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.

General questions[edit]

Question from Ultraexactzz[edit]

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?
...

Questions from Giggy[edit]

a/s/l?
I'm in my mid-twenties, and from Australia.
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.
In any community of this size, it is inevitable that some will choose to specialise. Some write content, others gravitate towards project administration roles. I'm not sure that there's any meaningful 'divide' between these two groups, but I think that treating all cases on their merit, rather than favouring content creators or project space workers as being more 'valuable' is the way to go.
What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
I don't see the point of throwing away good work simply because of the person that has done it.
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 most recent example that springs to mind is Sarah Palin protection wheel war. Administrators blatantly involved themselves in destructive wheel warring, and received what was essentially a slap on the wrist. Strong and decisive sanctions should have been handed out in this case (at the very least, requiring the admins involved to go through RFA again to see if the community supported their continuing use of the tools), instead a message was sent and a precedent established that the penalty for wheel warring would be a stern finger wagging, and not much else.
Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
This is a tricky question; because I don't really think in terms of single great contributions. I would say that what I am proudest of is a long record of solid, useful edits and work that has allowed others to go ahead and write some truly great articles.
Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
Yes. Even if I am elected, that still means that six other arbs will be needed, and I want to see those positions filled by competent, talented people.

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

Questions from Sarcasticidealist[edit]

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?
I am a great supporter of IAR as a last resort. I feel that editors who ignore or breach policy with the best interests of the site and the project in mind should have nothing to fear. With that said, I think IAR should be a path of last resort, certainly an editor who makes a controversial IAR edit needs to be able to explain and justify themselves.
What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
Not having access to the mailing list and knowing what is discussed there, it's not really possible for me to have an informed opinion on this.
At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?
I feel that having sitting arbitrators with such commitments hanging over their heads is an invitation for drama. That said, similar to my admin status, I undertake to resign my seat if it becomes obvious that the community has lost its trust in me to continue as an arbitrator.

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

Questions from Celarnor[edit]

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")?
In most cases, I think that the given remedies should prove to be adequate. There may be cases where these remedies are inappropriate for whatever reason, and I am of the opinion that ArbCom needs to have the flexibility to apply 'unique' remedies in such cases.
What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
Obviously, there is an expectation that someone in the position of an arbitrator must observe the highest standards of behaviour and serve as a role model. If elected, I would feel an obligation to avoid drama and controversy, and avoid getting stuck in protracted disputes on any topic, wherever possible.

Question from LessHeard vanU[edit]

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]
Yes, with the proviso that I do not think that the "heavy" RfAr process is the ideal forum to investigate administrator misconduct. With that said, it is one of the few forums currently available to do so, so I would be happy to accept such cases, provided that they fall within the scope outlined at Wikipedia:AP.

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

Question from Carnildo[edit]

How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
This is one of those difficult questions, as it's hard to know exactly how much time I'll be spending on these things until I actually start doing them. I anticipate a large percentage of my current Wiki-time would be dedicated to committee related tasks.

Question from WilyD[edit]

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?
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?
Yes. If an account is doing something wrong, which necessitates blocking in order to prevent further damage to the project, then the user should be blocked. Admins, bureaucrats, developers or even arbitrators should not have any special rights in this regard. This also applies to a misuse of the admin tools that is causing damage or disruption to the project.

Questions from PhilKnight[edit]

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 case where I would have a conflict of interest, or a perception existed of a conflict of interest. This would obviously include any case I was involved in, as well as any case involving someone that I have worked with closely in the past, know well in the "real world", or with whom I have had a prior dispute.
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?
Well, it depends firstly if the editor takes "racist" to be an insult. Hypothetical situations like these are difficult to judge based on a brief description as you gave, as the circumstances and context surrounding the case would really have a huge bearing on how this should be handled.

Questions from Thatcher[edit]

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?

I would assume good faith, as it is perfectly possible that there is a legitimate explanation for such vandalism, although at the same time it seems awfully suspicious. I would probably contact the admin privately first, to ask for an explanation - hopefully either the admin would "get the point" and desist from further vandalism, or a good explanation would be provided. If I got no response, and the vandalism continued, then maybe it would be time to go public to the community, and let them decide an appropriate course of action.

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.

Option B, as even if the checkuser's intentions were pure, choosing Option A would potentially lead to a view of impropriety on the part of that checkuser, even if the concerns turned out to be justified.

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?

While I am of the strong opinion that actions taken offsite should not usually be held against a user on Wikipedia, this is a much touchier situation. In this case, as the person behind the User:Smith and User:Smythe accounts has been banned (as opposed to blocked), I would probably block the Smythe account for being a reincarnation of a banner user. Any return for that user would be dependent upon their unbanning by the community, which I imagine would in turn be dependent upon Smith/Smythe ceasing his offsite harassment.

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?

I don't think that public disagreement impairs the credibility of the Committee, so long as it's done in an atmosphere where there is a willingness on all sides to compromise and reach a consensus. For that reason, I would not be keen on holding an open vote - such a move is unlikely to produce a satisfactory result if there is a serious split between the two groups. Instead, I would try to assist both sides in working out a compromise (a "middle of the road decision", if you will), that everyone is comfortable with.

