks as punitive measures and use of blocks in unclear PA cases, as per

. Would you protect the sysop no matter what or would you defend policy above all? In other words, what do you consider more important: strict discipline or strict application of policy? Thanks.

Policy (and remember that policy is the consensus of the Wikipedia editing community, not what is stated on policy pages) is fundamental to the continuing well-being of the project and therefore more important than any one contributor. That's the easy part. The hard part is that actually defining what policy is in any given situation is difficult, since the text on the policy pages are simply the best and most generalized form of the actual policy that governs the community: There are (and always will be) exceptions and special cases that are decided by the community when the need arises. Trying to clarify what policy actually is is one of the most important aspects of the job of arbitrator, in fact.

Now, while I've seen your situation at

WP:AN/I#Unjust block, I have yet to investigate the matter thoroughly, as there is the possibility that if it reaches the stage of arbitration, I would rather be an uninvolved neutral party so as to review the matter with a clean slate rather than to start with a set opinion and be forced to recuse. I'm sure you'd agree that the new arbitrators should start this career without preconceived notions regarding potential cases, so I'll pass on discussing the situation. I do, however, hope that your situation is resolved without the need to resort to arbitration. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your interest. I'd like the case to be solved elsewhere but it doesn't seem to be the case. I'd also like it to go to ArbCom (if that's unavoidable) before elections. Just that the case, maybe a very special one (not sure), raised my concerns, awareness and interest on what ArbCom candidates may think on the generalities surrounding the issue. Probably I'll end deciding my vote on this particular issue but not out of self-interest but rather because I think it's a problem that may represent some of the most difficult decissions ArbCom members may have to make. --Sugaar 03:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I support a firm age requirement is when there is a legal reason to do so; There are no legal requirements for ArbCom arbitrators to be of any certain age. On the other hand, I do firmly beleive that maturity is a must, and I know of several situations where a young person has become an administrator (or further trusted, such as bureaucrat or better) and yet is more mature than many of us who are several multiples older. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here [2]. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those certain websites, and I'm aware of which ones you speak of, rarely tell both sides of the situation. Checkuser requests are not all filed at WP:RFCU, nor should they be in sensitive situations involving site security and personal information. This, among others, is reason to ensure that those who have the capability of accessing checkuser are trusted to do so with integrity. Any user who has been indefinitely blocked may, of course, appeal to ArbCom. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This applies only to indefinitely blocked users, and these pages are typically replaced with the {{indefblocked}} template, not deleted. Any non-indefinitely blocked user should not have these pages blanked. If you're aware of situations where this is not the case, please mention them so the situation can be corrected. User pages and user talk pages are there for the reason of communicating with the rest of the community: If a user has been indefinitely blocked, they won't be communicating further, so therefore the message that they are blocked gives users the knowledge that if they leave a message, the user will not be able to reply to them. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to give a specific example of blanking comments outside of userspace, however blanking or archiving talkpages on that user's page is held as allowable in

Wikipedia:User page. I'm not fond of people removing legitimate warnings, but ultimately these are retained in the history for that page. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have seen where there is heated debate and someone they will archve the entire talk page of an article, including discussions hours old (sometimes minutes), just say archiving and the talk page is empty. This seems to be growing in popularity. What is your view on it? Anomo 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many tools which give alerts when someone uses the {{

helpme}} templates: Allowing users to flood their talkpages with these requests prevents legitimate requests from being heard, so in this case I accept this (and in fact have done so on a couple occasions.) Normal conversation with a non-indefinitely blocked user on their talkpage shouldn't be restricted, as long as that communication does not further violate policies (such as posting personal attacks). ~Kylu (u|t) 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that this is the case, perhaps you could rephrase your question? ~Kylu (u|t) 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to bring fair and creative solutions to disputes and bring approachability to ArbCom. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? --Cyde Weys 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really wasn't intending to vote in the election anyway, feeling that the candidates should avoid voting in elections that they're a choice in. It'd feel like supporting my own RfA, I suppose. If I weren't one of the candidates, I know plenty of others that I'd happily support. I can't really see any of the longer-term candidates that I'd oppose at all for the job, really: ArbCom needs diversity of outlook. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. As concisely as possible, please explain how you would continue with your stated commitment to the ArbCom process as an ordinary editor, should you NOT be "elected". Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

   My reasons for this question are three-fold.

