Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Cool Hand Luke/Questions for the candidate

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:

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.
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.

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

I welcome questions directed toward me. Those wishing to ask questions of all candidates may submit them in the next week here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Questions/General. I will answer all of those questions. Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NuclearWarfare

Your fourth campaign promise says that you will not request the Oversight tool. I have heard it mentioned that Arbitrators often need to look at Oversighted material. If material that was Oversighted was a part of the case that you were active in, what would you do?
I understand that view, but I don't think it's necessary to have Oversight for occasional read-only access. I would request that an arbitrator with oversight describe the material in question. Sam Blacketer seems to get along fine without it. Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: several users have expressed concern that oversight is a necessary tool. I will ask existing arbitrators about it, and my position may change. I can promise that I will not use the tool to actually oversight revisions—it will be strictly for exploring oversighted revisions related to active cases. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus among five current arbitrators is that oversight is basically never relevant when resolving cases. One arbitrator said there was a single case last year where it came up, and others can't recall a single case ever. In these rare circumstances, I can rely upon others to convey the information.

That said, one arbitrator sent me an insightful commentary suggesting that each arbitrator is selected on the basis of their ability to reach thoughtful and independent conclusions. For this reason, they personally feel obligated to independently confirm when and how the tool is used. I've thought this over the past few days, and I find the argument persuasive. If the community trusts me as an arbitrator, users should feel more—not less—secure that I can oversee use of the tool.

Therefore, I will accept oversight access for the exclusive purposes of independently evaluating evidence and reviewing the conduct of users with oversight. I will not use the tool for normal everyday use, and I promise to not actually oversight revisions myself. Cool Hand Luke 02:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sam Blacketer

I'm interested in your arbitrator recall pledge. Most arbitration committee business is now conducted in private and on the mailing lists, because aspects of the situation must be kept confidential. What will you do if there is a highly controversial case in which your recall is demanded, but where you know there is a confidential piece of evidence which would turn the whole perception of the case on its head if disclosed? Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important question about privacy and Arbitrator independence. The privacy question is easy: material held in confidence by ArbCom should not be disclosed to anyone for any reason outside of our narrow privacy policies.

The implications of recall on arbitrator independence requires a longer explanation.

Independence is an important value for fact finders, but so is institutional respect. The Arbitration Committee can only work effectively as a generally respected body among members of the community. Long-time contributors have recently expressed no confidence in ArbCom. When the committee loses that respect, it becomes less relevant. Thus, the reputation of ArbCom (and perhaps Wikipedia itself) declines. I believe that a tarnished ArbCom demoralizes Wikipedia'd contributors, who often need assistance dealing unpleasant situations that cannot be resolved quickly by any other body.

Therefore, I intend that recall will serve as a "canary in the mineshaft." We know from experience that sysops rarely lose their bit from Administrator recall. However, the proceeding itself can alert editors that they are losing the community's trust. In the sort of hypothetical situation you describe, I and other Arbitrators could emphasize the private nature of the evidence. I hope to do a competent enough job that this will be retain the community's trust, and I trust the community to fairly evaluate me.

Arbitrators might be in error, and recall is a good tool to get to the bottom of their claims. In the Mantanmoreland case, for example, one arbitrator claimed that non-public evidence was used in reaching a decision, while another arbitrator said there was no significant non-public evidence. I believe a recall process (even if unsuccessful) could resolve this discrepancy, increasing transparency and community confidence.

Finally, I think that my independence is ensured in other ways. For example, I don't usually weigh in on passing controversies at AN/I, and I feel like a genuine outsider to most so-called "cliques." I've also pledged to not run for re-election, so I will never be tempted to shy away from an unpopular decision for electoral reasons. But if a significant portion of the community were to no longer trust my work on ArbCom (as opposed to merely disagreeing with some detail), I ought to be removed. I trust the community to discriminate between trivial differences and utter failures to communicate. In turn, I hope the community can place their trust in me. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from FT2

These questions may branch differently for different candidates. I have therefore asked them individually rather than as "general questions" after some consideration.

These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged.

There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
In the last year, ArbCom has taken dramatically fewer cases (Cf. question from Newyorkbrad). I believe that's a positive development insofar as the community now regularly deals with most problem users. I also understand that there is a list of current arbitrators only. I also think that's a good thing; although I plan to frequently ask former Arbitrators for their opinions, deliberation should primarily occur among the community's current arbitrators.
Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?
Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.
a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?
b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?
Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?
Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Speed is important" questions from SilkTork

How will you introduce speed into the process? And how will you ensure that speed is not simply hasty or "quick and dirty", in which a considered outcome is pushed aside in the objective of getting a result? ArbCom cases usually involve experienced users tangled up in cases that have proved too subtle or difficult for other moderation processes to solve - how do you see yourself resolving quickly matters that are not obvious, and which involve people who can dissemble expertly? I love the idea of speedy resolution - I just wonder at the cost, or at your ability to pull the rabbit out of the hat. I hear your claims, but I don't see your evidence. What I'm saying is that I want you to be the Messiah - but I don't believe in miracles, so I'd like to see some concrete plans for speeding up the process. SilkTork *^YES! 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution of ArbCom cases is not an inverse relationship between speed and care. We know this because every year after elections, ArbCom becomes relatively speedy before sliding off again in the summer months. The missing variable is Arbitrator attentiveness. I plan to address this problem several ways:

I commit to stay attentive. It's hard for arbitrators because they receive criticism from all quarters and burnout is inevitable. But I hope to remember that the arbitrator's time is necessary to save contributor's time.
I will work on writing opinions. This seems to be a serious bottleneck. It's no coincidence that that the C68-FM-SV case dragged for months precisely when the most prolific opinion-writer (Newyorkbrad) took a forced wikibreak.
I would encourage less active arbitrators to reduce their caseload or drop from rotation. This will speed arbitrations in two ways: First, it will eliminate dragging from the arbitrators who are busiest. Second, it would reduce committee sizes on each case. Smaller groups are actually more efficient than overly-large committees. For this reason, adding more Arbitrators has never accelerated ArbCom in the past, and would not speed up the process unless ArbCom was divided in panels. I don't advocate panels, but if Arbitrators are busy with their lives, it's in everyone's interest to only have them take every other case—or even less.
Communication and case management. Sometimes delays will be unavoidable. Out of respect for the parties, delays should be communicated. ArbCom should also take control of the direction and scope of cases. Among other things, ArbCom should have little patience for non-party trolling.
Transparency. Really! I believe that cases have sometimes dragged because the arbitrators have tried to present a united front. The best example is the C68-FM-SV case. This case took over four months to resolve, and no proposed findings were posted for ages. After NYB drafted a good set of findings, it languished for another two weeks with very little action. So after 16 weeks of being open, Thebainer finally posted a remedy that had been suggested repeatedly on the workshop. Within 24 hours it attained ArbCom's support, and in 10 days (after some off-site drama) the case was closed. It's clear to me that not enough proposed findings are posted.

If there's a question that the committee cannot agree upon after several days, I intend to post it as a proposed finding, let the chips fall where they may, and then move on. The community gains little from behind-the-scenes negotiations. In fact, open votes are not only speedier, they let the arbitrators and the parties know where they stand. The fact that a few arbitrators think an admin should be desysopped, for example, is much stronger medicine than the prosaic "editors advised" findings normally negotiated. Cool Hand Luke 16:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC) rev'd 07:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC), 23:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from LessHeard vanU

In your candidature statement you say

... (you would) never stand in the way of the community's choice of leadership.

Do you consider ArbCom to constitute community leadership, either generally or in specific area's (other than the ultimate avenue of dispute resolution), or otherwise how do you view ArbComs relationship with the community? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is the final word for interpreting Wikipedia's policy, and arbitrators also guide the direction that our policy evolves over time (they do this by deciding provisional "interim policy" as in the footnoted quoted case). In this sense, they are the community's leadership—whether ArbCom admits to having a special position or not.

That said, ArbCom has no power to force structural changes—no "executive" power. Nor can they write completely new policy—they have no "legislative" power. From the beginning, ArbCom has been conceived as a body to resolve cases and controversies. ArbCom is expressly judicial, and the rest of the powers are mostly retained by the community, for better or worse. We might imagine a project where a group of experts designs our sourcing policies, and a group of executives holds unambiguous leadership over the site's controls, but that's not what we have now. If the community wanted to delegate its authority to other representatives, I certainly would not stand in its way.

For the time being, ArbCom—an institution meant to dissipate drama in individual cases—is the only approximation of site leadership we have. The community should choose whatever representatives it feels would be best for the project. Cool Hand Luke 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rspeer

Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science is a methodology that leads to the description of "a" point of view, but when it comes to claims about causality in our shared physical reality, science is the neutral point of view. Sometimes there's legitimate dissent within the academy, and we should note that, but we waste far too much time trying to accommodate views that are almost universally repudiated by scientists.

We don't tolerate Star Wars articles written as if they were history. In a similar way, we shouldn't write articles on fringe scientific views as if they were fact.

It's still important to give an NPOV perspective on fringe science, with identifiable proponents. Views shouldn't be excluded or railed against, but they must be put into the proper context. We write "in the Star Wars universe...", and we should similarly write "according to homeopaths..." Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Pixelface

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
I suspect that 12 is a better number, unless the committee were divided into panels or some other reorganization. Larger groups are often slower than otherwise-similar smaller groups.
How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
Two years. Arbitrators rarely make it through a full three. It's demanding work. At the same time, one year is probably too little time to gain competence, and annual elections could potentially destroy all continuity within the committee, which would be bad. Two years seems like the most practical term length.
What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
I favor all dialog that occurs openly on the wiki.
Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Yes. It's the best way to ensure that the policy serves the community. Unless policy-setting authority is delegated by the community to some body, the community retains the power—not admins alone, and certainly not arbitrators alone.
Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
It's appropriate for anyone to make such edits, but the arbitrators should not have any more authority that anyone else. WP:BRD usually models what happens when a user revises policy, and I expect the same thing to happen to arbitrators: revert and discuss.
Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?
No. This should also belong to the community.
Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
It's a requirement if the community's policy decides that it is. Our mandate is to make an encyclopedia, and it's at least conceivable that we could make one with no notability requirement. As it turns out, our community has decided that notability is required for subjects, and we have a process that sorts notable from non-notable articles (AFD).
Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by a community of volunteers. It has (correctly) decided that an encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WMF is a foundation which runs many projects, including Wikipedia, but also non-encyclopedias like Commons and Wikisource. There is no conflict between these because we are just one part of WMF's mission.
Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
This is behavioral. I would accept any case where ArbCom is likely to resolve the problem less dramatically and more efficiently than the community. It's impossible to say with such a stylized scenario, but it's certainly possible that I would vote to accept such a case.
Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
Behavioral. Stating editorial opinions does not magically turn repeated use of mechanisms like AFD into a content dispute. Probably I would accept the case; it sounds very taxing on the community.
Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?
I don't know very much about Wikia's corporate structure; I don't know if Jimbo has the formal power to require disclosure from employees and investors in virtue of his role at Wikia. At any rate, he shouldn't have the power by virtue of his position on Wikipedia. It would amount to requiring that certain editors disclose conflicts when other editors are not required to disclose analogous information. I'm not sure why we would be more worried about editors having a relationship with Wikia than any other business. After all, most of us are employed or affiliated with at least one institution, and Jimbo's potential COI is already well-known.