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?

While I hope to have a positive impact on the committee if elected, I am cognisant of the fact that it is unlikely that I will be able to change the world on my own. I accept that, especially if I choose to continue as an active editor, I won't be able to cover every single decision or move that the committee makes. I will do my best to make sure that I can make a positive contribution though, no matter how large or small that contribution is.

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?

Any user with a little work can probably find my real name and take a reasonable punt as to my real employer. I have nothing to hide or to fear from my activities on Wikipedia nor on the ArbCom, so I'm not particularly worried about being blackmailed or harassed over it.

Questions from Newyorkbrad[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that at a bare minimum, arbitrators should involve themselves in A through E. My qualifications for this are the numerous sound decisions that I have made in the past, and the lack of contentious or controversial calls that I've made as an admin or an editor. Once I've got a handle on those, I can move onto checkusering (F), where my professional background in computers (and network engineering in particular) will come in handy.

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?

Many of these look like good, commonsense changes (looking at the FT2 draft here), especially Case management-10 and Recusal-2. There are a few things that can probably be tinkered with (ie: Decisions-10 should have a provision that the explanation should be prompt and comprehensive), but that should not detract from the good work as a whole. However, it should be realised that merely making adjustments to the rules will not in itself aid in improving ArbCom's image and performance - only actual improvements in the results that are delivered will achieve this.

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.

I think that, sadly, there is a wide feeling that taking things to ArbCom is too troublesome, aggrivating, and all around difficult to be worth it. This is, I feel, leading to editors just deciding to "give up" and let incidents of POV-pushing, incivility, and the like run rampant, rather than trying to use mechanisms like ArbCom to bring these things to a close. Obviously, I do not see this as a good thing. Note that this is not a personal criticism of any sitting arbitrator, but merely recognising that they have on some occasions not met the community's expectations.

Questions from Mailer Diablo[edit]

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?

This is a good question for opening cans of worms! There are many things I would like to adjust, but primarily I think reforming the RFA process to adopt a less drama-prone model for selecting admins, and instituting a zero-tolerance policy for uncited material on any and all BLPs would be up there.

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. Policy has been decided in the past by the community, and it should remain that way. There may be circumstances in novel situations where a case involves an area not covered by existing policy yet demands attention, but even then, the community should be empowered to come up with a policy, even if that contradicts or overturns an ArbCom decision.

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

Generally speaking no, unless IRC drama is spilling over onto the site itself. I would not be opposed to a committee separate to ArbCom being appointed to deal with any IRC issues that arise, but I do not believe it would be a good idea for it to be placed under the watch of ArbCom (frankly, it already has turf to cover as it is). IRC is not an area that I am familiar with, so I am not really in a position to give any more of detailed answer than this.

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?

Reform of ArbCom is a matter for the community, not for the sitting arbitrators. I disagree with people like Kurt Weber who believe that the only way to 'fix' it is to blow it all away and start again - I think that the procedures and processed developed are fundamentally sound, and only require minor adjustment so that they work more efficiently. We should remember that for each badly mishandled case, there are many cases that are properly and quickly dealt with. To respond directly to your question, I will do my bit by acting quickly, openly, and accountably on cases that are accepted in order to restore community confidence in the body.

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

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?
Over three months to deal with an ArbCom case, with little or no communication from arbs as to the reason for the delay, and an end result of "be nice to each other, ok", is frankly appalling. There may have been a reason for this excessive amount of time being taken up, but if so, it was not communicated or was communicated poorly.
a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
A WikiProject exists to promote collaboration and cooperation on articles relating to a particular topic. One particular WikiProject that I have found very helpful and which I am associated with, for instance, is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia, and some of its descendent projects. In relation to point (b), I do not believe so, although of course they can provide useful forums for editors to collaborate to determine standard layouts for articles and the like.
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)
No, per WP:OWN.
Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
It depends on the context. For instance, the list of Australia related XfD discussions at WP:AWNB does not count as canvassing, as it is merely an announcement that a discussion is taking place. If a comment was added below this list saying "Please vote Keep to keep these wonderful Australia-related articles on WP!", then that would cross the line into unacceptable canvassing. This extends to IRC - merely mentioning that a discussion or vote is taking place is usually acceptable, doing so selectively in order to skew the discussion is not.
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?
As a last resort, a short block may be in order. Having cleaned up a few such cases myself in the past, where good faith but low quality edits were making a mess of some articles, it can be a tricky situation. Obviously, the editor in question should be assisted in making better quality edits, and have it explained to them in friendly but firm terms exactly why their edits are being reverted or rolled back.
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?
Such situations are unfortunate, but if no rules or policies are being broken, then bans or blocks are clearly unjustified. No matter how much it is sometimes tempting, you cannot block someone for being annoying. That said, when the user does eventually cross the line, as they almost always do, they may find it difficult to find an admin willing to unblock them.
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?
In the case of an editor having poor English skills, they should be pointed towards the Wikipedia in their native language first - many people are still unfortunately unaware that Wikipedia is a multilingual site. In that case, they may be able to make helpful edits on a smaller site, where arguably they are more needed. In other cases, an editor who persistently creates work for other editors cleaning up after them, and who appears unwilling or unable to be helped or to improve should be blocked with a heavy heart, per WP:BLOCK, for "severely (disruption to) the project".
a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
WP:Community Ban quite clearly defines when a community ban can be imposed. Again, if the user is causing significant and continual disruption to the project, and there is little hope for an improvement, then I personally believe a ban can be justified.
(This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
I think that the problems are not so much with the community, as it is with the type of procedures that have grown up around it. The nature and composition of the community has changed enormously since I started editing in 2004. I think that decision making processes that evolved between dozens of editors, almost all of whom had good intentions and were here to build an encyclopædia, are not necessarily the best processes for a community that now has thousands of editors, many of whom are here only to grind an axe, push a nationalistic viewpoint, or otherwise have aims that are not compatible with the project's original goals. Foremost of these problems is the notion of 'consensus', because while it was formerly possible to have a reasonable and sensible discussion on something, these days there is almost always a small faction of hardline editors on every topic who are not willing to compromise, and only see their own viewpoint as the correct one.

