This utility is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may also ask a question, via one of the following methods:

1. Ask a general question: post a question on that link. All candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit.
2. Ask an individual question: pick the statement of the candidate you wish to pose the question to from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements, click the "Questions for the candidate" link, go to #Individual questions, and post the question there. Only this candidate will respond to that question.

Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do make an effort to ensure you aren't overlapping a general question that has already been asked (even if the candidate hasn't yet copied it over to his or her individual question page), or indeed an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to answer all questions that are put to them, including all general questions, to ensure the Community is as fully informed as it wishes to be before voting commences. You are, of course, welcome to refuse to answer a question if you feel uncomfortable doing so, but do remember that that may well result in a voter choosing to oppose you. If a question is a near-duplication of another, you are—of course—welcome to as an answer to that question simply refer the editor to your response to the similar question.

General questions

Questions that an editor would like a majority of the—or all—candidates to answer should be asked as general questions. General questions are asked here, and copied over and answered by the candidate as s/he sees fit. Editors should ask general questions at that link, and not here; only the candidate should place questions here. (See top of page for guidance.)

Question from Ultraexactzz (answered)

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?

Objective

Whilst some sensitivity to the wishes of the community is needed, it is important that arbitrators not be influenced by personal feelings and interpretations, or the personalities involved in a given case.

Questions from Giggy (answered)

1. a/s/l?

   Mid-twenties, male, London.

2. What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.

   I think it much of the problem in this area comes from a belief that people with different patterns of contributions should naturally be at odds. It is fairly normal in any society or organisation to find that people have different skills and interests and naturally tend to gravitate towards different niches. Respect and tolerance for other contributors is important, even if one does not choose to contribute in the same manner.

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

   Generally I think this should be avoided, with the exception of cases where someone uses Wikipedia as a means of furthering a stalking agenda by editing material connected to people they are harassing. The banning policy allows for edits to be reverted, it does not mandate it and judgment should in my opinion be applied in each case to determine whether this is appropriate.

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 think the most obvious instance where a case had the wrong outcome was the "Matthew Hoffman" case. The sanctions in that case seemed disproportionate to those applied to other similar cases, especially when the user conduct RfC the case was adjourned for (which of course should have been required before the case was accepted) showed virtually zero community support for the desysopping. A reprimand would have been adequate, with desysopping left to a potential later case should the problem not be solved by this. I also think there should have been a finding concerning Charles Matthews' conduct in prosecuting the case and inappropriate comments made by him on the arbitration pages.

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

   Some time ago, I helped improve Wikipedia's article on

   Matthew Bourne's dance adaption

   of the Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray.

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

   No, I will not unless I withdraw from the elections. Giving the impression that one does not support people with whom one may have to work closely and effectively risks causing unnecessary conflicts. There is enough room for disagreement between arbitrators without adding ill will about who voted for who in the election to the mix.

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

Questions from Sarcasticidealist (answered)

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?

   It is important that we policy is applied as evenly as possible. It to be consistent and unexpected applications of policy are best avoided. To that extent it needs capable of certain interpretation, lest enforcement be seen as partial. That said, it should not be applied blindly leading to negative consequences for the project. I support the idea that one should

   ignore all rules

   where this benefits the project. However, application of this principle needs to be cautious. If there is a consensus that ignoring a given rule in a given instance was in error, this should not be repeated. Similarly, if an IAR action is widely supported, policy should be modified to take account of this.

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

   Former arbitrators can be a source of valuable insight for current members. They can offer advice based on knowing matters that have been discussed on the list, and can make suggestions they would be uncomfortable making on the wiki. They can also look into matters the current members are too stretched to give full attention to - such as blocks reviews. However, that all has to be balanced against the fact that, whilst they may previous have had community trust, events since their service on the committee may mean that this confidence is no longer enjoyed. I think current arbitrators should be open to discussing whether a particular arbitrator should still remain on the list where there is clear evidence that they lack community confidence. A straight forward example of this would be an arbitrator who has since lost user rights in controversial circumstances.

   I also think there's a valid argument for separating out a list of only current arbitrators for cases where it would be inappropriate to include former members. There is no point in having an expanded list if this means that people are uncomfortable with sending it important material. Ideally, there should be a technical way of determining who can read any given "thread". This would allow even current arbitrators to be excluded where they have a conflict of interest and should not be privy to private deliberations.

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 am not convinced that this is a good idea and won't be doing the same. Arbitrators are appointed to three years terms and so there is an opportunity for the community to decide whether they should continue at that point. I think it important that arbitrators have the freedom to make decisions that they believe to be correct and not only those likely to be popular. I also believe that participation in such processes can disproportionate represent those who are unhappy with a recent action.

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

Questions from Celarnor (answered)

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 it important that the Arbitration policy is updated to take into account how ArbCom's approach has changed in certain respects. There has been a necessity for broader sanctions, for example restricting certain actions in named topic areas and I believe the community is supportive of that in principle (though I worry that these are being overused at present as a perceived "magic fix"). It is important however that any changes to how the committee operates are not made against the wishes of the community and that the policy continues to guide how ArbCom acts. Policy should not be being created by the committee by fiat, nor should ArbCom stray into determining matters of content.