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thanks. Cool Hand Luke 01:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Slrubenstein

In a recent ArbCom case, a project page was created with an unprotected talk page. Later in the process, the talk was archived - in effect, the page was blanked - and the page protected, foreclosing any further discussion (see this discussion. Looking towards the future, what policy would you propose concerning the purpose of talk pages, the protection of talk pages so as to prevent talk, or the blanking of talk pages by ArbCom?
Pages often need to be blanked at the conclusion of a case for privacy; I hope that ArbCom continues this tradition and protects editor privacy whenever necessary.

That said, this situation is different—the blanking apparently occurred to stop discussion of a case already in progress. Locking a page after substantial commentary might give one the impression that potential evidence is being unfairly handled (see "transparency" on my candidate statement). To avoid this impression, I would want the committee to pass a formal motion explaining why a previously-available talkpage should become locked. In most cases, ArbCom should be able to entirely avoid this problem by checking the page at the onset of the case.

In fairness to participants, I would like ArbCom to decide whether a case should be handled strictly in private very early in a case. At that point, the talk page would be locked and templated, to prevent wasted efforts by our volunteer contributors.
Do you find the word "troll" useful in describing a certain kind of problem at Wikipedia? Is labeling a user a "troll" always a personal attack? If the term is useful, how, in your experience, does one recognize a troll? What is the appropriate response? Does ArbCom have a role?
Calling a person a "troll" is not usually helpful, but there is certainly such thing as "trolling," and we shouldn't hesitate to name it. Trolling typically happens in talk and Wikipedia space where one editor attempts to create drama and provoke responses. I think it's helpful to label these attempts so that passerby users can avoid feeding their trollish hunger for drama and attention.
Should WP:DE be made a policy? Why/why not?
Yes. If not DE per se, our other policies should be broadened to allow sanctions for repeatedly disruptive users. Right now, too much of our dispute resolution process depends on disruptive users making one big mistake. In truth, many small acts of disruption are more harmful to our encyclopedic mission than "bad words."
Some people have claimed that a hierarchy, or hierarchies, of authority are developing at Wikipedia. Do you agree? If so, do you consider this a necessary feature of the community, or a problem for the community? More specifically, in what ways do you see members of ArbCom as leaders or as servants of the community?
Our governance is entirely self-selected. Many thousands of users contribute, but only those most interested in drama tend to weigh in on our sundry controversies. I don't think this is an "oligarchy," but is instead a feature of our project, which lacks almost any formal structure.

ArbCom must act as the community's servant. They exceed their mandate when they do not. Related questions are are examined in my answers to LessHeard vanU.
ArbCom was originally formed to be the ultimate stage of resolving edit conflicts at articles. Since then, its mission has expanded. Do you believe it has expanded to reach the appropriate limit of its powers? If you believe that its mission has not expanded enough, or has expanded too much, please provide specifics and explain how you would deal with this. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that ArbCom usually operates within its original mission. Cases have just become more complex, on average. Insofar that ArbCom is adjudicating disputes that the community cannot easily resolve on its own, ArbCom is operating within its mission. I would not expand ArbCom's role into policy-setting or any other task. Cool Hand Luke 01:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. If you could expand on your last answer, I would appreciate it (I ask only because "disputes that the community cannot easily resolve on its own" is pretty broad - do you think there are certain kinds of disputes that should be tolerated without forcing a resolution? Did you mean "and after the community has considered the possibility of creating new mechanisms to resolve these kinds of disputes?"? As phrased your answer seems to leave a door quite a ways open ... can you articulate any algorithm or criteria to decide what ArbCom has to take on? Are you restricting yourself only to disputes concerning articles, or do you mean any and all disputes, or something in between? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I wasn't feeling well last night.

ArbCom should take cases whenever a dispute has the potential to repeatedly or persistently drain the community's volunteer efforts. For example, controversies about one set of articles or users that reoccur on the noticeboards repeatedly with no resolution.

Disputes must be at least partially behavioral—there may be a talkpage debate somehwere that isn't resolved for years, but ArbCom is not a substitute for consensus on content. That said, many of our ugliest disputes are really animated by a content dispute. For example, users in nationalistic/ethnic edit wars and fringe theories are motivated by their POV, but these disputes spread across the project and cause massive disruption. They are more than simple content disputes, and I strongly believe that ArbCom should continue to accept such cases. Once accepted, I think it's also necessary and desirable that ArbCom look at NPOV, OR and other content policy violations. Due to the partisan/team nature of these disputes, no other mechanism can easily decide whether content violations are taking place. If they are, ArbCom should respond with topic bans and other remedies.

I would not want ArbCom to write entirely new policy. Nor should ArbCom issue generally-applicable rulings without community input. ArbCom should also stay out of strict questions of content. If the community wants to try new mechanisms to solve disputes (as by rewriting a contentious bit of policy), ArbCom should give the solution a chance to work. But whenever it's clear that our volunteers are vainly spending their valuable time on the boards, ArbCom should take the case. Cool Hand Luke 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers and good luck with the election, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General questions (all answered)

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

Questions from MBisanz

Hello, below are some optional questions to help the voters at the 2008 Arbitration Committee elections get to know you, the candidate, better.

1. How long have you been an editor of Wikipedia?

A. Since 7 February 2004. My first edit.

2. How many total edits do you have on Wikipedia? What is your % of edits to the article space?

A. 11,300-ish. About 37%.

3. Are you an administrator? If so, how long have you been one?

A. Yes, I've been an administrator four years.

4. Do you hold any other userrights or positions at the English Wikipedia? (crat, medcom, WPPJ, etc)

A. No.

5. Do you hold any userrights or other positions of trust at other WMF projects? Which ones?

A. No.

6. Have you ever been named as a participant of a Request for Arbitration? If so, please link case(s).

A. Yes, I was named in the Dr Zen ArbCom (March 2005), although no one produced evidence against me, and no finding mentioned me. I'm probably better remembered from the Mantanmoreland case, where I was not a party, but produced evidence.

7. Have you ever been blocked or subject to restrictions such as WP:RESTRICT, WP:BLPLOG, WP:AER, or WP:SANCTION? If so, please link to the relevant issue.

A. No, see for example, my block log.

8. Have you ever been blocked or formally sanctioned at another WMF project? If so, please describe.

A. No.

9. What is your best work at Wikipedia? (an article, list, image or content template)

A. My best article is probably Liberal Party (Utah). I wrote many articles from scratch, and a friend of mine successfully nominated it for FA in early 2005. It's been un-featured for some time now—it was written in an era before inline citations, and I no longer have easy access to the material at the University of Utah to provide them. Lately, I do mostly administrative work.
I'm proud of the fact-checking at Stephen Barrett, where I researched a troubled litigation section, making it more neutral and drafting detailed footnotes. Though it's a contentious article, my contributions have endured.
I think my best dispute resolution work was at Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The title of this article was a long-running dispute listed at WP:LAME. I first encountered the dispute on a related template edit war from RFPP. The article had gone through several move attempts in previous months; the debate was between those who wanted the title to be clear that the award is not really a Nobel Prize, favoring the full "Sveriges Riksbank (or Bank of Sweden) Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel," and those who argued that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is the most common label. User:Panda suggested the current name, and I helped push for it because some partisans on both sides agreed they could live with it. Compromise is sometimes a work in progress, but most editors can live with this name, allowing content to take priority.
My best IAR use of the tools was at Essjay controversy. I think IAR acts are only appropriate when they are uncontroversial. In this case, I didn't encounter the Essjay articles or deletion debates until it had been deleted. News stories stacked up on the topic as it moldered on DRV. A non-admin called User:Ned Scott re-opened the AfD, which normally would seem inappropriate. I looked at the DRV and agreed that it had to be overturned, so I did him a favor by unprotecting and restoring it. Nobody complained or even noticed.
My best work analyzing evidence is at the Mantanmoreland ArbCom.

10. If elected, would you request the Checkuser and/or Oversight userrights?

A. I would certainly request Checkuser; I hope to detect gaming on the project and put an end to it. I don't have the continual access required to effectively respond to oversight requests, and I promise to never actually oversight revisions myself. See campaign promises. However, I will request oversight access for the exclusive purposes of independently evaluating evidence and reviewing the conduct of users with oversight.

11. Please list any disclosed or undisclosed alternate or prior accounts you have had.

A. I've used some accounts used for one or two-off edits, often when editing from public computers I didn't know to be secure, sometimes just random gibberish; I don't remember most of these. I have no other account with more than ten edits.

12. What methods of off-wiki communication do you use to discuss Wikipedia related matters? (IRC, Skype, WR, Mailing Lists, blogs, etc) Please link to any publicly available forums you use.

A. I don't use IRC or private mailing lists; I think those discussions are better served in open environments. I've sometimes posted to the WikiEN-l mailing list. Also, the Mantanmoreland case would not have been intelligible without WR.