It's worth noting that in the various subcommunities that have evolved (such as again, WP:AWNB), this does not occur, discussion within those groups is reminiscent of the early days, where everyone is more or less on the same page and works together towards a common goal.

How this is to be fixed is a problem a bit beyond a single editor, but I think that we need to refine our notion of 'consensus' to a model which filters out fringe views, and is less prone to disruption and gaming. Of course, any way of doing this is going to disenfranchise some and will be unpopular with many, which is why it is such a difficult task and one that hasn't really been directly addressed up until now.

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

Questions from Maxim[edit]

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?
Wikipedia:Wheel war has a good definition of what the term means. As an arb, I would generally take a hard line against wheel warring (as the community and committee has done in the past), unless there are extenuating circumstances, desysopping would generally be in order.
What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
I'm generally supportive about the concept, if only because it will relieve some of the work from the ArbCom for "routine" incidences. Coming up with a mechanism that will garner the support of the community - that's a different matter.
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)?
Generally speaking, I don't like the idea of fully automated adminbots, if only because undoing any accidental or malicious damage from rapid-fire administrative actions can be more difficult than just doing a mass-revert of faulty bot edits. I am willing to be convinced of the value of adminbots, however. On the other hand, tools that require human intervention (ie: Twinkle, Huggle) are okay by me, and I make extensive use of them in my routine admin work.

Questions from FT2[edit]

These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged. (Arbitrators need to be 'on the ball' and able to pick up impressions fairly accurately.)

(Questions removed. I have decided, on reflection, to ask them individually to candidates, this year at least. I'll see how it goes in deciding if that has worked better than asking them centrally. Also may help with follow-up. To see the questions, look at a candidates' Q&A page where I've asked them.)

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)} 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from rootology[edit]

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?

In general, I believe this was another one of those cases that was badly handled, if only because of the length of time that it took to resolve. Whether the bundling of everything together contributed to the length of time it took to resolve is unclear, although personally I think it would have been more speedily handled as a series of smaller sub-cases.

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?

Arbiters should always be capable of being impartial in any case that they do not recuse from. This is to not only make sure that the ArbCom is a neutral, impartial body, but also to make sure that it is seen as such.

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?

I do not think that it is a good idea for the ArbCom policy to be developed by the ArbCom itself (although, of course, I have no objection to individual arbs contributing to such policy development in their capacity as interested members of the community). Generally speaking, I think it's healthy and desirable for the community to set the limits and frameworks that ArbCom and other bodies operate under.

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.

If this is a responsibility that the community decides they want to transfer from Jimbo to themselves, then that is fine by me. As far as I am aware, there has not been a discussion where it has been demonstrated that there is a wide consensus to do this.

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?

The ArbCom's current rules are that Jimbo appoints the ArbCom, subject to an advice from the community, which comes in the form of these elections. To date, Jimbo has not made any appointments that are clearly opposed to the will of the community, and I do not expect that he will do so. Obviously, I would be uneasy about someone who clearly does not have community support being appointed, but I do not believe that this will happen.

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?

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.

Ideally, I would like to see it go A, (D|B), C. The ArbCom's whole reason for existance is to serve the community, and I think that at the same time it ought to be answerable to that community for any decisions that it makes. D and B are a rough draw, both coming ahead of the committee itself, which ought not to be a law unto itself, only answering to itself.

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

Question from Davewild[edit]

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, as I believe that the current lengthy term contributes in a major way to the level of burnout that we see in ArbCom. More frequent elections lead to more accountability, a more active committee, and a group more in tune with the desires of the community. With that said, I do not see that the opinions of the existing Arbs should have any special bearing on this, although I will advocate this position as an ordinary editor and concerned member of the community.