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

   I believe ArbCom members should conduct themselves with dignity and set appropriate standards for other users. They also need to be sensitive to how comments they make in general discussions might be read, ensuring that they don't take advantage of the perceived status of the position or give the impression of speaking for the committee when they do not.

Question from LessHeard vanU (answered)

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]

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

I've been having a look at how the Arbitration Committees of other project do things - especially those of the French and German Wikipedias (I am after all constrained by language). There seems to be a lot less soul searching on other projects where admin misconduct is concerned: Admins who misuse their tools through repeating actions others have reverted, who protect pages they are actively involved in editing, or who block others they are involved in disputes with are desysopped. Temporarily the first time and permanently if abuse continues. There is I think something to be said for such practice instead of agonising over the motives of the person concerned and their likelihood of doing so again. It also avoids the appearance of favourable treatment being given to some users and not to others. I think it important that the Arbitration Committee provides decent oversight over administrative actions and takes action to ensure that administrators are not acting as a law onto themselves. Other avenues of dispute resolution should be pursued first - I am not advocating cases over isolated errors by administrators - but I think ArbCom needs to be more willing to accept such cases and to sanction administrators who show patterns of problematic judgment in using their tools.

Question from Carnildo (answered)

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

To be honest I am not sure - having spoken to current Arbitrators the figures they quote vary quite considerably. I also suspect that it will vary from week to week depending both the progress of matters I am involved in and what is occurring in my life outside Wikipedia. I already put in quite a lot of time to Wikipedia and most of that will no doubt end up being focused on Arbitration work were I to be appointed. On average, I suppose I would be looking to spend between 10-20hrs on ArbCom matters.

Question from WilyD (answered)

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?

   Yes. Administrators should not enjoy special status over other users. A straight forward example would be that if someone is edit warring over a page and breaches the

   three revert rule

   it should not matter whether they are an administrator, arbitrator or anything else and the decision to block should not be influenced by this. That is not to say that blocks should always be issued - blocks should be a last resort to prevent disruption - but the administrator status of a user is not in of itself a reason to treat them differently.

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 believe it can be yes. An obvious example would be where an administrative account is being used disruptively (say randomly deleting pages and blocking users) in such a manner that indicates it may have been compromised, pending emergency action by a steward. I believe it could also be appropriate where admin tools are being used disruptively and there is good reason this will continue if a block is not made. If an administrator is repeatedly protecting a page, or blocking a user, it may be necessary to block them to prevent harm to the wiki. A block after they have indicated that they will no longer be taking such actions, or sometime after the event, would not be appropriate. The key question is whether the block serves to prevent disruption to the wiki.

Questions from PhilKnight (answered)

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]

   I will start with a general position. In my opinion, appearance of bias can be as damaging as actual bias. Therefore, in cases where I did not immediately think "Oooh, I should recuse from this", I would recuse were to become clear that a significant proportion of commentators regarded me not to be an appropriate person to hear a case. To give a more specific instances of cases where I would recuse: I would not hear a case where a principal party was someone who I had met socially. I would not hear a case where I had supported or opposed the actions of the user concerned, especially in an RfC relating to the conduct being complained of or a recall petition. There are no topic areas from which I believe I should recuse automatically. My answer to Stifle below has some discussions of when I might recuse due to being a bureaucrat.

   I understand from your "voter guide" that are you are particularly interested in knowing whether I would recuse in cases concerning Elonka. The answer to that question is yes. Whilst I think that people have overestimated the amount that I interact with Elonka, the meme that has arisen is such that I do not think I could act in a case that significantly concerned her without there being an appearance of bias in the eyes of many. Also, having nominated her for adminship and opposed her recall, I would be recusing on the basis I laid out above. I don't want to quite go so far as to say that I will never look into a case that can be in any way linked to her - adding her to the party list with no reason shouldn't in itself be a way to prevent me from hearing a case. Similarly, as she is involved in enforcing ArbCom sanctions, I can't really recuse from all cases about a topic area where she may have enforced one of those sanctions in the past. But if she is genuinely connected to the dispute in question, I would recuse. If there is doubt as to whether there is such a connection, I wouldn't determine the matter myself - I am happy to see if a reasonable proportion of commentators think my acting as an arbitrator would be improper. Not as much as a consensus, but say roughly a 1/3 of people who express an opinion on the subject? Does that seem reasonable to you? I am willing to adjust my position if you think that still leaves problems.

2. Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?

   Though using "racist" to mean an advocate of the scientific theory is open to misunderstanding and probably best qualified, it does not appear to have been meant to be a personal attack. It is unclear from your outline whether the editor described as racist objected to that label. If so, then it would be best if the other editor clarified what he meant. Similarly, whilst the administrator may have misunderstood the context of the comment, he or she seems to have been acting in good faith believing there to have been a simple personal attack. Hopefully were the context explained to them - especially if the recipient of the comment had not found it insulting - they would have reversed the block. If there has been a true case of pushing the scientific racist POV, then the true problem here lies with the editor making those edits, not with the person who called them out on it (albeit bluntly). Sanctions would seem appropriate as with any account unable to adhere to NPOV.

Questions from Thatcher (answered)

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

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?