13. Do you have OTRS access? If so, which queues?

A. No.

14. How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/MONGO and RFAR/Jim62sch as to off-site activities by users?

A. Off-site activity is irrelevant except in the case of harassment.
The language of the two findings doesn't actually draw this distinction, and some could argue that the findings are consistent because RFAR/Jim62sch doesn't say that users shouldn't closely monitor off-site activity. However, I think the facts are very important to ArbCom decisions, and RFAR/MONGO involved interactions with harassing websites whereas RFAR/Jim62sch was mostly email harassment. Emails, postings, and the like, are not normally relevant or closely monitored. (Jim62sch.) Harassment, on the other hand, is and should be relevant wherever it occurs. (MONGO/Jim62sch.)
When a user harasses or intimidates a Wikipedian in order to gain an upper hand in a dispute, our site's integrity has been compromised. Such harassment should be closely monitored and deterred. Benign off-site activities—like opinions on the conditions of articles, Wikipedia policies, and so forth—is irrelevant. We sometimes do a bad job of sorting this out. We turn a blind eye to a lot of off-site harassment. Meanwhile, some users are tarred by association, or for their views on policies. Both are errors, and I'll be mindful of the distinction as an Arbitrator.

15. What is your opinion on the new closed motions process?

A. Insofar that such motions are to clarify the prior ruling as it relates to the prior dispute, they're great time savers and help reduce site drama. Insofar that these motions are used to issue rulings without a controversy, I think they amount to a form of illegitimate policy writing, and would want all clarifications to be tried to an actual case or controversy. ArbCom should not have legislative power.
The current Arbs have done a good job of deflecting policy debates to policy pages, while swiftly clarifying outside issues; it's a good thing.

16. Besides compromised accounts, under what circumstances would you support or initiate an emergency request for desysopping?

A. I think that these should be more common. For example, wheel warring should usually result in desysop (see 20).

17. Currently, only Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee are authorized to perform/request involuntarily desysop an administrator whose account has not been compromised. What is your view of community-based desysopping decisions?

A. There should be an alternate way to desysop individuals that do not have community support. That said, a process that's open to "the community" is open for gaming. Our vote processes draw people who have self-selected to weigh in on a matter. A truly representative desysop process would probably involve drawing a sample of active users as a kind of jury. This is beyond the ArbCom's authority to enact, but I would support new paths toward desysoping. In my view, the community is the ultimate source of such authority, and has the right to develop a new process.

18. If you owned Wikipedia as the WMF currently does, what would you do to fix the BLP problem?

A. I would push the projects toward BLP semi-protection, and flagged revisions on living people. The Foundation must be neutral on content to retain their immunity under Section 230, but I think it's appropriate for the foundation to set timetables for measures likely to reduce damage to living people. No measures WMF takes could entirely fix the problem (short of shutting down Wikipedia)—Wikipedia is open to such abuse, but we can help clamp down on it.
We, the community, should do much more.

19. In 2004, the Arbitration Committee referred issues to the Mediation Committee. However, as of recent, the Arbitration Committee has not referred issues to the Mediation Committee. Would you refer more content-based disputes to MedCom or continue the current practice?

A. The ArbCom is not supposed to take content disputes at all. Early on, this precedent was not established, but now it is and there's no reason to take disputes just to give them away. Arbitrators can suggest mediation, but until the community devises a system of resolving content disputes (which they should do), ArbCom should not try to force any content mediation mechanism.

20. In the past the Arbitration Committee has taken a checkered view of wheel wars, desysopping in some cases and not desysopping in others. What do you believe constitutes a wheel war which would result in a desysopping?

A. Wheel warring is a single admin using the same administrative function on the same subject more than once to reverse a contrary administrator. It is not reversing a long-standing status (like unprotecting a long-dormant page). As a rule, anyone wheel warring should be desysoped.
Most wheel warring is unjustified. Except for truly compelling circumstances (like wheel waring in order to prevent a hacked admin account from committing clear vandalism before a steward can emergency desysop the hacked account), desysopping would be made permanent—that is, such users would have to reapply for adminship.
I would push to clearly announce such a rule in a future wheel warring case. It would be an unfair ex post facto law to mete out this penalty without warning, so the first case might not result in permanent desysop. Once established as the rule, we should stick to it. There's rarely a good excuse to wheel war. If other admins agree with a controversial administrative act, they're free to follow it (and they will not be considered wheel warriors), but no admin should single-handedly fight the acts of multiple others. Admins are supposed to be constrained by community decision making, and wheel warring openly disregards the views of others.

21. How involved must an administrator be to be unable to enforce policy on a user? Given that it is expected that all admins understand policy when they pass RFA, under what circumstances would you not desysop an administrator who was clearly involved with a user they blocked or an article they deleted/protected?

A. Very few circumstances justify involved blocks. They undermine the perceived impartiality of the encyclopedia. All involved blocks should result in desysop, unless the merits of block were crystal clear, and the need for block was urgent (i.e. vandalism spree—but actual vandalism as defined at WP:VAND which is a narrower definition than most believe). Protections and deletions are more likely justified. It's often the case that only an involved admin is monitoring an article closely enough to notice edit-warring. It's legitimate for other admins to scrutinize involved article functions. If the involved admins is judged by other admins to have erred, they will simply be reversed.

22. Besides the technical capabilities administrators have, the Arbitration Committee has granted administrators the rights to enforce certain general sanctions with regards to specific editors and articles. What is your view on these new non-technical privileges being considered part of the "administrative" function for purposes such as RfC, Recall, and RfAR?

A. This is a device out of convenience; there's no other criterion ArbCom can refer to as a proxy for "generally established and respected users." It's an imperfect proxy, but a convenient one.

23. Current checkuser policy at the English Wikipedia prohibits checkusers from fulfilling "fishing" requests. However, global privacy policy does not prohibit such requests from being fulfilled, so long as personal information is not disclosed. Would you support the alteration of the en.wp policy to permit fishing requests?

A. Yes—but only for public CU requests. I think it's wasteful to reject those requests when they don't have "enough" evidence. On the other hand, fishing should not be allowed from email, nor for the checkuser's own curiosity; these requests should be publicly posted so that all parties know the origin of them.

24. In 2006 the Arbitration Committee asked the community to address the issue of protecting children's privacy on Wikipedia. To this day there is still no policy on how to handle children's privacy on Wikipedia. What steps would you take to ensure children's privacy is protected under policy?

A. I believe general awareness of administrative and oversight capabilities takes care of this problem. Children's privacy issues should be handled with discreetly and with discretion. Other approaches would be too over- and under-inclusive.

25. How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/LevelCheck and RFAR/Durova as to what may be considered justification for blocks of educated new users?

A. Learned newbies should be carefully scrutinized when they appear to be up to mischief. Frankly, it's unlikely that ArbCom could tell users to ignore their common sense—suspiciously familiar accounts are often blocked later on. However, they're blocked when their malicious intent is proved. That's the point of RFAR/Durova. Although precociousness might raise enough suspicion to warrant careful scrutiny, suspicious wisdom is not enough to block them outright.

26. Originally RfARs were named in the style of Party X v. Party Y in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in RFAR/Zeraeph?

A. First, "Highways 2" is not a random title; a random name might be "rose-calendarfun_DAWG" or "WI92hHd." I am strongly opposed to random names. ArbCom's practice is to name the case broadly enough to capture the dispute. In the case of Highways 2, it's the second ArbCom related to the U.S. Roads project's alleged ownership. The title is eminently descriptive, and any _ v. _ form would fail to capture the whole dispute.
Second, _ v. _ was a very bad practice. I was active back in 2004, and it seemed to me that the naming convention actually encouraged users to be public prosecutors. I think that's a bad thing. This project needs contributors, not attorneys general. If there's anything wrong with how we name cases, injecting artificial adversariality is even worse.
Third, case names should be no big deal. It might be necessary to broaden the name to incorporate more users, or substitute an incident for named parties, but I would not narrow titles during a case. That is, if the case started out as "Jack and Jill," ArbCom should not eliminate one of the names, even if we decide early on that Jill's conduct is blameless and not worth investigating further. Judgments should be reserved for the findings, not the name. After the case is closed, it would be appropriate to rename. It's just an unhelpful drama magnet in the middle of a case.

27. A case is presented between two administrators who have repeatedly undone each other's administrative actions with regard to the deletion of an article. The basis for the deleting administrator's action was an OTRS ticket showing the article to be a copyright violation. In performing the deletion, the administrator clearly referenced the OTRS ticket number. Assuming the undeleting administrator did not have OTRS access, do you penalize him more or less for wheel warring? Do you penalize the deleting administrator for wheel warring?

A. Both should probably be sanctioned, and the undeleting admin ought to be desysopped for wheel warring. It's no defense that one doesn't have OTRS access; Wikipedia should respect copyrights, and there's nothing so urgent that it can't be discussed first. Meanwhile, OTRS admins can refer cases to each other for checking and further action—and they should when a user challenges them. There's no reason for the same admin to twice delete. Again, see my answer to #20.
Fortunately, Wikiepdia's admins are rarely so bad behaved. There's plenty of communication here, for example, where different articles were deleted. But wheel warring without an explanation? That's is inexcusable under any pretext. rev'd 18:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

28. To what extent do you believe policy on Wikipedia is or should be binding?

A. Until it interferes with writing an encyclopedia. Policy can change, but it should be binding insofar that it helps building an encyclopedia. No double standards.

29. Do you believe that former arbitrators should be on the Arb Comm mailing list? Why or why not?

A: It is my understanding that there is a second mailing list for current arbitrators only. I believe this should be the primary list and intend to use it as such. There's no problem with a mailing list of both current and former arbitrators, but it should not be the mailing list. The balance should shift: current arbitrators should have to ask first. If former arbitrators can spontaneously weigh in on every private deliberation, then they behave more like lobbyists than advisers.

Question from Ultraexactzz

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

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

When arbitrators do not appear neutral they lose credibility, and the encyclopedia does by extension. Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Giggy

a/s/l?
27 / male / Chicago, USA
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.
Editors do work that interests them. This is true of every individual on the project. Being a volunteer project, we cannot make ANI mavens write featured articles. Similarly, some brilliant writers would not touch drama with a ten-foot pool. Mainspace writers are sometimes chased from the site by harassment that some projectspace users would consider trivial. As an arbitrator, I would treat content contributors (who are often non-admins) with the full respect they deserve.

I think that ArbCom has sometimes treated some admins more gingerly than content creators, and I would strive to eliminate this disparity.
What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
Often it's just not worth discriminating, say, Grawp's 0.1% of good work. That said, if other users restore the edits of a banned user because it happens to be good work, the restoring user should not be reverted and threatened. Good work is good work.
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.
The Mantanmoreland ArbCom. ArbCom was asked to resolve a well-framed question of sockpuppetry. The committee took over a month, then they declined to answer the question. It declined to issue any findings against the sockpuppet account Samiharris. This led to AN drama that spanned almost 300kb and saw seasoned admins hurl vile accusations against each other. This decision enhanced rather than ameliorated drama. I would have banned Samiharris outright as a sock, or at least put it to a vote. After that, Mantanmoreland's topic ban was sufficient (and it aided in catching his later sockpuppetry at User:Bassettcat).
Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
I answered with several kinds of contributions in response to MBisanz#9 above.

