(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]

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

Ultraexactzz [answered][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?

"Thoughtful".

James F. (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy [answered][edit]

a/s/l?
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.
What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
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.
Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?

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

I'm 25, male, and am from London in the UK.
I regret that it is seen by some as a "divide", rather than the natural and expected balance between people of different strengths, aptitudes, and interests; we cannot create the best encyclopædia without engaging the full spectrum of people.
The concept, as I understand it, is that banned users' contributions are inherently suspicious, so all edits should be purged; individual edits, if found on careful inspection to be fine by a user in good standing, are welcome to be reinstated in the name of the reviewer. This is obviously a sensible course of action to take if someone is banned for inserting falsehoods into articles, maliciously or otherwise; I'm not sure it's as clear-cut in other examples of community bans.
My voting record speaks to my opinions on the various cases we've had this year, including where I've dissented from the passing opinion of the Committee, proposed alternatives, and made 'orbiter dicta' on the handling; I'm not sure what else I can say.
I'm afraid I do not really keep a mental catalogue of my actions, inputs, or creations, and certainly do not rank them in any real way, but were I to pick a few that come to mind immediately: the shaded maps of the 3000-odd counties of the United States which I did, by hand, along with Wapcaplet; the promulgation and acceptance of the use of a standard article structure, naming system, and of succession boxes for biographies of Peers; helping to start up the Wikimedia Commons project, which seems to have worked reasonably albeit imperfectly; helping out with the four Wikimania conferences so far, which have encouraged much activity and sharing of best-practice; and, I suppose, the Arbitration Committee's formation and helping steer it over its course so far. Not sure if this is what you meant, and happy to expand further if it would be helpful.
No. I have argued before, at some length, that voting by prospective, current, and even former Arbitrators is inappropriate, as it at best makes no difference, as the community choose with sufficient care that my input is unnecessary, and provides many opportunities for disruption both within and outwith the subsequent Committee make-up, and justifiable accusations of an appearance of "cabalism" if people recommended by Arbitrators get appointed. On a personal level, it is also immensely distasteful to me for people to vote in an election with a potential impact of their elevation.

James F. (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasticidealist [answered][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?
What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
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 echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.

In the sense of 'policy' as the words written at a particular page at a particular point in time, limited. In the wider sense of the ethos of the entire Wikimedia movement - all of our policies have logical bases that can be seen to stem from our philosophies and exigencies - then certainly, I would like to think that that is something in which we all share and is a code by which we all judge ourselves. Of course, some don't, which is where the Dispute Resolution system, with Arbitration at its conclusion, comes in.
Well, it is generally very helpful, providing a sounding-board and helpful neutral observations - even amongst 15 Arbitrators there are times when not all routes are obvious to us - without compromising the confidentiality of the process.
I think this is a mistake (as I think, indeed, is the entire current practice of "recall"); it is open to, and often subject to, abuse, it bypasses community norms of AGF and consensus, and I find that it ends up being not only unhelpful but actively counter-productive, disrupting the wiki without significant benefit. When people come to me stating concerns about my actions, I enter into a dialogue with them to attempt to establish a consensus solution if at all possible, and were I to come to the conclusion that my continuing presence on the Committee (or any other position) was damaging to the long-term interests of the project and, ultimately, our 'customers', I expect that I would stand down.

James F. (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celarnor [answered][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")?
What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

I'm not sure what 'limits' means here; I don't think the Committee should make such remedies unless there's a really good reason, and not just a question of lacking any other ideas. However, from the other 'end', I don't think the community should support widely-cast remedies (or any other kind) if the Committee errs - though, of course, we should not be too quick to condemn, as the Committee is often aware of more information than can or should be made publicly available.
I would say that most of the obligations on Arbitrators are inherent rather than explicit. The Arbitration policy is written to explain how the Committee operates, rather than state all of the obligations, duties, and expectations that the community - and the Committee itself - would and should require of them.

James F. (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU [answered][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]

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

I would hope that we have been and are seen to take any allegations of inappropriate use of sysop privileges seriously. As I think that it is unlikely that the wider community will wish to take a more active role in user conduct disputes involving sysops, I foresee it continuing to be a substantial part of the Committee's workload.