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

Questions from roux[edit]

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 would agree with A.2, and strongly disagree with A.1 and A.3 - in the sense that it shouldn't matter if you've made one edit or contributed a million FAs - the rules ought to apply to everyone equally, and that includes the civility rules.

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

I would support B.3, but only weakly. Obviously one-off incidents should not draw a heavy penalty (we all make mistakes from time to time), but I feel that incivil editors, even those who make major content contributions, in the end harm the community by driving other editors elsewhere. I would support blocks for persistently uncivil editors who just don't "get it", regardless of the quality of their contributions.

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

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)[edit]

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)?
It is a good question. Whether I would accept appointment would depend largely on the circumstances surrounding Jimbo's decision not to appoint one of the top candidates, my own position on the list, and so on. With that said, if it is obvious that the community doesn't trust me to be an Arb (say, less than 50% support), I would not accept appointment under any circumstance.

Questions from Lar[edit]

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.
I do not support changing the existing deletion procedure for BLP articles, but at the same time I do support tightening the notability criteria for biographies, so that there are less of these "marginal" cases, and things like BLP1E cases are considered kosher reasons for deletion.
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.
Response to (a) and (b): Question 1 touches on both content and policy. I think it's obvious that there is a problem with BLP, the issue is how to go about it. One camp advocates new rules to make it easier for BLP to be removed, the other advocates stronger enforcement of existing rules to make sure that any BLP is meticulously sourced and cited. I discussed my views on ArbCom creating policy on any topic above, but I am generally uncomfortable with ArbCom making policy in place of the community. The only way that the community's views on BLP should be able to be preempted is when there is a legal issue, and in this case the Foundation itself should step in, not ArbCom.

Response to (c): As I said before, I favour stronger enforcement of existing rules for sourcing, especially on BLPs. Local consensus can be damned here - any statement that is not cited to a reliable source on a BLP should be removed, period. This will of course upset a lot of people and lead to cries of 'deletionism!', but I think it's the only ethical way to proceed from here.
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I'm not sure of the best solution, because straight up and down voting also has problems. I'm not even sure that there is an "optimum" way to govern a project of this size and nature. At this stage, I feel that any move to a different model will need to be mandated by Jimbo and/or the Foundation, as I doubt that the community itself can come to a consensus on reforms that would move towards a new model.
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?
Again, this is a good idea, but there remain problems which I don't think have been sufficiently addressed at this point. I haven't followed the discussion on this topic closely, so I cannot give a more detailed opinion than that. However, I see this as a matter of the community determining policy, and thus outside the remit of ArbCom.
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?
Yes, obviously the availability of anonymity allows editors to be fearless in contributing material that they might not otherwise do if it were associated with their real name.

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?
Obviously, if someone wishes to 'undisclose' their identity, we should do all that we can do help them do that. Unfortunately, given the way the Internet is, this is not going to be a foolproof way to make sure that nobody else is ever going to find you again. People need to be aware of the risks of disclosing their real identity, and realise that once it's out there, it's hard to get it back.

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?
This would depend largely on the circumstances surrounding the case. I see outing only as a problem when it's done with the intention to maliciously intimidate or discredit someone. Based on what you've given me, it might be a problem, or it might not also.

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)
As discussed above, I'm under no illusions that someone would probably work out my real identity if they put a little effort into it. I certainly won't be out there broadcasting it, but if someone wishes to look, they can probably find it.

f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
I don't see it as the role of the WMF to babysit users in this way - it seems to be to be common sense that psuedoanonymity, if someone wants it, cannot be guaranteed. ArbCom can assist in helping here by enforcing sanctions and penalties against those who engage in malicious outing and the like (see my answer to point 'g' also).

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)
This would largely depend on the circumstances surrounding the case, but in general I would take a very dim view of it. With that said, the usual sanctions like blocks and bans would not be as effective in this case as they would for other types of malicious user - since they can always go and continue to post incriminating details offsite (on their own blog, for instance). A community ban would be a good start though.
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?
As in my answer to point (f) in the anonymity questions above, it should be simple common sense that if you work on a large site like this, you might have some unpleasant personal interactions with people.

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.
There is obviously a moral and ethical imperative that WMF should not allow its resources to be used for stalking (or any other criminal activity). I'm not naïve enough to believe that simply blocking stalkers will necessarily stop any stalking activity, but making it harder for them to do so by escorting them off of the project is a start. Note that this obviously only applies if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that a stalking problem actually exists.

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
See point (a) above. We should assist in booting stalking and other antisocial behaviour off of Wikimedia projects, but I think that preemptive actions is going a little too far. Again, there may be some special circumstances that would justify extraordinary actions here.

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.
I would hope that the stalker would have their accounts blocked, and a community ban placed against the person behind the edits, no matter what form the stalking takes. Article protection should also be used if the stalker is manipulating the target's article.