BUT, I think you mean articles only. So perhaps Liberal Party (Utah), Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, Nauvoo Legion, legal information at Stephen Barrett [1], and the incomplete work at Father Divine.
Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
Yes, because I think there are a few good candidates, and I believe that even sitting arbitrators are members of the community. That said, I will not be opposing any candidates because it strikes me as inappropriate.

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

Thank you, Giggy. Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

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

To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
Until it interferes with writing an encyclopedia. Policy can change, but it should be binding insofar that it helps building an encyclopedia. No double standards.
What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
It is my understanding that there is a second mailing list for current arbitrators only. I believe this should be the primary list and intend to use it as such. There's no problem with a mailing list of both current and former arbitrators, but it should not be the mailing list. The balance should shift: current arbitrators should have to ask first. If former arbitrators can weigh in on every private debate, then they behave more like lobbyists than advisers.
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?
It's a good idea. If arbitrators demonstrably loose the community's trust, they should not continue in their capacity—or at least I think so, and I will resign if most members of the community would vote to remove me.

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

Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Celarnor

What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
ArbCom should not issue findings that do not help the encyclopedia, but they must often create remedies that extend beyond the parties. There are two reasons for this.

1. It's trivially easy for editors to set up new accounts. (See User:Mantanmoreland and User:Bassettcat.) This is the nature of Wikipedia. A failure to prevent similarly abusive behavior in "new users" not only invites sockpuppetry, it's actually unfair. It's unfair to the old user, who was sanctioned for the same behavior, and it's unfair to the community who spent a lot of time and effort to rid the project of the particular abusive behavior.

2. Sometimes subjects are lightening rods for abuse. Those subjects may need restrictions to prevent abusive behavior. It would be a mistake to sanction a multitude of POV-pushing editors at a controversial topic, without addressing the object of their desire. Disputes over controversial topics (politics, pseudoscience, nationalism and the like) may legitimately need more rules than the encyclopedia at large, and ArbCom is the only body capable of drafting such rules. Partisans in these topics are divided, making normal communal consensus impossible.

This said, ArbCom must specifically explain that their findings apply to articles or all editors in order to be enforced against others. Alternatively, the community should explicitly find that new_editor_Y is editing on behalf of old_editor_X. Everyone should not be subject to another's individual remedies, but sometimes remedies must cover more than the parties.
What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
All people have moral duties to other human beings.

I notice a particular duty to protect "non-party" BLP subjects. Our obligations to these people will sometimes trump the wishes of some editors.

Cool Hand Luke 16:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from LessHeard vanU

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

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]
ArbCom should be cautious to only desysop admins who have demonstrable problems in their role. I think that many admins have been unfairly maligned here and off-site, and ArbCom has a duty to separate evidence from angry noise.

That said: ArbCom should probably desysop more admins than they do. Once an admin shows a behavioral problem that would be intolerable in a non-admin content contributor, we should not hesitate to remove their tools (although the community should always be entitled to restore them via RFA). Administrative abuse is even worse, and we should have zero tolerance for abuse of the tools. The desysop of FeloniousMonk, for example, was certainly overdue.

Many users can do the administrative work on this site, and we should not shirk from sanctioning an admin who commits genuine and proven abuse. Such admins are not ambassadors to the community. Abusive admins demoralize editors by advertising an apparent double standard for behavior.

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

Thank you for posing this question to all the candidates. Cool Hand Luke 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carnildo

How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
I would expect 15 hours would be a reasonable baseline, although some cases may demand more scrutiny. For example, I committed over 60 hours in one week at the height of the Mantanmoreland case (files on my computer suggest it was about that time, anyway). Cool Hand Luke 18:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WilyD

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:

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?
Admins aren't immune from bad behavior, nor should they be immune from blocks. No double standards.
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?
This is also appropriate, although it's sometimes not helpful. Abuse of tools cases usually find their way to ArbCom anyway. That said, such blocks are helpful to freeze ongoing abuse, especially in response to wheel warring. Trout slaps are often ineffective. Cool Hand Luke 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from PhilKnight

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]
Any disputes involving Mormonism, broadly conceived, and situations that involve any real-world clients I might have. Also, any users who I have had repeated interactions with in the past. This would certainly include Wikidea, Raul654, alleged future socks of Mantanmoreland, and others I'm probably forgetting. I hope that users point out such on-site conflicts so that I can cautiously recuse whenever staying on a case might create the impression of a conflict.
Additional note: I will also recuse from any cases that directly involve conduct related to Wikipedia Review. When the case is about WR is some crucial way, I must recuse. Additionally, recusal may sometimes be warranted for disputes involving users from Wikipedia Review. For example, I have friendly relationships with prolific posters like User:Alison, and User:SirFozzie, and would not want to create the impression of favoritism. That said, I don't have significant relationships with many editors who are nominally WR users. Similarly, criticism of WR does not necessary suggest recusal; I criticize WR frequently myself. It depends on the issues. Where the behavior somehow implicates WR, I will certainly recuse from cases involving WR critics.

I have promised to carefully consider all requests to recuse, but it's hard to formulate blanket rules about editors. WR users—like Wikipedia editors—are a diverse set of people. Cool Hand Luke 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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?
If this was an isolated statement with an isolated block as described, I doubt the case would arrive to ArbCom. If fact, I would vote to reject such a case. If, on the other hand, there was a pattern of behavior for one or more of the parties, it could go any number of ways depending on the facts; it depends on whether the scientific racist was making articles POV, if the user has a history of animosity and harassment, and whether the blocking admin has a history or pattern of abuse with this or possibly other admins. It's impossible to tell with such a stylized scenario.

That said, labeling a POV is not usually a personal attack. Cool Hand Luke 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thatcher

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

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?

This seems like a reasonable response. Trivial, obvious vandalism is actually easy to repair, and the user might plausibly have forgotten to log out, or some other sensible excuse. If, on the other hand, the "vandalism" had been some sort of gaming in the admin's areas of interest (arguing with multiple accounts, double voting, 3RR evasion), then a malicious intent from that admin can be inferred, and they should be desysopped.

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

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

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

(c) Write your own answer.

(b), to avoid the appearance of POV-related fishing. It can still be kept secret from the suspicious user, which is often important—users who know they are suspected socks are likely to quickly move to new accounts. Anyhow, the wiki will survive the slight delay caused by referring the case to a neutral checksuser. I hope this is what checkusers currently do.

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?

First, I should say that the committee made the correct choice in allowing Smythe to continue editing. If a user is doing something to improve the encyclopedia, and is not continuing in their formerly destructive behavior, we should let them continue even if they are WP:BANNED. That said, by claiming the new account, Smith demonstrates that they're more interested in making an elaborate WP:POINT, and it's impossible to assume good faith given that the blog harassment continues.

Smith could come back and lay low, or come back after the harassment has entirely stopped. But by claiming their account while continuing to write against Jones, Smith could only be trying to annoy Jones. At that point, a block is appropriate.

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?

In this situation, proponents should let the chips fall and put it up to a vote. If the middle-of-the-road approach commands the largest plurality, then it will prevail anyway, but it's not worth the delay and opaqueness to try to present a united front for every case.

Public disagreement has done little to impair the credibility of many real-world bodies, but it's done a lot to improve transparency, accountability, and responsiveness.

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 take responsibility for my participation in ArbCom. If not engaged in a case, I'll at least take a look at it on closing, and send out any concerns on the Arbitration mailing list. Mistakes will be made, and I hope to learn from them so that I'm better engaged in the next case.

Attempting to reopen matters with some disagreeable details usually causes much more drama than it's worth. Only damaging errors should be reopened.

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?

I am disclosed. Cool Hand Luke 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newyorkbrad

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

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

(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).

Training for the legal profession is supposed to teach analysis and detail-oriented reasoning. I enjoy compiling evidence and drawing inferences. I like analytical writing and enjoy sorting fact from fiction. I also have some technical know-how. I'm most interested in resolving cases (A&B), and checkuser (F), but I feel competent to do most arbitrator tasks.

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?

I support the changes because they accurately reflect the current realities of arbitration. I would also support an explicit reduction in term length to two years. Arbitrators have rarely been able to hold longer commitments.

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.

Year	Total requests	Cases accepted	Percent accepted	Cases closed or dismissed after >1 month
2006	157	108	69%	115
2007	228	81	36%	89
2008 to date	130	33	25%	34

This is an important point, and I've made a table based on rejected and completed requests to emphasize the dramatic reduction in cases. The number of requests for ArbCom has decreased significantly since 2007, and the percentage of cases accepted has declined to about one quarter. I attribute almost all of this drop to the community's improved ability to deal with dramatic situations. It's a very, very good thing.

Most of the cases that ArbCom resolved 2 years ago are now hammered out on the noticeboards. Those that remain are more subtle and difficult. For this reason, I think ArbCom will be more frequently divided in the future, but I don't think this is a bad thing. Cool Hand Luke 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC) rev'd 07:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Mailer Diablo

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

WP:SOCK, because it's basically a pro-sockpuppet policy. I would replace the page with a simple instruction that says, "users are allowed one account at a time, period." As written, it's ignored, utterly ineffective, and a terrible substitute for some minimal threshold of identification. This policy amounts to pages and pages of special pleading for a practice, which in it's "legitimate" form serves almost no encyclopedic purpose.

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?

No, they shouldn't, but they often have the unavoidable task of reconciling policies and guidelines that are in tension with one another. In that way, ArbCom fills in details and highlights gaps and failures in our policies. Arbitrators have to struggle with the hard cases, so they often find problems, such as how Wikipedia has "a sockpuppetry policy that encourages sockpuppetry, an (no) open proxy policy that encourages open proxying, and a conflict of interest policy that rewards deception and punishes disclosure." (Thebainer).

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

When schemes hatched off-site result in actions on Wikipedia, the content of off-site discussion becomes relevant for evaluating user conduct. This is especially the case for off-site plans to use administrative functions.

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 will make strides in speed, transparency, and service to the community. The community can remind me of my commitment by beginning an arbitrator recall, if necessary. At the least, it will remind me to stick to my promises. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754

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

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.