James F. (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo [answered][edit]

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

About as many as I currently do - that is, between 5 and 15, with the occasional spike up to 20+.

James F. (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD [answered][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?

Generally, sysops should take account of the individual and the context before blocking them; I generally find it rare that a good faith member of our community actually needs to be blocked, and doing so often damages the strategic interests of the project. In this hypothetical situation, sysops are to some extent a 'special case' because they should be held up to a greater standard than regular editors - they have, after all, been granted a position of trust, and should comport themselves appropriately, though I would highlight that blocking any established user, regardless of their "privs", is something which should be done only carefully and, if at all possible, with at least informal discussion beforehand. Thus, 'yes', 'yes', and 'not applicable'.
As above, 'yes', 'if it benefits the project', and 'not applicable'.

James F. (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight [answered][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]
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?

As you want specific examples, my record has some examples (though I don't have a list to hand). I don't foresee myself recusing in future based on subject matter. I would imagine that I would consider recusing if a matter came up between the enwiki community and the Foundation or the wider Wikimedia community/communities, or with specific individuals who have been my friends or close colleagues from and around the "communities" of the Arbitration Committee, the Foundation, Wikimedia UK, Wikimania planning, and other similar micro-communities with whom, or within which, I've worked. An exhaustive list probably wouldn't be of much help, and would take quite some time to produce. There are also real-world examples of conflicts of interest, as well as situations with an appearance of a conflict of interest, even though it does not have effect.
Calling people 'racist' is neither appropriate nor helpful to building a better encyclopædia. Certainly, attention should be drawn if someone appears to be pushing a racist POV (as with any POV), but assigning characterisation can in some cases - this being a clear one of them - be a personal attack, and thus is prohibited.

James F. (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher [answered][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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

In sub-sections:
A: Right call. Better for the project at large to avoid drama.

B: I would recommend option "(b)", but I would not expect this to be followed if there is felt to be an emergency.

C: First, though bans are on the individual, not the account, I would be more than happy for someone previously banned to return silently, being a model user; it's rare to the point of abstraction, but that doesn't mean it's not a worthy intent. On the off-wiki harassment, I have rather stronger views than many others on the Committee both now and in the past on this matter (I don't think it becoming of a user to try to export user disputes from Wikipedia elsewhere), but I think that a judgement would have to be taken as to whether it is likely to remain contained.
This is generally contextual; although transparency is a worthy aim, it can sometimes weaken the Committee's line, and make those we are seeking to reform confused about the level of seriousness with which we are treating them; in this way, it can both weaken our credibility and impair our functioning (but this is not, and should not be, our only concern). OTOH, it can send a strong message to the individual, over and above the impact of the third-way, middle-of-the-road ruling. As to what to do if neither set pass, the third way is generally a better option than letting the case close unresolved. I'm aware that this is not a real answer to your question, however.
As can be observed, I've taken the route of near-negligible "proper" contributions for the past five years. I know that this has opened me up to criticism that I'm not a "proper editor" any more (and haven't been for five years, indeed); if so, so be it. I feel my contributions through my service on the Committee have been valuable over the years, and I was never much of an article writer, anyway. :-)
Yes; N/A; N/A.

James F. (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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?

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.

Mailer Diablo [answered][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?

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?

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

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?

Stable versions. Easy answer, given I've been banging the drum for years. :-)
Not as a Committee; obviously individuals who happen to be members of the Committee quite rightly (as senior and highly-visible editors) should involve themselves in the discussions both of specific policies and the tenor of community management that frequently take place around enwiki.
I recuse from questions relating to IRC, because of my dual rôle here; in particular, I'm not sure it would be helpful to speculate on with what longer-term solutions the IRC community might come up.
In your country, not mine. :-) However... yes, I do believe that the Committee should (and will) continue to evolve; I would continue to undertake this task gradually, with consensus, and based on evidence and experimentation of what works better or worse. As to trusting that I will do as I have done in the past, I can offer no guarantees, merely request the community's trust - which is what this election is all about in the first place, after all.