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?
This is one of those things where a reasonable person can see where a line has been crossed. Continual and vexatious 'reviews' by the same editor or groups of editors would be an example of where the line has been crossed, but a good faith review of an editor widely regarded as problematic would not.
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?
Generally, I do not support the "revert all edits" principle unless it can be determined that all of an accounts edits, or a very high proportion of them (90%+) are vandalism. If an edit is good, I see no reason to revert it, no matter who actually made it. With that said, I would not blanket unrevert edits removed in this way without a wide community consensus (or ArbCom decision, or something along those lines) to do so.
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?
Obviously, outside criticism is something that the project has to deal with. Constructive outside criticism is a good thing and something that we should listen to and act upon, rather than dismissing it out of hand. Saying that any criticism from editors must be kept on-wiki strikes me as rather heavy handed.

b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
No, I do not have an outside site which I use to discuss Wikipedia.

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
I occasionally read WR, although I do not post there. In general, I feel that it is a mixture of people with good intentions trying to offer constructive criticism, some people with legitimate grievances against misapplications of policy and procedure here, and a handful of paranoids and trolls who derive entertainment from pushing our buttons, stroking a persecution complex, and looking way too deeply into cases where there is nothing there.

Wikback is something that I was never particularly involved in, although from what I gather its rather onerous registration requirements may have prevented much uptake.

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?
No, I definitely do not think it to be inappropriate. As I said, many of the people who participate on these sites have legitimate criticisms, and listening to them and trying to correct wrongs that have been done is an essential part of remaining open and accountable.

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? )
As mentioned in point (c), no I do not, although I occasionally read said sites.
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)?
Yes, as I feel that a number of editors are allowed to flout the civility rules, on the strength of their continuing useful contributions. The solution is to apply the rules and policies evenly across all users, although in many cases actually making consequences 'stick' to these vested contributions can be tricky.
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
Green. Just because :)

Questions from Heimstern[edit]

Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
I would like the community to be able to be more forthright in issuing broad topic bans and the like for these editors to limit the damage that is done. These edit wars are a very real problem (indeed, as I've said, POV-pushing of all colours is becoming more of a problem as the site moves more towards being seen as credible in the wider community), and ArbCom should not be shy about acting firmly and decisively to put a stop to it. The good news with nationalist edit wars is that as far as I can see most of the activity is concentrated in a few small areas (ie: mostly concerning conflicts in the Balkans area, as well as conflicts in East Asia), so weeding out the troublemakers might not be as problematic a task as it appears. On the other hand, many of these POV-pushers are sadly motivated by ethnic hatreds, fueds and rivalries that are decades, if not centuries old, and it is going to be very difficult for arbcom or the community to turn many of these POV-warriors into productive editors.
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?
The problem with civility restrictions is that the definition of 'civility' can often be slippery. That said, in circumstances where civility has been a problem, I certainly see it as an appropriate sanction, although perhaps some more specific language can be placed around what constitutes a violation and what does not.

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare[edit]

What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
Above 50% support, at a bare minimum.
Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
No, as I alluded to above, I see such a process as an invitation for drama. However, if I become convinced that I have lost the community's trust to continue as an arbitrator, I will voluntarily resign the role.

Questions from UninvitedCompany[edit]

Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
My user page covers at a high level the sort of things I've done and continue to do.
Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
I do not see this as particularly relevant. I have a tertiary degree and work in a professional capacity (including managerial duties, from time to time).
Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
I participate in a number of other communities, none of which are particularly relevant to Wikipedia.
Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
Not applicable.
Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
I do not see any conflicts of interest in my real life views on society, religion, and politics.
Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
As noted above, I have worked in a professional managerial role, I also run my own hobby business as a sideline.
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 covered this above in my answers to Thatcher and Lar.
Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia? What are their user names and their relationships to you?
No.
Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
I occasionally participate in real-life meetups, and contribute actively to the Wikimediaau-l mailing list.
What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
I see my constituency as the community of editors, particularly those who don't want to have to deal with ArbCom drama and would rather just get on with the business of writing an encyclopædia.
What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
Content disputes or disagreements that can be handled elsewhere should be refused. Persistent civility problems, major disruption, misuse of admin/bureaucrat tools and the like should be accepted.
How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
This would depend largely on the nature of the "problematic behaviour" and where it takes place.
What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
Different remedies are most effective in different situations. For instance, article restrictions are good for editors who create trouble on a single talkpage, but perhaps not for Grawp-wannabes.
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?
As I've gone into above, I do not see it as the business of the arbitrators to spearhead change or reform to the committee - I see this as a job for the community.
Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
Off the top of my head, Newyorkbrad. While he's made some errors, he seems to have a level head, he's able to communicate well, and most importantly he can take and respond to constructive criticism. At the same time, he's not soft, and knows when to "crack some heads together".
To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking here. I believe that the committee should obviously only act on solid, verifiable evidence in its deliberations.
What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
I'm more interested in writing an encyclopædia than getting involved in Foundation politics, I have not examined their work and decisions in detail.
To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
The OTRS team does a lot of very menial, very dull, and very important work for the site. I support the work that they do 100%.
Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
Without knowing what the committee has kept confidential in the past, I cannot give an informed opinion here. As a rule, I would make as much information as possible public, keeping user privacy and the like in mind.