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
There's been a lot of talk about the monstrous C68-FM-SV case, so I appreciate you brought up the other unconscionably long arbitration. This case should not have taken 95 days, and it most certainly have not passed for weeks without any outward sign of progress at all. I hope to improve speed and communication—even for "back burner" cases like Highways 2.
a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
Besides facilitating joint efforts and acting as a message board for users with similar interests, Wikiprojects are meant to coordinate standards and manual of styles for relevant articles. This is supposed to work because all of the stakeholders in these articles participate in the Wikiproject. However, the "jurisdiction" for Wikiprojects extends only as far as their membership is representative—as far as consensus actually exists.

For example, if I decided to implement LDS Wikiproject-style nomenclature on Catholic articles, it would be a misapplication of policies in an area where LDS Wikiproject does not command consensus. That would be illegitimate. However, coordinating broad consensus on topics central to the LDS wikiproject is one of the reasons it exists—editors should not have to hash out new layouts on every article from scratch, and Wikiprojects provide necessary planing across a topic.
Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
Wikiprojects have the right insofar that they have an inclusive group that allows broad consensus on topics to develop.
Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
I think WP:CANVASS is a silly and ill-conceived guideline, but I'm forced to conclude that that all forms of mass communication can be considered canvassing if the messages are partisan, including IRC.
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?
I believe too many edits are incorrectly labeled as vandalism. That said, the label doesn't matter as much as the effect. Repeated behavior may require blocks and rollback even though we know the user is well-intentioned. The determining factor is not whether the user is "guilty" in some moral sense, but whether the user is disrupting our task: building an encyclopedia.
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?
If the user cannot demonstrate that they intend to help build an encyclopedia, at some point the community cannot assume good faith. After this becomes clear, the user ought to be blocked. If the problem persists, a banning may be in order.
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?
I think the "intelligence" remark is unfairly judgmental, especially considering that many intelligent people—billions, in fact—cannot speak English.

That said, your description reminds me of a user who showed up in 2004. This user started uploading a heroic amount of articles translated by machine. They were mostly terrible, and somewhat harmful to the encyclopedia. To this day, this contributor continues to upload terribly-translated articles. However, the user now focuses on making and fixing redirects, which is better-suited to their linguistic competence. I think that similar users should be encouraged to focus on such work, or abandon en-Wikipedia. It may be necessary to place short blocks to nudge them in the right direction.
a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
All of them might merit community ban, particularly #6.
(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?
a) WP:CONSENSUS scales poorly, making impossible to make the policy improvements we sorely need. b) The community has excessive tolerance for a small disruptive minority, who are too often enabled for too long.

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

You're welcome. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Maxim

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?
I define wheel warring as a single admin performing the same administrative action against other admins more than once. It is not when multiple admins each perform the desired action once. I would strive to set down hard black letter law about wheel warring. It's unhelpful to the encyclopedia and invariably promotes drama.

Every admin should know that they will be desysopped for wheel warring. If admins know and understand that, wheel warring should become virtually extinct, which will be better for Wikipedia.
What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
The community should devise a process for desysopping admins. ArbCom has no special role in creating such process.
What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?
Admins have obviously run unapproved adminbots in the past. Since most admin functions are reversible, I'm not enormously alarmed about it. That said, we should have a rule of strict liability, where accounts will be desysopped if faulty programming breaks the community's trust. This should put the incentives in the right place.

Like other kinds of semi-automation, admins might run roughshod over new contributors. It's possible that new good faith users will sometimes be reverted and blocked for their good faith contributions. We might permanently lose new contributors with way. As above, we should hold admins strictly accountable for their actions. Each admin can asses their own competence with automating tools, and behave accordingly. Cool Hand Luke 07:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from rootology

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

Questions:

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

No, it was not helpful, and probably delayed resolution.

I doubt anyone still thinks it was a good idea. The more interesting question is whether it was a good decision at the time. I think the answer is still "no." Cases ought to have some common underlying facts. Otherwise, they're probably not worth combining. In this case, virtually nothing linked the cases at all.

The only sensible explanation I've ever seen for combining the case was given by Tony Sidaway, who claimed that it was really a case about Wikipedia Review. I'm not sure if that was the theory for combining the cases, but in the end it clearly wasn't the focus.

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?

Someone with bias can be seated, but they ought to recuse whenever their bias (or even appearance of bias) might undermine their credibility. As for the comment in question, I've already commented on it. It was a baffling remark, and James F. seems to regret having said it.

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?

ArbCom ought to be controlled by the community.

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.

ArbCom ought to be elected solely by the community. I pledge to affirm the community's choice of leadership.

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?

No, at minimum, a majority should support all arbitrators. If not enough candidates are supported, seats should remain empty rather than be controlled by users the community doesn't demonstrably trust.

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?

"Decisions of the Arbitration Committee may only be appealed to the community."

7. Please rank these in order of whom the Arbcom serves and answers to, in order from first to last (the party who should have the most power over the AC goes first, the one who should have the least power over the AC goes last:

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.

D, A, ... B, C

ArbCom is actually a Foundation issue. WMF is the only thing outside ArbCom's jurisdiction on en-Wikipedia. However, the WMF's control is a very narrow. In most ways, projects are sovereign and governed by the community. Therefore, ArbCom should be answerable to the community, not Jimbo, not the arbitrators, and certainly not former arbitrators.

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology (C)(T) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bearing with me the last week before I finally answered your questions! Cool Hand Luke 23:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Davewild

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?
Yes I do. I would publicly support reducing the term length, as I have in the past. I think, however, that this should be the community's decision. The community should demonstrate that we are ready to take the reins from Jimbo; we should revise ArbCom policy. Since this ought to be a community matter I don't think that arbitrators should have peculiar influence over this matter. I would, however, graciously step down if my term was shortened by the community.

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

You're welcome. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from roux

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

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

I did in fact support A.2: Low level incivility is a serious problem. I think incivility can grind down and discourage content contributors from contributing. I think low-level incivility is a much bigger problem coming from admins, who seem to have much more latitude in their behavior. When admins are incivil, Wikipedia can seem quite oppressive. This comment sums up my thoughts on the importance of civility.

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

I found all of the proposals too sweeping, and oppose all of them. One of the problems is that civility rules are sometimes used as a blunt instrument by admins to sanction editors they disagree with. Meanwhile, civility is rarely demanded of admins. I think this state of affairs is probably more destructive to the morale of contributors than the incivility itself.

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

I would try to eliminate the disparity between admins and users by desysopping uncivil admins. I would only support civility restrictions when they cannot be enforced by an editor's ideological or on-wiki enemies. The rule against incivility don't need to change: the inequality of enforcement does. Admins should be more civil than rank-and-file, but we see the reverse in effect.

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

Thank you for asking! Cool Hand Luke 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

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

Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?
One of my platforms is supporting the community's choice of leadership as an arbitrator. It would be deeply hypocritical if I ignored the community's choice in allowing myself to become appointed. Therefore, I will reject any commission if I am not among the top candidates. Cool Hand Luke 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar

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

Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
a) Marginally notable people should be able to opt out, yes.

Wikipedia does not exist to make people sad, and we have a moral commitment to subjects who could be damaged by anonymous others. I also think that any subject should have the right to opt for semi-protection.

Editors have often opposed the opt-out principle because it seems incompatible with our current deletion process. Some editors imagine that some group (maybe OTRS) must decide what "marginally notable" means. However, I don't think opt-out needs to be so alien to our existing processes.
User:Durova, for example, has a standing offer to nominate any biography for deletion if the subject wishes it. Subject request should make the threshold for notability higher. Our notability guidelines have been crafted primarily to keep self-promoters out when they want to get in. Unwilling subjects are a different matter. I would like three arguments to be considered by closing admins in deletion debates (much like WP:BLP1E is):
Subject requests deletion (sometimes called WP:OPTOUT).

No other encyclopedia article exists for subject (a similar concept has been called "DEADTREES" or "no original biographies").

Subject is a non-public figure.
When all three of these are present, I think the closing admin ought to delete. If two are present, deletion should be carefully considered by the closing admin. If all three are very clearly present, deletion debate might not even be necessary.

Each of these criteria is meant to capture the potential harm to a living person and weigh it against the article's value to the encyclopedia, and so I think all of them are consistent with our policies on WP:BLP and WP:N. The second reason also makes sense because of WP:WEIGHT. When no neutral biographical treatment exists for a subject, editors are forced to weave a biography together by synthesizing news stories. Through experience, this often leads to distorted and potentially harmful accounts of living people.

There's some ambiguity about both the second and third reasons, but these are the sort of things that can be hashed out in deletion debates. In many cases the answer won't be controversial. Politicians are public figures, and no encyclopedia entries means there are no existing encyclopedia entries. We'd have to decide case-by-case whether short directory entries in specialized encyclopedias count, but I think this is a sensible framework for conducting deletion debate.

b) This has recently occurred in some debates. It's a good thing, and it better approximates the "DEADTREES" standard for encyclopedic notability. Our notability guidelines were designed before Google made us #1 on searches, so they don't adequately capture the externalities—damaging information we sometimes dispense about living people. Both opt out and default deletion help balance our policies to take the lives of real human being subjects into account.
Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
WP:BLP is policy, and within ArbCom's power to enforce, and BLP deletions are within reasonable review of ArbCom. I think a lot of details flow from the BLP principles, and do not think that ArbCom has over-extended in this area. ArbCom can (and perhaps should) go much farther by validating practices like "default to delete" that some users have been courageous enough to implement.
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?
Consensus probably hasn't truly existed since 2001. The near-impossibility of drafting new policy is one of this site's biggest problems, and it's not obvious how we escape the problem—we could never get a consensus to run things by a simple majority (or even supermajority). Fortunately, policy like BLP has sometimes been ratified after it's already essentially implemented, so I advise users to be bold.
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?
Flagged revisions should have happened two years ago. In my view, it will be the greatest technical improvement to wiki software in our project since the introduction of the watchlist. It will dramatically reduce the incidence of damage to BLP subjects (and for that reason alone should be implemented), but it will also enormously benefit our project by making vandalism and edit wars more or less pointless. The community can't come to consensus about it because consensus doesn't really exist in a project this big (see previous answer), but I do think a supermajority of users—and indeed, most candidates—support the concept. As an arbitrator, I would signal that we are ready for the software, but I don't think arbitrators have special say in the matter.
Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)

f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
I believe the principle of peudonymity is currently causing the project a lot of problems. Arbitrators have no control over the policy, but a lot of our current overhead is caused because we are uninterested in even casually verifying new users who often have malicious agendas. I don't see how the principle can be changed without disturbing our volunteers, and so it remains for now.