Whilst that approach does seem to have achieved an end to the vandalism and provided further evidence that the administrator in question is the culprit, I do not find it entirely satisfactory. The administrator seems to be being treated in a rather preferential manner to another users in the same position. My views on this would be affected by the reason for the lack of further action - is it because it is not felt that there is enough evidence to determine that the administrator is the culprit, or because the administrator is being spared the embarrassment of public denunciation? If the former, then this may be the best response but I would advocate a close eye being kept on the admin in future. If the latter, then I think further action - such as a case that may result in the desysopping of the administrator - would be required. The type of vandalism (I regard the worse possibility to be adding personal attacks to BLPs) would only be relevant if it was agreed that the administrator was indeed responsible, where it would result in my supporting harsher sanctions.

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?

(a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.

(b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.

(c) Write your own answer.

I think (a) is problematic. The checkuser may not act totally impartially as a result of his involvement in the topic area, being more likely to conclude that those with opposing views are socks - or at least would be open to that accusation. Also, were the check to be negative, the checkuser may have obtained personal information about a person with whom they have been in conflict in relation to the article. Aside from making them person uncomfortable if they to learn of it, were that person to suffer harassment off-wiki, they might claim that the checkuser had disclosed the results of their check. It seems best conduct for a checkuser to avoid the possibility of such suspicions. Whilst (b) is better, it doesn't entirely remove this danger and I think it would be most prudent to have a second checkuser run the check. Given that this is not an emergency situation, I don't think the delay caused by making a request is unreasonable (indeed non-checkusers always have to take this approach).

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?

There is something to be said for allowing an undisclosed sockpuppet of a banned user to continue editing if their contributions are beneficial - aside from the project having the benefit of their contributions, it means the editor in question won't shift to a new account that may go undetected. However, once the sockpuppet is disclosed, it rather calls into question the point of "banning" them. If the editing by a given user is in fact acceptable, they should be unbanned. If it remains problematic, they should not be editing in open contravention of that ban. In this case,a condition of the ban being lifted should be that the attacks against Jones stop. The fact that the posts to the blog have continued make it unlikely that the problematic conduct towards Jones will stop. Aside from the fact that it is generally unacceptable to use another site to harass a contributor, the blog postings coming to an end would be good evidence of Smith's good faith and likeliness to comply with such a condition.

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?

I think public disagreement can be healthy. If the community could not agree on how to deal with the issue in question, it is natural that arbitrators will reflect a similar spectrum of views. The fact that a sanction was proposed and supported by some arbitrators will make those who also support that sanction feel less disenfranchised from the process than if it seems the possibility was never considered. ArbCom decisions which seem to appear from nowhere can give rise to feelings that they are arrived at by fiat. Where the outcome of RfAs/RfBs has been unclear, I believe that having a public discussion between bureaucrats has been beneficial, despite the fact that bureaucrats are not always unanimous as to whether a consensus for promotion exists in the discussion in question. The community will also find it easier to understand delays in a final decision being reached if they can see active discussion of proposals between arbitrators than if they are left to interpret a long period of silence from the committee.

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 don't think it physically possible for every arbitrator to stay on top of every matter the committee deals with. On some issues, it would be necessary to have faith in my colleagues. It is important that members of ArbCom maintain a connection to the rest of the community and are sensitive to its views and I think a complete focus on arbitration work only could result in losing sight of that.

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?

Whilst I have not made this information widely available, it is also no great secret. The threat of the information being more widely disclosed doesn't bother me unduly these days, though I would prefer it wasn't.

Questions from Newyorkbrad (answered)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think all arbitrators should be involved in all of these areas to some extent, with the exception of (F). It's hard to know in advance which tasks I would find an aptitude for and how I would fit in with other members of the committee. Also I suspect that some tasks will require some experience on the committee first - for instance whilst I'd like to involve myself in drafting decisions that's not something I think I'd leap into. Early on it seems best to try get a feel for a broad range of the tasks covered arbitrator deal with.

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at

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

I think a lot of discussion on this matter has rather missed the point. Those who act as channel operators on IRC are largely the same people who follow and apply decisions ArbCom make about Wikipedia (some are even Arbitrators themselves). Whilst ArbCom may not have control over IRC, it certainly has a lot of influence. For instance if a case before ArbCom shows that someone has abused their access to #wikipedia-en-admins, a remedy could be passed requesting that this user's access to the channel be revoked. I believe that such a request for the committee would be acted upon - if not, then that is something the community deserves to know in forming its opinions about IRC. Now that it is agreed that those desysopped by ArbCom will lose access to that channel, such a remedy can also have a direct effect on IRC. I think it is important that steps are taken to better regulate IRC, rather than to "abolish" it - which would be impractical and unenforceable. You can no more prevent people from discussing Wikipedia through online chat services than you can prevent discussions between Wikipedians over a drink. The important thing is to stress that consensus for actions has to exist on-wiki not off it and that where IRC is used in a manner that has adverse consequences on-wiki, (a) sanction will follow on-wiki and (b) steps will be taken to require those responsible for IRC to sanction the person concerned on IRC also.