Questions from TomasBat[edit]

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 don't see that these two things are in opposition, and I don't believe that an active, good-faith user cannot not benefit the encyclopædia.

Question from MBisanz[edit]

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.
As above, my identity is already out there if you care to find it, thus making outing a non-issue where I am concerned.

Questions from Pixelface[edit]

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?
None.
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?
The only contributions I've made were for matters later declined by the committee. Other than this, the closest I've come is enforcing restrictions related to a closed case.
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).
None.

Questions from Badger Drink[edit]

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?
The two that immediately come to mind are
1. Episodes and characters 2. My main beef here is the horrendously vague and badly thought out temporary injunction that was issued. It was not clear exactly what this applied to - was it only notability cases? Was it alright to delete a fictional character article that was a copyvio, or unverifiable? Was it okay to take such an article to AfD, and only forbidden to actually close it "delete", or was even starting a discussion verboten? What about discussions that were already in progress? How did it apply to DRV cases on applicable articles?
  
  What's worse, is that communication was terrible from the committee in this case, requests for clarification were ignored, delayed, and chaos reigned. AfD got more backed up than a dodgy pub toilet from all the discussions which were just endlessly relisted until we finally got some actual guidance, some of our more enthusiastic inclusionist contributors tried using it as a big stick to bash over the heads of their deletionist foes, and in general, a whole lot of extra work and uncertainty was created for no good reason.
  
  This could all have been avoided by either taking a bit more time to think about the ramifications of the injunction, and if there was still confusion after it had been issued, making clarifications quickly (as in, under 24 hours) so that editors knew exactly where they stood in relation to these articles.
2. The Orangemarlin case was another one. I'm not normally one to use emotive language, but there's really no description other than "secret star chamber-style trial" to describe this fiasco. I don't have any problem with the conclusions that the commitee eventually came to (in fact, I agree 100% with the end result), but someone should at least have the chance to offer a defense, or even know that they are being scrutinised. I respect the need for privacy, but in this situation I would have at least let Orangemarlin know that he was being investigated in relation to his (rather public) actions on the RFA that led to the case being filed.
  
  Another minor quibble that I have with this whole case, which is not substantive but does illustrate I think the poor quality of the communication coming out of ArbCom, is the use of the obscure Latin legal term "nemine contradicente" in the findings and remedies sections. Wiktionary defines this term as "archaic", and I have to admit that I didn't know what it meant, and I'm sure many Wikipedians without a background in law would have been similarly in the dark. What's wrong with just using a nice, simple, clear term like "passed unanimously" or "without dissent"?
What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
See my analysis of this case above.
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?
I think holding a massive combined RFC on these matters is the long way to go, the end result on that page is a hideous mass of words that nobody is going to be able to go through and pick definable conclusions out of. I think that RFC can be a useful tool in fine-tuning the ArbCom, but I think that smaller, more focused RFCs that concentrate upon individual, problematic aspects of the process will be easier to follow and produce better results.

Question from BirgitteSB[edit]

Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases [1]. Which follow slightly clarified:

Have at least two arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence in isolation.
Allow all parties concerned to review at least the portions of the evidence presentations regarding their owns actions before any decision is reached.

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. So I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?--BirgitteSB 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that taking a look at the way such cases are handled is useful, and the process you've suggested has some merit. I suspect that some fine-tuning would be necessary, but these things are rarely perfect first time around.

Questions from Kristen Eriksen[edit]

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

Whether such a source could be considered reasonable for purposes of verifiability depends largely on the nature of the fact being cited, the context of the cite, and the relative merits of the piece (dodgy pieces can sometimes be published in otherwise reliable sources, and vice versa). Merely saying that the journal is reliable because it's published by a reputable company is not good enough, and saying that the journal is inherently unreliable because it covers homeopathy is also too broad for my liking.

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?

The intent of this policy, as I see it, is to make sure that societal rules about what is and is not acceptable are not permitted to trump NPOV. There is much material on Wikipedia that people might find offensive, there is material on Wikipedia that I find offensive. However, if we start going and censoring large swathes of it to prevent people from being offended, then we'll introduce a bias into the project, and suddenly NPOV flies out the window.

With that said, we should be careful to make sure that while we're not censored, we're not dismissive or flippant with people who are offended by something that they see on this site, something that I see from time to time, and which makes me uncomfortable.

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.

Popular opinion does not, and should not, be allowed to dictate what is a "fact". It's fine to state both in an article, as long as it is clear that one of them is a scientifically derived conclusion, and the other is just 'what the layperson thinks'.