James F. (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?
a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
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)
Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
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?
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?
a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
(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?

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

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?
What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
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)?

rootology [answered][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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

I think it was necessary, even in the light of the ensnarlment that it encouraged in the Committee (along with several other factors). As the Arbitrator who initially suggested this bundling, I suppose it is in a large way my fault. However, the matters were inextricable and I felt that to do justice to them, and so for the community, we had to act on them in a concerted fashion. I still think it is too early to tell as to whether the result will be judged helpful on balance, but I hope it will be seen as such.
The Arbitrator in question was, of course, me. I'm not sure what further comment I can usefully give; I absolutely regret the concern raised through my being as honest as I was, and would chose to express my concerns differently if I were faced with the same situation again, but I cannot withdraw my edits in any meaningful way, so they remain.
We as a community lack a proper process for governing what one might call "constitutional" policy; until such time as we can deal appropriately with such major changes, I think it appropriate to have a sanity-check on them. I don't see this as in conflict with the general concept of the community being at the core of the concept of Arbitration, though I can wholly understand that it may not feel like that from outside the 'bubble'. In the end, it's about our readership, and serving them.
The work done by the enwiki ArbCom differs markedly from that of other wikis, and so that read-across isn't as absolute as implied; nevertheless, it is certainly something to which I believe we will trend. Currently, however, especially as the fluidity of the enwiki community seems to be somewhat greater, some level of bicamerality is a beneficial moderation on our process.
I do not think that elections will always create perfect results, but I believe that they are (for now, at least) necessary to ensure that the community is engaged with the Committee and feels a sense of ownership of our decisions; the Committee must absolutely avoid being seen to be something outside of the community. In short, "no".
"The Committee must at all times consider foremost the needs of Wikipedia's readers."
I believe that the ultimate responsibility of those on the Committee is to the readership of Wikipedia, both now and in the future; however, within the confines of your question, my order would be "ACBD".

James F. (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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)?

Lar[edit]

Note: 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.

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.
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.
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?
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?
Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

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

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

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

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

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

g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

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

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

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

e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
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?
What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

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

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

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

e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
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)?
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

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?
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?

User:NuclearWarfare[edit]

What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?

UninvitedCompany[edit]

Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
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?
Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
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?
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?
Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
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?
Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?

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?)

MBisanz [answered][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.

Duly ignored. :-)

James F. (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?
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?
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).

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?
What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
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?

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]

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.

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?

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.

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)?
In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?

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

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]

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?
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?
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?
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?
Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR. All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests. Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use? If so, what should those be?

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

Will Beback [answered][edit]

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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?

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?

Yes; my secondary accounts are all disclosed to the Committee.
No - there are plenty of ways of having fun (and, indeed, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point) without also abusing the user accounts system; multiple accounts should not be used in a way that achieves multiple enfranchisement (in much the same way as elections), but if there are reasonable grounds to have a second account, I cannot find a solid reason to prevent it (though I would personally find it bizarre to attempt such a thing); and I'm not sure that the two statements are incompatible ("with care in limited circumstances" doesn't necessarily mean sparingly).
If people return, they do so because they believe that they can out-wit us (which happens, occasionally for a non-trivial period), because they a trolling and are actively seeking being blocked or banned (as they "push the envelope"), or because they honestly believe that they are making the encyclopædia a better place, and that their blocker(s)/banner(s) is/are in the wrong. Thus, to my mind, the solutions should be tailored to these three groups: for the first, we should develop more sophisticated detection regimes; for the second, remove some of the "intrigue" - this is covered in part by better detection, but also in reducing the drama caused by not reacting so strongly; and finally, for the third, we need to engage with them to explain why they are blocked or banned, rather than resort to pressing buttons, and so potentially transform their erstwhile negative behaviours into ones that are positive for the project (or, perhaps, convincing them that they don't need to keep trying).

James F. (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions[edit]

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

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.

There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?
(Not salient for arbitrators seeking re-election)
Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.
a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?
b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?
(Not salient for arbitrators seeking re-election - user evidences durability)
Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?
If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)
How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?