Perhaps future versions of the software could support a "verified identity" flag, which could be used to restrict editing on subjects with a history of sockpuppets and/or defamation—a new sort of semi-protection that depends on verification.

Outing deters our volunteers, so it's usually a bad thing. If an identity is not already out, deletion, oversight, blocking, and other measures are appropriate when the editor is doing nothing wrong. However, preventing abuse to our project takes priority over anonymity. A good example of this is linking two or more accounts as sock puppets. When anonymity gets in the way of building an encyclopedia, it is not sacred. {See also WP:IAR). The location of "outing" doesn't matter—only the effect it has on our project.
Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

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

d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
Stalking is a potential problem on the internet, and Wikipedia does not seem uniquely immune; no disclaimer is necessary, although I would make our privacy policy seem less iron-clad (volunteers are responsible for enforcing it, after all). I really doubt the WMF considers this kind of assistance to be within their purview. People stalked in real life for editing deserve the same kind of protection that everyone does on-site, and it would probably be wise for them to start a new anonymous account. Real-life stalkers should also obviously be banned from the Wikipedia.

But at the end of the day, Wikipedia is a volunteer collaboratively-written encyclopedia. We are not a police force, and we are not your personal bodyguards or lawyers. Those in need of professionals should get professional help.
A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
I support reverting all contributions of a user who has made many vandalism edits and seemingly little else. In those cases, it's not worth discriminating whether the edits are good or bad—volunteers shouldn't waste their time studying the difference. If good edits are removed, editors are free to spot them and restore them.

That said, I don't think it's sensible to undo months worth of mostly-positive edits that happen to have come from a banned user. That strikes me as remarkably unproductive. In those cases, it's probably a better idea to identify the banned user's questionable edits and undo only those.
What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

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

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?

e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
a) Some discussion about Wikipedia cannot occur on Wikipedia simply because we have banned users who may or may not have meritorious points of view. Users are banned because they are destructive to the encyclopedia, and such users should remain banned, but some of them nonetheless have keen insight into some of the site's problems.

b) I find blogs pedantic, and if I did have one I would not write about Wikipedia because I favor back-and-forth dialog.

c) and e) Yes. I am One.

Wikipedia Review harbors both current and banned contributors, and a lot of useful issues are discussed between these people. Wikback also allowed this, but did not allow anonymous posting (that is, accounts were linked to Wikipedia usernames). I think both forums had excellent commentary about, for example, the Mantanmoreland case and BLP policy. That said, Wikiback died out because it was somewhat over-moderated (users banned for seemingly trivial offenses that were not established rules). Wikipedia Review strikes me as under-moderated (giving too much deference to sockpuppeteers like User:Poetlister, and allowing absolute nutters to post conspiracy theories about Wikipedians). For example, I locked horns with a conspiracy theorist called "Disillusioned Lackey" on Wikipedia Review. This user liked to post absurd claims about Wikipedians (see, for example, post #10). I convinced her to leave the site by repeatedly seizing on her over-the-top claims. In the end, she concluded that Wikipedia Review was part of the conspiracy, and started replacing her posts with images ridiculing "One" and his "one inch [body part]." The admins on Wikipedia Review never intervened with her conspiratorial garbage, which was disappointing. I expressed such disappointment here (viewable only to WR contributors):
One @ Tue 23rd September 2008, 6:39am
Quote( Proabivouac @ Mon 22nd September 2008, 6:05pm )
Poetlister occurred because you didn't care who it was, so long as "she" opposed SlimVirgin. For years, the Wikipedia Review published these lies.

Accuracy and accountability are something towards which any publication should strive. Or do you disagree?

I think this is an over-simplification, but you also have something here.

Take Disillusioned Lackey (please). She posted tons of horseshit about SlimVirgin and Durova, weaving increasingly insane rants without a shred of evidence. I was always unimpressed when mods of this forum--who supposedly oppose the defamation engine of Wikipedia--provided DL with safe harbor and meek caveats about her views not being endorsed by the management. I'm sorry, but I think it was irresponsible and tasteless to tolerate it, and I wonder whether others are similarly tolerated too much.

I was also unimpressed when a mod suggested--before the PoetLister story broke--that if the Horde really was one user that it wouldn't matter to this site at all.

My ideal site would be in between, with less tolerance for idle speculative crap than WR, and more transparent moderation than WikBack.

Anonymous participation is appropriate because it's often useful to leave baggage at the door—as with Wikipedia, pseudonymous users are welcome for the sake of hiding their real life status, and protecting it from harassment. It might have been wise for Newyorkbrad to contribute pseudonymously there; it would have allowed productive dialog without threats and coercion.

Like other off-site intimidation, outing is sometimes used to gain an upper hand in Wikipedia disputes. When this happens, outing should be sanctioned—just as calls to an editor's employer should be sanctioned.

d) Participation is appropriate. Newyorkbrad gets some evidently valuable feedback and suggestions there. The wiki way is to accept good suggestions regardless of the source.
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'm not sure this problem exists per se—that is, prolific article writers are not given more than their due. I do think there is generally a double standard given to admins—prolific non-admin content contributors don't seem to be given extra deference for their actions, but admins are. I would try to eliminate the admin double standard. If anything, admins should be held to a higher standard due to their responsibility and experience.
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
18% gray because of its whimsical precision, and because as a value without chroma, it probably isn't a color at all. (Yes, I'm dodging the question like a two-faced politician.) Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Heimstern

Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
This problem cannot be resolved by WP:CONSENSUS. ArbCom can better enforce processes in these fights (adding restrictions on moving and renaming classes of articles or editors), but the core of the problem is that such controversial editorial decisions are nearly impossible for us to reach.
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?
Civility restrictions should only be applied by genuinely uninvolved admins without any history with the user in question. I would craft all new civility restrictions to make this requirement explicit because I believe that civility restrictions are often used against editors that an admin simply disagrees with. If two uninvolved admins disagree, I think we can error on the side of a block (although if more admins disagree, the block could be lifted); the problem today is that the same admins will repeatedly enforce these restrictions. I also think a double standard exists between admins and non-admins, which is probably more destructive to the morale of Wikipedia than the incivility itself. See also #Questions from roux. Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
Whatever percentage puts me in the top candidates (and over 50%). See also #Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below).
Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
I support a system of recall for myself. I don't think that such a system should be retroactively applied to arbitrators that did not volunteer for it, but I think it would be a good thing going forward. Cool Hand Luke 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from UninvitedCompany

Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
I wrote several dozen articles on subjects focusing on Mormon history and Salt Lake City, although I also did some other work in areas that piqued my fancy, like Father Divine. When I first became an admin, I was active in AFD (then called VFD), but I do almost none of that anymore.

More recently, I've been interested in fact-checking and sourcing. I have good means for finding older newspaper sources, and have done a bit of that. I've also worked on some ArbCom cases, such as the Mantanmoreland case. I also do a bit of admin work. Mostly fixing cut-and-paste moves, and occasional unblock review and WP:RFPP. I also respond to (non-user) RFCs, which editors seem to rarely do anymore. I encourage everyone who reads this to go find an RFC that looks interesting and weigh in—editors sometimes wait in vain for outside comment. Sometimes I find a conflict where I'm somewhat knowledgeable but feel like an true outsider. I try to mediate those. This has occurred as Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, Stephen Barrett (for these two see above, Ann Coulter, Xenu, and Federal Reserve System, among others. I interact with a lot of interesting editors that way.
Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
I have undergraduate degrees in chemistry and philosophy from the University of Utah. While attending school I worked continuously in telecom, and I then worked in QC labs for medical device and vitamin/supplement companies. I'm currently in my third year at the University of Chicago Law School. I've interned for a large law firm, and will be working there in patent litigation.
Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
I was once highly involved in communities related to Magic: The Gathering, and posted under the same user name. User:Voice of All probably doesn't remember, although I do recognize his name from there; I was active before the forum split, and it's really not worth explaining. See also Lar's questions.
Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
I don't know what "non-routine" is, but I think my answers to Pixelface might discuss what you're interested in.
Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
As a lawyer, I will have duties to clients, courts, and the United States and state constitutions. Conflict of interests could come up, but unless it's a dispute involving patent law/litigation or particular technologies and companies, I doubt it will be an issue. I've become increasingly neutral about political issues in the last few years. I would recuse in any cases involving the LDS Church, but I don't think any have ever occurred.
Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
Too many student groups.
Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
I have.
Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia? What are their user names and their relationships to you?
A friend of mine in Salt Lake City called User:JonMoore. He's become disenchanted with Wikipedia and has not edited since July 2007. No family has ever edited, and I've met very few Wikipedians in real life.
Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
I very rarely use the mailing list, and have used message boards. (BTW, will WikBack ever come back online? I thought there was some high-quality discussion there at times.) I have never applied to the admin IRC channel. I understand there's a Chicago sort of Wikipedia club, but I've never been to a meetup anywhere.
What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
The Foundation is the most important but also the narrowest constituency. The community is the deepest constituency. I do not consider any others legitimate constituents, but we have very real moral duties to BLP subjects (as all Wikipedians do).
What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
Cases that the community cannot solve or that would inflict a lot of dramatic damage in the process of community resolution. Most admin abuse cases will meet this standard, but also cases that repeatedly wind up on messageboards.
How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
Users can be sanctioned for schemes hatched elsewhere but implemented here. Users should also be sanctioned for attempts to intimidate users off-wiki, as this is meant to directly game the project. However, user's opinions should not be the basis for sanctions.
What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
Interestingly, I view bans as less effective than editing restrictions because it's not difficult to set up a new account. Surplus sock accounts should be banned, certainly, but editing restrictions strike me as better for actually improving user behavior. Desysopping should also be a common remedy.
Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
I expect that in the next few years we will (finally) implement flagged revisions. It'll be a great thing for BLPs, but I anticipate a new class of essentially content disputes over flagging that ArbCom will have to resolve or delegate. I think this is the perfect opportunity to create a process for content vetting. I've always been sympathetic to Larry Sanger's original plan, and it might be possible to create expert boards to resolve flagging/edit wars. I'd like to help design such a thing if and when it happens. Until then, I want to hold a relatively hard line on enforcing BLP policy.