Questions From Ϣere Spiel Chequers[edit]

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)?
It's impossible to tell precisely. Every time the Wikipedia Signpost is published, I read the "Report on Lengthy Litigation" and usually peruse new cases, and check back from time to time as they progress. If a case effects me directly, then I usually monitor it a lot more closely.
In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
A great many cases with unanimous or near-unanimous decisions are straight "open and shut" cases, in this case I usually agree with the decision taken. In fact, I struggle to think of any off of the top of my head that I strongly disagree with.
In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
There are usually more contentious, and I often see something either in the principles, findings, or remedies that I disagree with or would like to see tweaked slightly. Very roughly speaking, I'd say about 50% of cases I have some level of disagreement with, and 10% serious disagreement with.
How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
As with all things, it could probably use some adjusting to work better, but I think that it's flexible enough as it is to work acceptably well, if we have active arbs who stay on the ball.

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

Question(s) from LtPowers[edit]

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

I would agree with this assessment. I think the challenge for ArbCom is to be a more open and responsive body, more transparent, and better equipped to deal with arb cases quickly and efficiently. I also think a lot of the problem is that the existing arbs are seen, to an extent, to be 'elites', one only has to look at the many positions that many of them hold apart from their arb seats to see that many of them are 'very important editors' who are out of touch with those who like to come by every couple of days and do a bit of editing here and there.

To get back on topic and answer your question, I think that ArbCom has to do what it has been doing, but better.

Individual questions[edit]

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor[edit]

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'll take the former. Nobody should be above the law, no matter how valuable their contributions, or longstanding their association.
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 legal concept of 'reasonable' is a very vague one, and one that has differing definitions in different jurisdictions. Civility is at times a fuzzy enough concept without basing it upon another fuzzy concept.
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?
I disagree that there is an unlimited supply of potential contributors to any given topic, particularly on obscure subjects, the number of people with the knowledge and the willingness to edit is probably quite limited. With that said, the number of potential contributors is not important, it is the number of actual contributors that matters. In this context, I think that as a last resort a block/ban for an expert contributor can be justified, as the choice is often between blocking that one incivil expert, or losing all the other contributors to the topic who get frustrated with this hypothetical expert's poor behaviour.
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?
If a banned user is editing, but nobody can tell who it is (ie: whatever root cause there was for the banning in the first place is no longer there), I don't see much of a problem with taking a blind eye. I gather that this is largely the general consensus in the community. If whatever reason we had for banning in the first place surfaces again, then the person can have their accounts blocked once more. I don't see a particularly important role for ArbCom in adjudicating such situations (unless there is some doubt over the identity of whoever is being accused of being a banned user), which I think can be better dealt with by the community.
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?
There are already what I feel are quite well defined criteria for whether a case should be accepted at Wikipedia:RFAR/G, among other places. That said, if these criteria can be defined any more clearly, obviously that is something that should be considered.

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]

Questions from Will Beback[edit]

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

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

Yes. A list of my alt-accounts is listed on my user page, and my alt-accounts all link back to User:Lankiveil on some way.

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?

Good humour is, I think, a great way to foster community spirit, and can be a good way to blow off some steam. For this reason, I have no problem with the occasional humourous alt-account being created, so long as it is perfectly clear what it is and who is behind it. On the other hand, except for a few fringe cases, I generally don't see it as appropriate for undisclosed socks to be editing policies or doing any "serious" work, if only because that would seem to open the system up to abuse and fraud.

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?

If anyone had the answer to this question, I suspect it would have been implemented with extreme prejudice a long time ago! Obviously, this is a major problem that is going to soak up a lot of volunteer hours well into the future. I would support things like tougher protection and editing whitelists for persistent problem articles. Flagged revisions might also help here, although I suspect that particularly skilful sockpuppeteers will still find ways around any new protections that we devise. Unfortunately, I think that having these people hanging around haunting the project is a price of the openness from which many of our strengths as a project come from.

Question from harej[edit]

Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what meaning of the word promulgate you were getting at. Enforcing the good times? Yeah, sure. Letting us all know what good times we are in? Well, that sounds rather Orwellian, and I think we all realise what a successful project this has been so far.

Question from Rspeer[edit]

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]

POV/NPOV is sort of a grey area when you get to the notion of scientific topics. I believe that rather than striving for NPOV on such articles, we should strive for fact. If we can get that, then NPOV will take care of itself. Of course, in some cases we're not sure what "fact" actually is, in these cases, we have to fall back on NPOV, by listing all of the likely theories in a fair and impartial manner.

Questions from Ncmvocalist[edit]

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) 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) I don't see how it would be considered 'distinct'.

b) No, if only because I think the drama that could potentially be generated would be dwarfed by the drama that could be generated by letting the case fester.

c) Given what I know, I would probably have voted with the the majority in all of these, bar the desysopping remedy, which I feel is a little too harsh. I would very much have preferred to allow the user to re-apply for adminship through either RFA or through appeal to the committee, as seems to be the usual procedure. As a matter of principle, I would prefer the RFA avenue to remain open in all such cases, if only to give the community a layer of oversight over the arbcom.

d) See (c), I would have proposed an alternate remedy providing for the vanished user to be desysopped, but permitting an 'appeal to RFA'.