   1. First, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a powerful statement that has many meanings. It means that, among other things, any user has the power to do pretty much anything, should they wish it. I submit my own user contributions as evidence.
   2. Second, one thing that's a constant is Wikipedia's GNU License. As an online-encyclopedia, the history of everything, every edit, every comment, every misdeed, every injury, and every achievement are readily available to anyone who wish to look at it. All they need is a computer, frankly, and they can dig away.
   3. The third is merely a perception. Power is great, but when the entire history of your actions are utterly transparent, and anyone can do virtually anything on their first day here, it's really just a big illusion. I further submit that the more "power" you think you have, the more you have to "lose". You also have to more "work" and have less "fun".
   • This appears likely to be the case at the moment. My stated commitment is simply to continue serving the same way I have, with my current focus on trying to manage the rather untidy processes of the Mediation Cabal. Short form: I make the pages tidy and sensible, doing digging work when needed, so the mediators can focus on mediation, plus I monitor cases and complaints to see when action needs to be taken regarding the process or, in extreme cases, removing mediators entirely. This, sadly, has occurred more than once while I've been a coordinator ~Kylu (u|t) 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
2. What do you think about this "election"? What do you think about your fellow "candidates"? What do you think about "campaign banners" on an online, open-source encyclopedia? What do you think about your own "campaign"? Please answer as concisely as possible, preferably in 100 words or less. For reference, please see this:
   WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy
   ?
   • I think I'd prefer a special:boardvote-based election for this, but that's hardly my decision. The other candidates, by and large, are respectable people who I'm proud to be running against, even those who I have public disagreements with. Actually, at the moment it doesn't appear that I'm in the front of the race, but the people who are leading certainly make me happy to be losing to them. My intention the entire time has been win if I can, but if I lose, lose to people much better suited to the job. It's just a shame I've already decided to not vote, or I'd be passing out a large number of supports simply resulting from the bravery to run if nothing else. The campaign banners are a bit divisive, but as long as it's not out of control and doesn't affect the project itself, I'm fine with it. I don't personally really have a campaign as such, no campaign manager, and simply a small circle of friends who have (with no input from me, mind you) decided to try to help my chances. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. What, specifically have you done wrong in the past as an editor, community member, administrator, and human being trying to create a world-wide online open source encyclopedia on Wikipedia? For reference, see my own user contributions. Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.
   • I imagine the "Giano Incident" is the largest single mistake I've made, and I've tried my best to learn from it, though continual pressure from those involved make it difficult to continue being productive. Continuing to allow that pressure to bother me is my second largest mistake. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Do you apologize for your actions, and who are you apologizing to, specifically? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.
   • I've done so, though sadly the most important apology was initially accepted but apparently not taken to heart. I have no issue in apologizing to those I've wronged, assuming that I've actually done wrong and they're not trying to beat an apology out of me. That'd be my stubborn streak. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Hypothetically, how would you deal with an explosion of editors and users behaving very badly because Wikipedia has just acquired a bigger "stick". For reference please see Soft power.
   • I like meatball:SoftSecurity better, but I don't see how simple acquisition of greater tools should require change in policy, except to reinforce that those users with access to the bigger stick should be even more careful than previous in its use. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.
   • I stay because I enjoy the people I've met for the most part, enjoy correcting errors when I find and identify them, and I enjoy reading the discussions on article talkpages. Simply watching how strangers communicate (most times peacefully) to flesh out an article is fascinating. Taking on adminship and dealing with the resulting headaches are carried in spite of this goal, and don't help in reaching it, but I think I do more help than harm. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Editorials don't belong in article space, articles do: Editorials tend to contain opinion and original research, neither of which is appropriate for nor welcome on Wikipedia. As far as factual and accurate go, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (
  Verifiability policy) As long as articles are neutral in tone and verifiable in content (and the specifics of the article abide by our other policies), they're acceptable. It's tempting, at times, to review history and draw conclusions, to provide our own input into the subject of the article. This is accepted at other encyclopedia projects and even printed encyclopedias, but is not acceptable for Wikipedia. We hold ourselves to a higher standard and must, at times, restrict ourselves to a conservative viewpoint on the subject of the article. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks to Bishonen for moving the question, makes the page look tidier. :)

For those not familiar with the basis of the question, there's a proposed decision to desysop MONGO for blocks performed incorrectly and "overly zealous" behavior^[13] and a straw poll available for those wanting to opine on the fairness of this as a remedy.^[14]

User:MONGO has apparently abused his admin-tools^[15] and personally I'm undecided: If he's abused his admin tools, then there's basis for the desysopping, though I can't say I'm happy with it. I've made my own bad administrator decisions and feel that perhaps this is a bit overkill of a solution, though on the other hand I'm not fond of intentional abuse.

I think at the moment, I would oppose this as a remedy and suggest something "lighter" such as administrative parole, even given that administrative parole is considered "punitive blocking" and ostensibly shows a lack of trust: I think it shows the administrator on parole that trust has to be repaid with trustworthy action, and forsaking that trust further will convert into a removal of that trust.

I hope that answers your question. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purge cache.