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

Questions from Shoemaker's Holiday[edit]

Arbcom, to some extent, is largely only accountable to itself, as no real procedures exist to overturn its decisions except that Jimbo may repeal things if Arbcom goes truly badly wrong. I think, therefore, that there are two main questions I'd like to ask of a sitting arbitrator:

Can you comment on the recent Arbcom RFC, and how you feel the concerns addressed should be dealt with by the arbcom?
Can you give examples of when you have taken a principled stand against others in the committee? (As the Arbcom is self-regulating, the independence of the sitting arbitrators is important)

Thank you. I do think you have a lot to offer us, but, given the problems raised with Arbcom of late, I think it's important that any sitting arbitrator seeking re-election should have good answers to those questions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is one recent action I'd be remiss not to ask you about: On Wikipedia:RFAR#Motion_of_clarification_in_the_Tobias_Conradi_case, An arbitrator proposed to implement a new ruling on a year-old case, instead of simply editing policy or guidelines related to it. While the suggested ruling is well-written, why could this not be implemented through the standard community processes of editing WP:USER? Obviously, good reasons may exist, but, importantly, they are not detailed there. Is there a way you could improve the transparency of such a vote, for instance, by providing evidence of the ruling being abused? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGK [answered][edit]

You've been on the Committee for well-nigh five years. Do you not believe a fresh perspective and a new, energetic Arbitrator would be a more positive addition to the Committee this year? If not, why not (alternative: what can you offer that a "newbie" Arbitrator could not)? Good luck with your candidacy! AGK 17:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the community is best served by a Committee with a spectrum of experiences and points of view on the various topics that surround our community, so that the widest range of responses is considered appropriately. Having helped to create Arbitration, I suppose I offer more of a reflective position to the discussions, both around individual cases and also on meta-issues like evolving and reforming the Committee to better serve the community. I do not see the inputs of "new" and "old" ("seasoned"?) in competition at all, but instead as each complementing the other.

James F. (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi [answered][edit]

No burnout after five years? (thank you, btw for the commitment and effort)
What are the three most important things you have you learned in these years, and what you would do different in the next years if re-elected?

Wishing you good luck with your nomination. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - I find it just as important and exhilarating now as I did in 2003. I suppose you could argue that I began "burnt out" and so my activity level hasn't gone up or down. :-)
This is a difficult one. One of the most important things is about how badly we as a community have failed at "enculturation", and I think that's the root cause of many of our problems - of the rise in factionalism verging on politicisation, and the massive change in tone around community "hierarchy" factors, pushed along the lines of RickK's infamous shield-and-sword confrontationalism. Along with that is the great benefit that meeting people in person - wikimeets, Wikimania, other conferences, the various "Foundation"-like things, and just social hanging-out - has in making it easier to achieve things quickly and well, and is something we would encourage, so I would probably try to arrange for the Committee (or at the very least, a large number of them) to meet up in person. Finally, we do need to devolve some of our processes to a more transparent, community-led bodies - the mooted idea of a Ban Review group, for example.

James F. (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jc37 [answered][edit]

I'm only asking this of User:Jdforrester and User:Charles Matthews, as I think you're the only two returning candidates. (Not sure what to make of bishzilla's candidacy).

(Note that any candidate is welcome to copy this question to their questions page, and answer it.)

What's your feeling about reducing term length to 2 year terms? - jc37 11:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the logic of reducing term lengths, but I'm afraid that it's based on a pair of faulty premises - that people burn out because of the length of service, and that time spent on the Committee warps one's viewpoint. The disadvantages of rapid change in the Committee (process familiarisation, mutual understanding, corporate knowledge and familiarity, experience of the wide range of our work) are numerous and significant. I thus reject the idea that shorter term lengths would be a good thing. Having said that, I do think that individual Committee members have a duty to consider each year (indeed, more frequently) whether to stand down, if they find themselves unable to shoulder the burden of work in time, judgement, or emotional cost, or think it very likely that they would be so encumbered in the coming period.