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 have outlined the central changes I would propose to make in my candidate statement and elaborated on those in its extended version and in my answer to LtPowers below. There is rarely anything people can do to ensure that someone keeps their promises, but I not not believe I have intentionally broken any promise I have made to the community in the past. I cannot promise to deliver all the changes I propose - after all, if elected I would be only of a committee of at least 15 people - but I can promise that I will do all I can to persuade my colleagues that these are beneficial changes that need to be made.

Questions from Rschen7754 (answered)

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

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?

   Three months was far too long, especially when the only remedies were "Editors counselled" and "USRD members advised" which seems pretty weak given the time taken.

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

   In my opinion the purpose of a Wikiproject is to coordinate editing in a particular topic area, providing an easy way to contact users who are interested and/or knowledgeable about the topic concerned. Wikiprojects can organise drives to improve specific articles, or to ensure that maintenance tasks are being done. Wikiprojects do not own articles and so cannot simply dictate article standards, however they can propose them and should there be a consensus of editors that these should be followed that can be enforced. But the important element is consensus from the community to apply those standards, not just that they are "required" by a given Wikiproject.

3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point:
   WP:USRD
   and its state highway projects)

   The question is whether there is a consensus that these standards should be followed. If the editors involved in a particular area have decided to depart from the general approach of a Wikiproject, they should be entitled to do so. Wikiprojects cannot own "sub"-wikiprojects any more than they can own articles.

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

   In determining whether something is canvassing, I think the content of the message and to whom it is directed is more significant than the medium used. A newsletter entry drawing attention to a dispute on which it is thought more eyes from people knowledgeable about the topic may be beneficial would not see problematic. By contrast an entry inviting members of the project to defend a stance taken by other project members would be an issue. Similarly, an IRC message neutrally inviting input from a third party should be treated differently to one "summoning aid". IRC messages can be much more problematic because they come into the territory of potential "stealth canvassing" as their content are not usually public knowledge, whereas the content of newsletters and their circulation are openly known.

5. a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?

   The question is whether edits improve or damage the project. If someone's edits are made in good faith but their lack of skill means that the quality of articles is being affected, this can be as problematic as deliberate vandalism. Whilst the person concerned should be treated with respect, if reasonable steps to improve the quality of their contributions fail and they continue to make problematic edits that other editors are burdened with rectifying, action to protect the project (including blocking) would be appropriate. Where numerous edits have been made, rollback may be wise to return the articles to a proper state, whereas if the problematic contributions are fewer a revert with a specific message acknowledging that they were made in good faith would be better.

6. An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?

   To some extent this is a similar problem to that above. The contributions of this person appear to be detrimental to Wikipedia. Although there is no need to be too rude about it, I think such a person should be invited to start making beneficial contributions to the project or depart. People should not have to walk on eggshells to deal with someone who apparently adds nothing to the project.

7. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?

   Such a person's contributions are likely to be those described in (5) and the response should be similar. Wikipedia isn't an educational outreach project and other contributors should not be required to tidy up after those who are not able to contribute to the project.

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

   Communities bans should be the absolute last resort when an editor's contributions to the project have a net detrimental effect and lesser sanctions have failed to improve this problem. A ban would be a appropriate for scenarios 5-7 assuming that the person refused to accept that their contributions were problematic after people had spent time discussing the situation with them, and that the problem had persisted after lesser sanctions e.g. short blocks had been tried.

9. (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

   I think the community is struggling to cope with the unexpected the size Wikipedia has grown to. Consensus is becoming increasingly hard to find as the number of voices swell. This can lead to paralysis and decision not being made - there can often be agreement that something needs to be done, but rarely as to what the "something" is.

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

Questions from Maxim (answered)

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?

   In my opinion, wheel-warring is repeating an admin action that has been reverted by another admin. It is edit warring with admin actions. I reject the suggestion that it also applies to undoing an action of another administrator. Where this is done without discussion in inappropriate circumstances without adequate discussion, this can be misconduct and a habit of it may be sanctionable. But I don't think it helpful to describe that as a wheel war. Wheel-warring should result in the loss of administrator privileges. A more complex scenario is where actions are done and reversed by a group of admins without any of them acting more than once.

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

   In theory I am supportive of this. I think admins should maintain community confidence even if not at the "RfA pass" level. If a majority of the community believes an administrator should stand down, I think they should. That said, recall processes can be over focused on single issues, with participation unduly weighted towards those unhappy with recent actions. A community recall process would need to balance accountability, with time wasting caused by administrators fielding baseless complaints.

3. What is your opinion on adminbots? The
   Twinkle
   )?

   As you are now doubt aware, I operate RedirectCleanupBot, the first officially approved adminbot. I think automating routine tasks that do not require judgment is a good way of freeing up administrator time to deal with issues that require thought. Provided that the community is properly notified that it is proposed to approve an adminbot at BRfA (as the policy requires) then I believe that reducing the amount of process needed to approve them is a good thing. Having a more straightforward mechanism for approval should result in people feeling less of a need to run such scripts covertly.

Questions from

rootology

Question from Davewild (answered)

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?

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

I think terms need to be at least two years in length to provide reasonable continuity. I also think it would be undesirable to have two elections a year unless the election process were simplified and shortened quite considerably. I'm not overly keen on replacing half the committee every year, but that seems to be happening anyway due to the need to fill extra seats that result from resignations. Though some arbitrators have expressed the view that they two years are more than enough, others have managed three without burning out. Perhaps the current system of three years, allowing for those tired after two to resign then is a good compromise but I wouldn't be opposed to all terms being reduced to two years.