Thank you for your honesty and answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Al tally[edit]

Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
I know you'll probably disagree here, but I think that the current procedure is good. One has to remember that checkuser and oversight are quite sensitive tools that could cause serious damage to the credibility of the project in the wrong hands. While the community usually gets it right, there have been exceptions. We don't want a sockmaster or vandal getting their hands on oversight rights, for instance. I feel that the inconvenience of the extra layer of identification and checking is a necessary evil, when viewed in this context.
See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
I think it's important that when the community finds consensus to do so, that it can override the committee. One should keep in mind however, that if something has reached the committee, it's probably because the community can't come to a consensus on it. As far as the community being able to ban users goes, it already has the power, and has done so on many occasions.
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?
It depends on the circumstances of their departure. Former arbs who leave under a cloud or who get voted out - probably not. If the former arb is still held in high esteem by the community at large, I don't see a problem with it though.
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).
As I've gone into above, I see a "Arbitrator Recall" process as an invitation to massive amounts of disruptive drama. In the case of a serious "rogue arb", Jimbo can sack them, which provides one escape valve. As far as I am concerned, I reiterate that if I am elected, but later lose the trust of the community, I will voluntarily resign (and that includes any CU/OS access I may have).

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

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit[edit]

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?
In general, yes. As I've said above, 'civility' is a slippery concept, but I feel that they have helped some users understand that civility is not optional.
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?
If they are acting under an explicit enforcement directive issued by arbcom, that directive is not under dispute, and the action taken is clearly within the spirit and letter of what is permitted, then no. Admin A should be pointed towards the relevant provision, and asked to gain community consensus or arbcom permission before repating the action.

Question from Ling.Nut[edit]

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)} 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that these, especially rules #1 and #2 are probably good concepts for all users (not just admins) to keep in mind while editing, although they should not be universal - Sometimes it will be necessary to hurt someone (ie: blocking vandals, banning POV-pushers, etc) to aid the project. I'm not sure I agree with the third rule, while editor liberty is a good thing generally speaking, Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy, again we should not hesitate to "violate" someone's liberty if it will help the project.

Additional questions from Pixelface[edit]

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
I have no firm opinion, but I think the current number that we have is about right, provided that they all stay active.
How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
I am strongly of the opinion that the current three year term is too long, a shorter term of about a year would lead to less burnout and keep arbs accountable, I suspect. With that said, if the change were to be made to shorter terms, I think that all sitting arbs should be permitted to remain until the end of their current terms, and the new shorter terms should only apply in future elections.
What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
Arbs should remain open, and part of this is listening to all sides of the story, an action that some might characterise as "lobbying". So long as it never gets uncivil or crosses the lines of common sense as far as appropriateness goes, I don't see a problem with it.
Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Yes. Wikipedia is the encyclopædia that anyone can edit. Changes made that are against consensus or the spirit of the project are usually reverted in double quick time anyway, so I don't see that it's a particularly dangerous risk.
Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
In their capacities as ordinary editors and members of the community, yes. If they're flashing their Arb badge around and trying to force change through using the authority of the committee, then that is a problem.
Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?
No. Per my answer to Q4, all policies should be open for anyone to edit. This includes the Arbitration policy. Putting the exclusive power of editing that policy into the hands of only the arbitrators seems to be to be a Very Bad Idea.
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 is not a de jure requirement, but it seems to increasingly be the practice. In some areas, particularly where BLP articles are concerned, I would favour making notability a binding policy. Of course, it is up to the community to decide this, and so far there has not been a consensus for this point of view.
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?
No, not at all. The WMF hosts projects other than Wikipedia, and information that is not suitable for Wikipedia can in many places be put there. Together, we can aspire to enable the WMF projects to collectively contain the sum of all human knowledge, and that doesn't clash with particular content requirements that we put in place on this facet of the project.
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?
Depends on the situation. Is the reason for deletion valid? What do the articles look like? Why has no RFC been filed? I would say that if they are clearly bad-faith nominations with no basis in policy and no hope of a "Delete" conclusion being reached, then it's a behavioural dispute. The Arbcom shouldn't need to be involved with this, in one similar case I was recently involved in, the perpetrator was quietly and quickly community banned within a couple of days. Otherwise, the correct course of action and whether I would vote to accept the case would likely depend on the circumstances surrounding it.
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?
Gosh, what a mess. I'd say it's a heady mix of content and behavioural dispute, and given that the community is evidently split and unable to reach a consensus on the matter, I would vote to accept the case, provided that only the conduct of everyone involved is examined and not the appropriateness of asteroid articles. Personally, I think that using automated tools to create huge numbers of AfD discussions is disruptive and I would take a very dim view of the first editor based upon that.
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 see why employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia should be obliged to disclose their affiliation on Wikipedia. After all, we don't make shareholders or employees of other companies declare such things, even though there is a potential for a conflict of interest, which is what I think you're getting at. Does Jimbo or the Arbcom have the power to do so? Probably for employees of Wikia, Jimbo would have the power (he can just sack them, after all), but otherwise no. I would be against forcing people to disclose this information, unless there is a clear editing problem (a user making pro-Wikia edits on the Wikia article, for instance), that would mandate such an intrusion of privacy.

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]