James F. (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.K. [answered][edit]

What is your opinion towards rotation in the Committee? Positive and negative sides of it. M.K. (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'rotation' here. If you mean enforced term limits (so the community it's allowed to decide that it wants someone to serve a second, or third, or whateverth, time), I would oppose them - the election is a community process, and we should let the community decide to as great an extent as possible.

James F. (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sarcasticidealist[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV was opened May 16, at which time you were listed as an arbitrator active on the case [3]. Unless I am very much mistaken, you continued to be listed as an active arbitrator throughout the case's duration. My questions:
1. Despite a general consensus on the Workshop and Evidence pages that the time was ripe for a proposed decision, nothing was added to the proposed decision page until July 9 [4]. What were you doing during that time to advance the case?
2. The motion added July 9 was not a proposed decision, but a motion to dismiss the case. It remained live from July 9 until August 16, when it was withdrawn [5]. During that time, despite enormous consternation on the talk page, only one arbitrator (User:Morven) voted on the proposal and no further proposals were forthcoming. Why did you not vote on the motion at any point during the thirty-eight days that it was live?
3. In your view, was the time taken on to close this case (with more than three months elapsing between the case being opened and a proposed decision being presented) appropriate? If not, what should the Arbitration Committee have done differently in order to expedite matters? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

someone [answered][edit]

Why rôle? Do you think this gives us any insight into your character?

At a first approximation, it suggests that I'm detail-focussed, occasionally fussy, and speak British English. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano [answered][edit]

You profess to own IRC#admins which many editors feel is one of the most singularly divisive aspects of Wikipedia.

What purpose do you serve on Wikipedia.

Do you intend to change your behaviour or carry on as before?

Will you accept to be appointed by Jimbo even if voting indicates that is not the will of the majority, by the majority I mean voting editors not voting by IRC Admins.? Giano (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a brief correction, I do not "profess to own"; I am one of the two Group Contacts for all Wikimedia-related IRC channels. Although #wikipedia-en-admins is important to the English Wikipedia, it is but one of several hundred channels of which I am ultimately "in charge"; I do not have any involvement in its day-to-day management

To the content, I serve as an occasional originator, updater, and copy-editor of articles in a range of topics, though mostly related to modern British government; to the project, I serve as an advisor, analyst, lobbyist, and activist to improve our guidelines, policies, processes, to enable more people to do the content creation, and do it better; and finally, to the project's community, I have until now served as a counsellor, reformer, and judge, the better to support the first two activities - it is for this last that I see re-election. I also have wider purposes outside of enwiki itself, but these are irrelevant here except inasmuch as they distract me from the encyclopædia, the creation and maintenance of which should be the focus of everyone.
I would hope that I will continue to learn from my actions, and thus improve; I cannot in good faith promise that I will be seen to be "better" in the eyes of any individual observer, however. If you mean to ask as to whether I will continue with my IRC GC, then the answer is yes, until such time as I can arrange an appropriate transition to a more long-term solution.
I do not accept your world view that people can be easily delineated into those of worth and those without (though I will refuse to make the obvious parallel to real-world events), so I choose not to answer this question.

James F. (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well not to worry James, it is most unlikely you will be re-elected, so it rather depends on Jimbo's mood of the morning for you, doesn't it? Giano (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 [replied][edit]

How do you feel about the way Jpgordon treated John Vandenburg [6] during the recent ArbCom case I was a party to? Did JP do or say the right thing? How would you have handled it? Cla68 (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were errors of escalation on both sides (the block was unnecessary, the subsequent intemperate exchange neither helpful nor particularly appropriate to take place in public); in general, I would expect such discussion to be calmer and less personal, though I can't say for certain if I'd have acted differently in the circumstances - I wasn't there, and hindsight is always much easier.

James F. (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from harej [looks like you got one more to reply to][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 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Privatemusings [answered][edit]

Hi James - I was going to swing by your talk page, but figured that this question may be of interest in general terms to the arbcom electorate....