Questions from roux (answered)

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

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in

I generally support A.2 and oppose the other two though there are some remarks I would make. Once cannot buy the right to be incivil towards others through making quality contributions. That said, appropriate responses should be gauged in light of the context of the incivility. Using low level incivility to criticise the actions of administrators or the Arbitration Committee is not as problematic as the use of such language directed towards new or less experienced users.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in

Here I would support B.2 and oppose the other two. I think civility restrictions have been rather disastrous. They reimpose an existing obligation and can therefore be seen as sanction "for the sake of someone being sanctioned". Isolated instances of incivility should not result in blocks (assuming these are remarks that fall short of personal attacks) and patterns of incivility should be sanctioned even in the absence of special restrictions. If someone has a history of incivil behaviour, it may be difficult for them to abandon it overnight - subjecting them to longer and longer blocks whenever they slip up is likely to exacerbate the problem. The goal should be to keep a productive user, but to help them overcome the problem behaviour.

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?

It can be appropriate to issue blocks to those who are persistently incivil. Where all of an editor's contributions have been uncivil, admin may take action as they would for any other disruptive editor. However, where a productive user who frequently exhibits low level incivility is concerned, blocks should not be based on the judgment of one admin alone and it is best if a community consensus is found to support the block. Where such a pattern of behaviour persists, a user conduct RfC may be appropriate - provided that users have tried and failed to resolve the problem through other means. If there is a third party trusted by the user to counsel them on their behaviour, mentorship might assist. For instance, a user may agree to apologise for comments determined to be uncivil by their mentor(s).

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

Question from Iridescent (answered)

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. – 

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.

   I agree with this. Where there is a consensus that a personal is of marginal notability and they wish to their entry deleted - or there is good reason to think they would want their entry deleted were they aware of it - the article should be deleted.

   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.

   This seems a good way to implement (a) provided that the subject objects or is likely to object to the entry. I do not think it should apply where someone may want us to have an article about them - people often forget the OTRS complaints from people who have been embarrassed by friends and colleagues discovering that their entry on Wikipedia was deleted "because they weren't notable enough". That's becoming an increasing problem now the deletion log entry is automatically visible to someone who visits a deleted page (rather than the log having to be checked separately)

   As a general answer, I think Wikipedia needs to give very serious thought to the effect the information we have on people now it's become customary for the internet to be used to research individuals. Even a well sourced biography may aggregate elements of a person's life together in a unique way that they are unhappy with - and the entry is likely to become a top google hit for their name. NOINDEXing biographies might be a solution, but it has been pointed out that the GFDL would allow a mirror site to copy these articles and support themselves through advertising revenue generated from the prominence these articles might get without a Wikipedia competitor. Effectively, this could lose prevent us from having any control over biographies. That said, these sites might have a significantly lower ranking. One way or another the idea needs further investigation.

   I personally would support the semi protection of biographical articles given the harm that can be caused to people through them. Flagged revisions on such articles would also allow tighter control over this sort of content, which I think would be highly beneficial. Of course, as you pointed out above, ArbCom can't "legislate" on these issues, but you asked for my opinions.

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?

   Both. Consideration has to be given both to our policies about editing biographies of living people and about individual editorial decision about the notability of such people, and what material they feel is encyclopedically relevant.

   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?

   I think ArbCom approached the problem wrongly in the

   here

   . Effectively they created special authority for administrators - giving anyone the right to use "any means necessary" has always been problematic - backed up by a special enforcement log. Such sanctions should in my opinion have been based on community consensus, rather than administrative discretion. In this area the role of ArbCom should be IMO to support those taking actions in respect of problematic BLPs and to impose tough sanctions on those whose misconduct causes BLP problems.

   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.

   It is not for ArbCom to implement such changes and indeed I suspect the community will reject policy implemented by ArbCom to the extent that an attempt to do so would be counterproductive. ArbCom should support those working to bring articles into compliance with the relevant community agreed policies and can propose new measures to the community, but it is not it's role to rule by fiat.

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?

   I don't think anyone foresaw that the project would grow to its current size and influence and this brings new problems. I do not think the consensus based model should be abandoned, but consideration needs to be given to areas where it is open to gaming. For example, canvassing has become increasingly problematic now that participants in discussions may be a very small sample of the community. It is important that we take steps to make sure such samples are representative by ensuring wide publicity in centralised locations and in taking action where it appears that canvassing has stilted the outcome of a discussion.

   The Arbitration Committee is in itself an example of an area where the consensus model has been, to some extent departed from. Whilst the Committee is appointed primarily based on a community vote, it's mandate is to make judgments independently based on member's individual judgment. That is not to say that the wishes of the community are to be ignored, but that ArbCom is expected to do more than just count heads on a given issue and vote accordingly. People in voting for particular candidates - I hope - recognise that they will sometimes disagree with that arbitrator during their term. ArbCom is effectively designed to step in to provide a resolution to the dispute where the consensus based model has been unsuccessful in proving a resolution.