Beyond that, I have no particular plans except for individually endeavoring to improve the committee's speed, transparency, and responsiveness.
Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
Newyorkbrad exemplifies the ideals of committed work and non-partisanship that I admire.
To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
Wiki diff evidence is entirely unambiguous; we can be absolutely certain of precisely what a user said. But the inferences drawn from evidence sometimes require probing into a user's motivations and making predictions of future behavior. For all work, I think the overriding standard should be preponderance of evidence. We should merely find that user conduct is more likely than not to be destructive to the encyclopedia. ArbCom's first duty is to protect the project.
What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
The foundation has made questionable decisions in the past, but that's beyond an arbitrator's preview.
To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
I fully support their work, but I wish their structure was more transparent.
Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
No. Breaking confidence hinders the committee's work going forward. It would be monumentally destructive. Although I dislike wiki legalism, I think an analogy to lawyer and court notes is appropriate here. Cool Hand Luke 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from TomasBat

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?)
I have a hard time with such an abstract hypothetical, because things that are good for editors are typically also good for the encyclopedia. In cases where they aren't, I would favor "what's best for the encyclopedia" over new user's feelings, especially when BLP issues might be in play.

Our moral duty to non-voluntary human subjects trumps the moral duty we owe to voluntary editors. Our duty to the encyclopedia trumps the hurt feelings of new users. Cool Hand Luke 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MBisanz

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.
N/A. Cool Hand Luke 18:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Pixelface

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?
Dr Zen, although no evidence or findings were presented against me. Mantanmoreland, a case where I produced a lot of evidence, but where my behavior was not under scrutiny.
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?
Alberuni (evidence), CheeseDreams (evidence), Dr Zen (evidence, statement, talk commentary), THF-David Shankbone (evidence, commentary), Martinphi-ScienceApologist (workshop commentary), Jim62sch (workshop, proposed talk commentary), Mantanmoreland (tons of evidence and commentary), C68-FM-SV (workshop and proposed findings commentary). The first two cases were clear-cut by modern standards, and wouldn't require such detail to prove the users' bad faith. I felt like the Mantanmoreland evidence was largely a waste of time. I imagined the evidence would have been sufficient to allow Samiharris to be blocked without tossing it back to the community for hundreds of kilobytes of ANI drama. Most ArbComs are a waste of volunteer time, but I was usually satisfied with the eventual outcomes.
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 don't believe I've made any. Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Badger Drink

It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
We've had serious process failures in the OrangeMarlin debacle, and in the inexcusably delayed RFAR/C68-FM-SV, but I assume you mean cases where the outcome was wrong. Actually, some of the worst outcomes probably include RFAR/Matthew Hoffman and OrangeMarlin. These matters should have simply been dropped due to failed process. The Mantanmoreland case also caused unnecessary drama—the sockpuppet should have been blocked outright rather than fester on ANI. ArbCom is meant to relieve, not exacerbate drama.
What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
It was irredeemably tainted by the botched process. I would have just dismissed it after that. A serious failure.
This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
The procedural concerns resonate with me. For example, ArbCom's tendency to alternate between mandating strict timetables, but sometimes utterly ignoring cases. Cool Hand Luke 00:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BirgitteSB

Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases [2]. 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]

Great proposal!

The problem with "secret evidence" is not that it's non-public. Non-public evidence is often necessary to protect confidential information. The problem occurs when evidence is used against a party without that party (or anyone else) having an opportunity to respond. I think your proposal is a wonderful solution. I especially like the concept of developing evidence in isolation. Cool Hand Luke 00:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor

These are questions I am putting to all candidates - apologies if they have already been asked you before.

Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself. On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki. On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days. Which definition do you prefer?
I do not believe arbitrators should be chosen for their views on lexicography; I really don't know what definition is better. I would prefer whichever definition is more commonly used, but that's an empirical question about semantics, and I doubt that's what you're asking.

In hopes that I can address the substance of your question, I think that arbitrators must sometimes make tough decisions to promote the encyclopedia. This project aims to build a collaborative work, so users who are good at writing might fairly be given more leeway than those who do not contribute as well to the project. You may also be interested in my answer to Lar's question.
Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
The "reasonableness" standard is almost meaningless in law, and I'm not eager to replicate it on Wikipedia. The criteria should always be whether the actions are harming the encyclopedia (by, for example, deterring contributors). For example, Biting genuinely new contributors is typically harmful. Incivility judgments should be made by uninvolved users, not one's political opponents.
Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
The argument is patently absurd. While there's no end to potential admins (because admin work is janitorial at heart), experts are much more scarce. If we ban truly qualified individuals, there will be few of them volunteering their time.
Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right. It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly. But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back. Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented. In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
I'm not sure what's being asked. Cases should be taken to ArbCom if doing so is less wasteful of volunteer time. Banned editors are allowed to return whenever they don't reclaim their disruptive tendencies. In some cases, they were banned incorrectly to begin with, but there probably shouldn't need to be an ArbCom unless and until someone attempts to re-ban them.
Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR. All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests. Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use? If so, what should those be?
One clear criteria is if the community has tried and failed to resolve the dispute—for example, in ANI. But there are many factual patterns that might make arbitration the best course. Whenever arbitrators can conclude that a case is less disruptively resolved by ArbCom, they should take the case.

I wish you the very best with your candidacy, I hope it goes the way you would like, but also that it goes the way that is ultimately of benefit to the community and the project. The Land Surveyor (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it goes that way too. Your questions persuade me that you truly care for the project. Cool Hand Luke 00:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

1. In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community? As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy" [3], which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.

First, I would like to say that it's lamentable that respected publishers print these journals. They cannot be accepted as the equivilent of other peer-reviewed journals because their reviewers are skewed—they accept premises that mainstream science does not. Therefore, they should be treated like we would treat advocacy sources—just as we would never cite a news story to the National Review without explaining the bias of the source, so too with fringe science journals. They are great sources for examples of fringe arguments and supposition, but they cannot be used as flat fact about our empirical reality. You may also be interested in my answer to Rspeer.

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT#CENSORED? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?

I think the intent of the policy is to repudiate narrow-minded objections to article images, but it is often misapplied. WP:NOT#CENSORED has been cited to justify somewhat shocking images not terribly useful to readers. The images at ~~Autofellatio~~ and Prince Albert piercing, for example, seem unencyclopedic and overly confrontational. (I see autofellatio no longer has a photograph due to copyright concerns. Good.) I think such images might cause readers (potential contributors) to question our professionalism.

Over the last few years, our images have improved, and textbook-style diagrams have become more common. This is a very positive development, and I applaud it. Choosing diagrams over photographs is not censorship—it's an editorial decision that frequently promotes education in the topic. We should continue to make editorially mature choices in our articles, without assuming that we're caving to some prudish agenda.

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.

Science is the neutral point of view about physical reality. Where science and popular opinion conflict, this conflict should be highlighted so that readers do not assume scientifically implausible views are accurate. That said, ethical implications are never posited by science. In your example, it's consistent and sociologically accurate to say that exposure to sex is not damaging although popular opinion considers it immoral. Cool Hand Luke 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions From Ϣere Spiel Chequers

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

How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?

Ϣere Spiel Chequers 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frustrating and ambiguous question. For example, is an opinion with one dissent unanimous? What about one with competing remedies, where most people agree with all the remedies, just expressing a different preference? Just for the sake of giving you answers, I'll say 10, 50%, 66%, and haphazardly.

If you're getting at arbitrator solidarity, I think there's too much effort wasted on presenting a united front. I think dissent should be more common in ArbCom decisions. Cool Hand Luke 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from LtPowers

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

Yes. The community trust has been broken because of stalled proceedings, exceptionally poor communication with the community, and questionable processes. These faults are why I'm running for ArbCom and they are highlighted in my candidate statement, and in my answers to other questions (see, e.g., here about speed and here about accountability). Cool Hand Luke 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Will Beback

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've used disposable accounts when editing from some locations. I notice that other candidates has a "User2" sort of designated alternate account for this purpose; I might do that in the future. I don't normally remember the passwords or usernames for disposable accounts. The only one I think I've used this year is User:Crimson Sox.

2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?

As long as sockpuppets are generally allowed (something I'm ambivalent about), disclosed personality accounts are an especially benign flavor of sock. This is a volunteer project, so people only keep working on it as long as it's enjoyable for them. User:Bishzilla, for example, seems to have a lot of fun with her personality account, and I don't scorn her for it.

Sock accounts should not do any of the things you mention while the first account is still active. Non-public socks should be vanishingly rare, and fully disclosed to checkusers.

3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?

I think the community should just bite the bullet and push for more up-front validation. I suspect it would save a lot of after-the-fact cleanup. I would also support a new level of semi-protection for articles that have been the frequent target of career sock/POV pushers; the thresholds are far too low for persistent sock masters. At the least, such users would be forced to do more non-controversial work before returning to the objects of their desire, and by the time they are allowed to edit, they may be easier to spot through technical and behavioral evidence.

In the meantime, areas of repeated abuse can and should have special restrictions from ArbCom (see answer to Celarnor). Cool Hand Luke 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from harej

Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support letting the good times roll. The Cars are good, and The Who are great (refer to your talk page image). Keep on rockin', harej. Cool Hand Luke 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make me feel old. — CharlotteWebb 17:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Ncmvocalist

1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case may be distinct if the parties were requesting an examination of that decision's procedures. However, it seems that Shoemaker's Holiday wants a much more modest motion, and I would certainly support the request to vacate. Newyorkbrad's proposal 1.3 captures the revocation I would feel necessary for ArbCom to distance itself from the original flawed process. Cool Hand Luke 09:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. The community have, on occasions, found it difficult to have poorly written or handled ArbCom decisions reversed, even today. What mechanisms (if any) would you propose to remedy this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, parties can essentially move to reopen an ArbCom case if it requires additional input or if the original proceedings were deeply flawed for some reason. As an arbitrator, I'm strongly inclined to accept these cases because they cannot be easily resolved by the community; re-examination is sometimes the path of least drama. I would be inclined to re-examine, modify, or vacate cases like Matthew Hoffman.