Would you cede your 'group contact' status to a foundation staffer if the WMF asked you to?

this is a pretty easy one? Hoping to get a response before voting starts. No activity here for several days. :-( Privatemusings (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have to consider whether it would be in the best interests of the IRC communities (with whom my duty lies), but I imagine that, barring the WMF going completely mental, this would be a relatively easy choice to make - the burden of GC-ship is one I would be more than happy to give up to an appropriate person or body, but I have yet to find such a one (at least, one who is sufficiently insane to take it on).

(Sorry for the delay; thought I had answered this, but evidently hadn't.)

James F. (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al tally [answered][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.
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).
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?
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).

Good luck with the election! Al Tally ^talk 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick note, I'll try to answer these in a useful way and ignore the tone and near-trolling, but I'd suggest that this behaviour isn't helpful for the project.

I think the system we've moved to now, with community suggestions and confirmations, but Committee involvement to make the final call (as we bear the responsibility), and take into account anything that may be inappropriate to splash for everyone to see forever on the 6th-largest website in the world, is a good balance. I'd note that your post-amble to this question is wrong - Poetlister/Cato as a CU on enwikiquote is a precise example of why we think it's better to have a safety-valve approach.
ArbCom decisions are, and always have been, advisory to the community, and the community could decide to depose ArbCom and put in place a different system. I would of course welcome efforts to fix any and all community structural problems as they come up, including such action, if it's in the best interests of the encyclopædia.
There are four errors in this one question, all of which undermine the question's basis: resignation is not necessarily due to lack of interest; some Arbitrators don't resign, but fail to be re-elected; even if they are "uninterested" in cases, that doesn't mean that they can't be valuable in other ways; and finally, those who resign due to a lack of time to carry out functions can still advise, or undertake work on our non-case duties, especially if the original time constriction has passed. In short, "no". As to the personal follow-up, I would seek the counsel of the Committee as to whether they wished me to continue, but also judge whether or not I could give sufficient time to be a useful input for the project. As an aside, the tone of this question in particular suggests that you consider OS, CU, and arbcom-l access to be trinkets of power, which troubles me greatly; they are, all three, very serious positions of trust, and should never be considered lightly.
Jimmy remains the ultimate authority of the Committee, able to dismiss Arbitrators (we serve at his pleasure). The Foundation's Ombudsman takes into consideration violations of their privacy policy. Both of these are good places to go if you have serious concerns, and have exhausted the normal route of consensus and discussion.

James F. (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)} 15:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Pixelface[edit]

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?
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"?
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?
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?
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?
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?

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General questions[edit]

Ultraexactzz [answered][edit]

Giggy [answered][edit]

Sarcasticidealist [answered][edit]

Celarnor [answered][edit]

LessHeard vanU [answered][edit]

Carnildo [answered][edit]

WilyD [answered][edit]

PhilKnight [answered][edit]

Thatcher [answered][edit]

Newyorkbrad[edit]

Mailer Diablo [answered][edit]

Rschen7754[edit]

Maxim[edit]

rootology [answered][edit]

Davewild[edit]

roux[edit]

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

Lar[edit]

Heimstern[edit]

User:NuclearWarfare[edit]

UninvitedCompany[edit]

TomasBat[edit]

MBisanz [answered][edit]

Pixelface[edit]

Badger Drink[edit]

BirgitteSB[edit]

Kristen Eriksen[edit]

ϢereSpielChequers[edit]

LtPowers[edit]

User:The Land Surveyor[edit]

Will Beback [answered][edit]

Individual questions[edit]

Questions from FT2[edit]

Questions from Shoemaker's Holiday[edit]

AGK [answered][edit]

Jossi [answered][edit]

jc37 [answered][edit]

M.K. [answered][edit]

Questions from Sarcasticidealist[edit]

someone [answered][edit]

Giano [answered][edit]

Cla68 [replied][edit]

Question from harej [looks like you got one more to reply to][edit]

Question from Rspeer[edit]

Privatemusings [answered][edit]

Al tally [answered][edit]

Question from Ling.Nut[edit]

Additional questions from Pixelface[edit]

Ϣere Spiel Chequers[edit]