   I think it should be borne in mind that consensus-based decision model has been something that has attracted a lot contributors and is generally empowering to our editors. Whilst I think we should be open to reform and deviation from the model, I think it also important that we are not too quick to exclude people from making decisions or reduce their input to a mere vote.

4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?

   I admit to being in two minds on the matter. There would be very valuable in certain contexts, such as biographies of living people, but I worry that they take us away from what makes it appealing for casual users to contribute. People underestimate how much good content comes from IP contributors and I worry that being able to see the changes they make immediately on the page is what is attractive about editing Wikipedia. If changes were approved quickly this might not be too much of a problem, but I worry about a backlog of unprocessed revisions resulting. The experience of the German Wikipedia does seem encouraging.

   One of the problems there has been in approving this is that there have been a lot of different proposals and different ways in which this might be implemented. In a discussion at a recent meetup in Cambridge, it became obvious that three of us talking energetically about this issue had completely different models in mind. There has yet to be a single clear proposal put to the community for approval, which is clearly the next step.

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

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

   I do. I think it important that people are judged by the quality of their contributions to the project, and conduct in relation to it, rather than based on their off-wiki identity if that is their wish. I also think people can have very legitimate concern about unwanted attention they may receive due to Wikipedia's current profile and the negative consequences this can have. Female editors are particularly likely to be subject of such unpleasant attention. That said, if someone is comfortable disclosing their identity, they should be free to do so.

   The question prompts me to comment on a recent experience I had on a train journey from London to Devon. I got talking to the train manager and, in the course of our conversation, she confided that the name on her badge was not in fact her real name but a pseudonym. Apparently her employers had advised train managers that they should adopt pseudonymous identities as a result of disgruntled passengers tracking them down and harassing them and their families. Her superiors kept a list of the pseudonyms used by each train conductor so that they would be able to identify which employee a complaint related to. The use of pseudonyms is becoming increasingly common where there is a real risk of harassment and abuse - the modern world, which provides ready means of accessing information about private individuals, has been felt to necessitate this. In the rail scenario, it seems to me that I knew all I needed to know about the lady I was addressing. I was aware of her position and how I would go about complaining were she to abuse her position. The train manager is not directly analogous to the Wikipedia scenario, but I think it draws attention to the fact that the use of pseudonyms is not an alien idea unique to Wikipedia or the internet.

   One exception I would make to the general right of editors to be anonymous is that I believe there is a duty to assist someone who has been deliberately defamed by a Wikipedia editor in tracking down that person. As there is no right of action against the Foundation, I think assistance should be given to those who misuse the project for malicious attacks against other people. In appropriate cases, that should include disclosing the name of the person, if known, or otherwise information about their IP usage.

   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 think any change would need to appreciate that many contributors would choose to cease contributing to the project if they could not remain pseudonymous - the cost of this to the project would need to be carefully considered if a change were seriously being proposed.

   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?

   In my opinion we should extend all courtesy to fellow editors. If someone has previously disclosed personal information they now would rather they had not, I think reasonable assistance should be given to them in reducing the incidence of that data on the project and it's profile on search engines. Redacting the information from pages seem appropriate and deletion/oversight may also be acceptable so long as material valuable to the project is not lost. It is something to considered on a case-by-case basis with kindness.

   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?

   There is little practical difference between posting "User:X is John Smith" and linking to a page that contains that same statement on another website. The reason for doing so may vary and will affect how serious an incident this is. The information could be posted in good faith to make someone aware of a potential issue (though I hope most would realise email were a better way to do this) or it may be done deliberately to draw wider attention to the information.

   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 do not publish my identity on Wikipedia but I have made it known to quite a lot of contributors who I have gotten to know. I choose not to make it more widely available as, at the moment, I would rather references to me on Wikipedia used my screen name rather than my actual name. I have not yet decided whether to make my name more prominently available were I to get elected - it is not however a very closely guarded secret...

   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?

   The Foundation doesn't to my knowledge make any assertion that users will be able to remain anonymous. I think there may be some merit in warning people who seek positions that have attracted unwarranted attention in the past - such as administrators - of the potential pitfalls, but this needs to be kept in some sort of context. Whilst outing and harassment are seriously issues, they effect only a small proportion of contributors and giving the impression that "if you edit Wikipedia, people will try to out and harass you" would be rather a disproportionate response.

   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)

   Context is to some extent important. It may difficult to draw attention to a serious conflict of interest (e.g. someone adding negative information to the biography of a former partner or business rival) without revealing information about the person who is doing so. That is technically outing, but rather different to deliberately revealing someone's identity out of spite where it is irrelevant to edits they have made. Where the outing is vindictive, I believe an indefinite block is needed - especially if it appears such behaviour will be repeated. In other instances, a more nuanced approach based on the circumstances may be needed.

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

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

   I would answer this question similarly to (f) above. It is important to keep things in proportion, but it is something that I think should be drawn to the attention of someone running for a particularly specific position.

   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.

   Real life stalking is something which the police of the country involved has a responsibility for. The Foundation does not have the resources or the mandate to assist in this area - short of hiring private detectives or bodyguards it is difficult to see what they can do. If a matter of this nature is the subject of police investigation, the Foundation should cooperate fully - including disclosing checkuser information to them (not the person allegedly being stalked) - but I think what they are able, and qualified, to do ends there. As to providing support, again this is a matter of resources.