As for the community directly reversing ArbCom, they should develop a new mechanism for doing so. Cool Hand Luke 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. One of the major concerns with certain past and current arbitrators is their failure to handle ArbCom tasks in a prompt or timely manner. What steps will you take to help move things along? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See #"Speed is important" questions from SilkTork. Cool Hand Luke 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. (A) What is your stance on tendentious problem editing? (B) Why do you believe the community is, at times, passive in dealing with this issue? (C) If you are appointed as an ArbCom member, what steps (if any) will you take to help ensure this issue is actively dealt with by ArbCom? (D) What proposals would you make to deal with (or remedy) this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing wears down volunteer contributors, so is clearly bad for the encyclopedia. I believe the community is often reluctant to deal with it because sanctioning a tendentious editor often requires even more valuable volunteer time than simply living with them—especially when tendentious editing is coupled with POV, where editors might be inclined to back a problem editor just because he or she is on "their" side. As arbitrator, I would vote to accept cases that would be difficult for the community to solve, and I would favor mainspace topic bans and other sanctions where appropriate. Tendentious/POV editors can be more effectively dealt with by ArbCom than in other forums, where the behavior is too-often obscured by partisan battle lines. Cool Hand Luke 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless to clarify anything above, I have no further questions for the candidate. Thank you for your time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Cool Hand Luke 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Al tally

I detect a less-than-slight bias to your questions. I'm afraid that I won't always answer the way you want me to. I hope you can appreciate that in a candidate.

Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
Related question:

Should checkuser—a tool used to patrol tens of thousands of contributors—be given out on the basis of a "community" vote of a about one hundred pseudonyms, considering that sockpuppeteers will be the ones most motivated to vote, and most likely to do it more than once? Bear in mind that no other Wiki has experienced the kind persistent sockpuppet problems that Wikipedia has. Actually, that's not true; voting for checkusers has worked splendidly on at least one sock-infested project, just go ask Cato! (backstory.)

Votes for checkuser are not adequate protection from sockpuppet games on enWP at this time. Such votes are only an invitation to abuse. ArbCom elections are about the highest voter turnout we ever get on this project, so ArbCom elections are less easy to game than small votes for necessary community servants like checkusers.

I favor the current hybrid approach (asking for input, but not using a community vote).

Oversight, a position of community trust, should be decided by the community. Cool Hand Luke 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thoughts: ideally, a policy would be constructed to ensure mass participation in the selection of checkuser. For example, high-profile annual elections might ensure a better cross-section of the community, as with elections for ArbCom or steward. With broad enough participation, we should be able to avoid the potential problems of both sockpuppet gaming and possible ArbCom capriciousness.

That said, no such policy revision has ever been seriously attempted—a previous attempt modelled on RfB was poorly executed and problably picked a bad model. In my view, we should limit the number of checkusers. Enough hands should have checksuser to ensure independent review, but no more hands than necessary in order to prevent potential hacks or leaks of information protected by the privacy policy. For this reason, I doubt that a standing "requests for checkuser" would be appropriate even if we could solicit enough bona fide voices.

I think ArbCom has tried to safely incorporate community input—their hybrid approach ensures that only qualified candidates will be considered, while allowing interested parties to opine. It seems they've done a good job. Further development requires broad participation from the community. Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
The community should always retain this right. See my answers to rootology (#6).
Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
If I resign because I am no longer interested in doing the work, I would surrender my user privileges. I would also give them up if I were to leave for a long period of time—simply for security reasons.

However, this question makes a false assumption. Not all resignations are because one is no longer interested in doing the work. Case in point: Newyorkbrad. Some resignations may be temporary and compelled by circumstances beyond one's control.
Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).
I am running with the option of arbitrator recall.

Good luck with the election! Al Tally ^talk 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cool Hand Luke 01:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit

Two questions related to the balance of power between ArbCom and admins. Pcap ping 16:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the special civility restrictions enacted by ArbCom in several cases have been successful? If not, what would you do propose instead?
No, they have caused excessive drama. I think the problem is that an editor's ideological or personal foes have been allowed to impose these blocks, a practice which justifiably strikes some third-parties as illegitimate. If elected, I would propose a motion revising every existing civility restriction to forbid admins from imposing blocks if they have prior history with the user. We have over a thousand admins and several noticeboards—there's no good reason for allowing involved users to impose these blocks.
Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of an ArbCom case (WP:AE)? If the answer is no, what should be done about admin A?
How about a related question? Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of policy? I think the answer to this is "sometimes, yes." I don't understand why ArbCom edicts should be given a higher status than community policy. Admins basing their acts on ArbCom decisions need to interpret the decision, just as they must interpret policy; either way they could be wrong and in need of immediate reversal.

So my answer to your question is, "there's nothing special about admins claiming provisions of an ArbCom case rather than policy as a basis for an administrative act—so cases will vary."

Such reversals will sometimes be inappropriate and sanctionable just policy-based reversals are sometimes inapprorpiate and sanctionable. If I went out and unblocked Grawp accounts, I would not be wheel-warring, and I would not be violating ArbCom decisions, but I would be unjustifiably defying a consensus that these accounts should be blocked. Where consensus about the implications of an ArbCom decision are unclear, it may be reckless to act without gauging support. Similarly, it may be reckless to reverse policy-based actions. Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ling.Nut

I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's really clever, and I like it, but it is not a precise restatement or extrapolation of IAR.

First, IAR applies to non-admins as well as admins. Non-admins can and should ignore policy that hurts the project.

More critically, your rules elevate non-core values to the level of WP:IAR, which states Wikipedia's prime directive. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and if anything interferres with that objective, it can't be considered a constraining rule. I generally agree that IAR implies that a successful encyclopedia should not cause human beings harm (#1), and that our encyclopedia must be neutral and reliably sourced (#2). However, I find nothing in IAR that could support your third rule. This is a project to build an encyclopedia—not a forum for user individual liberty. See WP:SOAP—a rule that ought to apply to the talkpage even without the implication of real-world harm. Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from S. Dean Jameson

I'm asking this question of every candidate I'm considering supporting. I'm not sure if I've waited too long to ask it or not. If I have, please feel free to revert me, and I can ask it on your talk page. Here it is: do you feel the administrative actions of an arbitrator (either current or former) should be treated differently than those of a regular administrator? In particular, if an arbitrator blocks a user or protects a page in support of an arbitration enforcement, should a person overturning such an action be treated differently than a person who might overturn a similar action from a regular administrator?

Good luck with your run! ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this question. I feel it's an important one.

When an Arbitrator is acting in their individual capacity, they should be governed by the same rules that govern all other users. Arbitrators only have special authority as a committee. Arbitrators act as the community's judges, not as royalty.

On my userpage, I say that editors should treat me like any other user—even though I'm an admin and they may not be. I will cleave to that same principle as an arbitrator. Cool Hand Luke 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Marlith

What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years? Marlith (Talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia. That's the reason for our project. In five years, I hope we have developed better controls for BLPs—I hope we have a reputation for neutrality, ethics, and for respecting expert contributors. Cool Hand Luke 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from ImperfectlyInformed

I apologize if this has been asked before. You say repeatedly that you stand for increased transparency. How would you increase transparency specifically? I would like to see diffs cited in the "findings of fact". What do you think of that? II | (t - c) 08:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By transparency, I would like more deliberation to occur publicly on wiki, where participants can respond to arbitrators concerns. I think this is a better model than reaching a conclusion off-wiki then transferring it here. I believe that such transparency would create more of a dialog, which is conducive to fact-finding. It would also let the community see arbitrator's frank opinions on subjects. I would put more motions up for a vote, as I've told SilkTork and others. Off-wiki deliberations (which may be required due to sensitive private evidence) should be the exception rather than the rule.

As for diffs in findings, I would use them more often. We ask volunteers to painstakingly gather evidence, but arbitrators too often omit it from their findings, even though the leg work has already been done for them. This is one of the things I mean in my candidate statement when I say "ArbCom must minimally explain how their findings are supported by the evidence." Cool Hand Luke 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final question from Majorly

It's been a long month or so, but elections are almost over, and unless things change drastically over the next 36 hours, it looks like you're one of the winners! Have a look at the other top six or seven candidates, and the current arbitrators. Do you still feel you can work with these people, potentially for the next three years? Do you still think you will be able to handle the workload? And most importantly, will you still be able to contribute to the encyclopedia? Thanks, Majorly ^talk 16:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to count any chickens, but I have no problems with any of the top candidates that I'm aware of, and I hope that we are all on the committee for years to come (although experience suggests that most of us won't make it to three years).

The apparent incoming arbitrators are a top-notch class. I think that I have similar views as some about case management, and I'm particularly excited to work with users who have been genuine voices of reason on almost every discussion I've seen them in. I'm heartened by the incoming encyclopedia writers.

After this election, it appears that only two arbitrators will have been on the committee for more than one year. I think new blood will breath a lot of life into the committee.

I will be able to handle the case workload; I've a much lower course load next quarter to help me get my sea legs. Additionally, I'd like to do some investigative and summary work for the use of checkuser and oversight. Thatcher's words are disturbing to me, and I would like to get to the bottom of it. As the "charts and graphs" candidate, I would also like to make these kinds of reports a regular occurrence. I think they help keep the community in touch with the work of checkusers.

I don't think my contributions to the encyclopedia will suffer. I've never hung around the administrator boards very much; my favorite admin work is actually correcting cut-and-paste moves, and I won't have to worry about creating any future conflicts from that. I also hope to improve some articles with the help of my last months of free lexisnexis access. Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions

Question from NuclearWarfare

Question from Sam Blacketer

Questions from FT2

"Speed is important" questions from SilkTork

Question from LessHeard vanU

Question from Rspeer

Additional questions from Pixelface

Questions from Slrubenstein

General questions (all answered)

Questions from MBisanz

Question from Ultraexactzz

Questions from Giggy

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

Questions from Celarnor

Question from LessHeard vanU

Question from Carnildo

Question from WilyD

Questions from PhilKnight

Questions from Thatcher

Questions from Newyorkbrad

Questions from Mailer Diablo

Questions from Rschen7754

Questions from Maxim

Questions from rootology

Question from Davewild

Questions from roux

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

Questions from Lar

Questions from Heimstern

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

Questions from UninvitedCompany

Questions from TomasBat

Question from MBisanz

Questions from Pixelface

Questions from Badger Drink

Question from BirgitteSB

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

Questions From ϢereSpielChequers

Question(s) from LtPowers

Questions from Will Beback

Question from harej

Questions from Ncmvocalist

Questions from Al tally

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit

Question from Ling.Nut

Question from S. Dean Jameson

Question from Marlith

Question from ImperfectlyInformed

Final question from Majorly

Questions From Ϣere Spiel Chequers