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

   I think someone in that position should be treated with kindness and hope the community would be understanding if they reacted oddly to comments that touched on this subject. But ultimately there's only so much allowance you can make - if disruption is resulting from someone behaviour, action is going to be needed however much sympathy one has for their situation.

   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.

   This is one of the rare cases where there should a blanket policy of reverting edits of accounts identified to be operated by the stalker. Seemingly innocuous edits can be made as part of a campaign of harasssment. It may be necessary also to protect pages, be it the biography of the stalkee or their user/talk pages. Ultimately however the most effective action in these cases will be taken by law enforcement agencies. Incidents that happy on the wiki should be forwarded to them and IP data relating to the stalker should be passed on - especially where it suggests the stalker was in close proximity to their victim when they edited.

   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?

   Yes of course. For instance there is a difference between someone arguing with someone as to formatting and then tagging all fair use image uploads by their opponent for review, and checking the image uploads of someone who has shown they do not understand Wikipedia's fair use policy in a discussion about one of their uploads.

7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

   This can be an appropriate response in cases where edits are being used to intimidate others - see the hypothetical stalker discussed in my answer to 6. (d). Generally I think it appropriate that the edits of banned users can be reverted but that no one is obliged to do so if they believe the edit to have been beneficial. Blanket restoring such edits without ascertaining the reasons for the reverts and without considering each edit individually is problematic - users should restore only edits they are specifically willing to take responsibility for.

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

   a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

   I don't think discussion should judged based on where it occurs. I do think it important that decisions concerning Wikipedia are discussed on Wikipedia.

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

   No. There's only so much time in the day and I've never been much of a diarist.

   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)?

   I have difficulty thinking of Wikipedia Review as a single entity - it has rather a wide range of posters with very different agendas. Some have raised legitimate points and drawn attention to matters that warrant further investigation. Others seems to have quite pointed personal agendas against particular people that they pursue with worrying zeal. As a forum for the outing of editors of this project, I have little time for it. There seems to be a lack of agreement among contributors there as to whether the site's aim should be to improve Wikipedia, or bring it crashing down. It won't surprise people to find that I have more time for the views of those who fall into the former school than the latter.

   I was vaguely aware of Wikback but never really paid it much attention. I believe people felt moderation was overly strict and were frustrated that deleted posts appeared to be lost forever. I have not given thought to the form an "ideal" outside critcism side should take - I will update this answer should I later form a view on the matter.

   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 this a matter for individual choice and think the manner in which someone participates is the more significant than the fact they choose to do so.

   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? )

   I do not think it is appropriate for an arbitrator actively participate in such a site without disclosing this fact. No, I would not consider it outing for someone to reveal the link between such accounts. I think a certain transparency is needed and that arbitrators should be accountable for comments they make if they choose to participate on such sites. I have not been active on such sites and do not intend to become so active in future.

9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?

   I think any project that has lasted as long as Wikipedia has faces this problem. From the point of view of ArbCom, I think it important that sanctions are decided based on the nature of the problematic behaviour being considered without undue regard to the identity of the user concerned.

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

    Red! Because I like it better than other colours?

Questions from Heimstern (answered)

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?

   I think it important that ArbCom reconsider the extent to which blanket topic sanctions are issued in these cases. They are not magic fixes and can make the problem worse. Usually administrators refer these cases to ArbCom because they cannot reach a consensus as to how best to deal with the involved editors. They are not complaining that they lack the means to deal with them and require greater authority, but they are unsure who to sanction to improve the matter. Where ArbCom can identify users whose conduct is particularly problematic, sanctions specifically directed at those users are appropriate. In particular, where editors are shown to have a tendentious agenda to advance a particular agenda on Wikipedia, ArbCom should be more willing to apply direct sanctions on those editors.

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?

   I think civility paroles have been a disaster and your question hints strongly at the reason why. Civility is in the eye of the beholder and opinions on how to deal with it differ. Uncivil posts are generally minor - falling short of personal attacks - and cause problems usually not in isolation but when part of conduct that is generally uncivil. Blocks seem a heavy-handed way to deal with single incidents and have been proved ineffective in breaking people out of uncivil behaviour (especially as people can react angrily to the blocks). I think it important that sanctions for uncivil behaviour are made based on consensus, which is a clear sign to the uncivil party that it is the community is general and not a single admin who "has it in for them" who objects to their conduct. Where someone's contributions are generally positive and a propensity to comment in an uncivil manner is the only issue, I think it better that blocks are not made on one person's judgment. I also generally dislike the idea of remedies that reimpose existing obligations, ie. user must contribute civilly, user must respect NPOV etc.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare (answered)

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

   Please see my answer to Iridescent's question above. Over 50% and among the top 7 (assuming 7 is the number of seats available when Jimbo comes to make appointments).

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

   No, I wouldn't. Arbitrators are appointed to three years terms and so there is an opportunity for the community to decide whether they should continue at that point. I think it important that arbitrators have the freedom to make decisions that they believe to be correct and not only those likely to be popular. I also believe that participation in such processes can disproportionate represent those who are unhappy with a recent action.

Questions from UninvitedCompany

Questions from TomasBat (answered)

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?)

Whilst I think it important to bear in mind the feelings of other users as human beings, ultimately the priority must be the best interests of building an encyclopedia and, on the rare occasions where one has to choose which to prioritise, it is the latter that must win out. It should be borne in mind that new users are the future of the project and, though it may not be productive to spend undue time bending over backwards to accommodate problematic editing, someone who is struggling to get the hang of the wiki now may become a contributor of excellent material in the future. We should be cautious in judging that something will not benefit the project.

Question from MBisanz (answered)

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.

Though I don't openly declare my name, it is also not a great secret. The threat of someone revealing my name does not bother me unduly these days.

Questions from Pixelface (answered)

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?

   Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. In both cases, I think the decision was appropriate, I thought ArbCom did especially well to look into matters that could have been dismissed as relating to content rather than conduct an took the effort to confirm the allegations made regarding the misrepresentation of sources.

2. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?

   I made a statement concerning the Sarah Palin protection wheel war case, though that was when the case was framed as looking to the conduct of a sole administrator - it was of less direct relevance once the scope of the case changed. I made worksop proposals in the Franco-Mongol alliance. I do think that was worth my time, though the later confirmation that the content of sources had been misrepresented rather overtook my proposals are required harsher remedies that I has proposed based on the evidence I had seen. Technically, I added proposals to the workshop in the Matthew Hoffman case, though this was to copy ArbCom's proposed decision so that it could be commented on. I think this was definitely worthwhile as it provided a clear way for the community to express their disagreement with that very precipitous decision written up within hours of the case being accepted and before the parties had submitted evidence. I presented evidence in the Betacommand 2 case, which I think proved a useful opportunity to clarify the role of bureaucrats in the bot approval process. My involvement in cases has generally been to comment on workshop items and the proposed decision, rather than to make workshop proposals of my own. It has been my impression that arbitrators prefer to write their own proposals rather than to import them from the workshop, which puts me off writing up suggestions in the workshop.

3. Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).

   I believe Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine is the only request I have made.

Questions from Badger Drink

Question from BirgitteSB (answered)

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]

My only worry about this approach is that having arbitrators compile evidence themselves can give rise to the impression that they are prosecuting particular parties, rather than impartially reviewing evidence. It might be best if this task were assigned to arbitrators who would recuse from making a decision (which may be what you mean by "in isolation"), or to a neutral third party. In any event, I agree that where evidence has been heard in private, two things must happen. A party who it is proposed be sanctioned (or about whom adverse finding of fact is proposed) should (1) be made aware of the evidence against them and be given an opportunity to respond to it and (2) be made aware in advance of those sanctions/findings and be given an opportunity to comment on them.

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

Questions From ϢereSpielChequers

Question(s) from LtPowers (answered)

• 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]

I do agree with that assessment. At some level this represents the problem that ArbCom is called upon to deal with cases where the community cannot agree on a satisfactory outcome. It is always going to be the case therefore that the outcome of a given case will displease many. Arbitrators are also not all elected with 100% support so there are also some who will be unhappy with arbitrators from day one. That alone does not explain the current problem. There have been various instances this year where the conduct of ArbCom in hearing cases - let alone in determining their outcome - has been so substandard that they have found condemnation from the vast majority of the community. For example, holding cases in secret and releasing judgments before the person concerned has heard the case against them, let alone had an opportunity to put their side of it, is a basic breach of natural justice.

I outlined a number of areas where I thought improvement particularly needed in my candidate statement, and expanded upon them further here. I believe that increased transparency, clearer decisions and a more thoughtful application of appropriate sanctions are the best way to try and regain community confidence. I recognise however that this is likely to be an uphill struggle...

Another issue of growing dissatisfaction with the community is a perceived unwillingness or inability on the part of the Arbitration Committee to regulate those with oversight and checkuser privileges, especially where the alleged misuse of those tools falls outside the privacy policy. I think it important that ArbCom be seen to be taking an active role in supervising those to whom it allocates these tools and in regularly reviewing whether these appointments remain appropriate. Some users received these rights many years ago and their standing in the community may have changed considerably since. Where it is shown that someone has repeatedly strayed outside the relevant policies after being warned, I think it is appropriate to revoke such access. I also think confidence in this area would be strengthened by the knowledge that the holders of these rights were subject to periodic review and those making poor use of the access would have it removed in favour of competent candidates likely to be more successful in the role.

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have used

Mediation Committee, an account not used for editing but to allow people to contact the Mediation Committee via Special:Emailuser/Mediation Committee

.

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 am hopeful that the plans to streamline

WP:SSP and WP:RFCU

into one process will be beneficial in this area - in particular given that suspected sockpuppet reports are a neglected area. That said, there is little substitute for good eyes looking out for suspect behaviour and I worry that low number of new administrators being created is leading to this sort of work becoming increasingly neglected. Another perennial problem are users blocked for such behaviour who return to the project once checkuser data regarding prior incarnations has become stale. I think there needs to be greater recognition that where an account reappears which demonstrates extremely similar problematic behaviour to a past blocked user, it is not necessary to prove they are the same person for action to be taken.

Easy-peasy question: if elected will you be resigning from your MedCom activities?