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]

General Questions submitted by the users indicated. For more information, please see the guidelines posted here.

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?
Decisive. lifebaka++ 18:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Giggy[edit]

a/s/l?
I prefer not to disclose my age, but I am probably the youngest candidate/Male/Upstate New York
You are over 18, of course? Giggy (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am able to run in this election. I wouldn't waste the community's time (in this particular way) if I wasn't. lifebaka++ 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Being one of the latter, I can say I very much understand that there is in fact a divide. Usually I don't think it's much more than that we can't understand one another. I mean, I'm not that much good at writing encyclopedic prose, but I'm good at the work I do, so I can't identify with editors who work primarily at writing articles. So long as editors realize this difference, there shouldn't be too much of an issue. If and when it is an issue, an easy way to deal with it would be to ask the two users to leave each other alone. They work in different areas, so they shouldn't run into each other that often. If they can't, harder measures are in order to avoid disruption, but both types of editors are required for the smooth running of the encyclopedia.
What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?
While I know why we revert all contributions of banned users, it would help to have some sort of system where useful edits can be OK'd by another user instead of reverted, to avoid forcing another editor to come in and make the same change.
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.
~~Give me a day or two for research, pwetty pwease?~~
Dear lord, if only I'd know what I'd gotten myself into. Badger Drink asked for two below (#Questions from Badger Drink), so please see the answer there. lifebaka++ 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
Oh, hell if I know. I haven't done anything spectacular in the mainspace, and pretty much all my project space work that's spectacular was just high-profile DRVs and such. One thing I am proud of is the work I did designing the current Template:Newdelrev and writing Template:Drvlinks, though I've still got some kinks to work out in the former.
Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
Yeah, I plan to. Some of the other candidates are very much qualified, and given the size of the voter pool my vote isn't negligible. Of the other candidates, I'd like to see the best win. lifebaka++ 18:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Certain parts are. Some have been forced on the community by outside groups, such as the Wikimedia Foundation; for example, the pillars and consensus. Others are binding by fiat. That is, they're such longstanding community norms that they're pretty much set in stone now (in intent, certainly not in wording), such as verifiability. Pretty much all the other ones are written by the community, as there's consensus for it, and consensus is liable to change sometimes. Of course, exceptions can always be made, if you've got a damn fine reason.
What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, the experience and knowledge of former Arbs is a powerful resource to the current ArbCom. On the other, there will be times when the Committee needs to conduct business completely in private, and having a nice email list would be helpful for this. I can't think of any good solutions to this, unfortunately, but I've only spent a few minutes on it.
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?
If people really think I'm doing a bad job, and I get enough people asking me in good faith to stop down, I will. But, unlike other recall things, this would be entirely subjective. As an Arbitrator, it would be far too easy for me to make enemies, and any formal system is too easily gamed. Likely, if I'm really doing that bad of a job I would know it myself and step down without too much prompting. lifebaka++ 18:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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")?
If it's got nothing to do with the case it's made about, I'm pretty sure the community wouldn't let it fly. Thus far we've been pretty tacit about it as long as it seems reasonably connected to the case. I don't plan on supporting any myself unless it's clearly necessary, however, as it's not what ArbCom is supposed to be doing by the policy (insofar as the policy stays the same). I don't generally presume I know better than the community, except when I do.
What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
Arbitration should be as quick and painless for those involved as possible. Granted, it's very limited how quick and painless it can be, given the high profile of a lot of cases, but the attempt should be made to minimize drahamahz. Of course, I consider that my obligation as an admin and editor in general as well. Other than that, what dispute resolution is supposed to do is get rid of disputes that disrupt the work on the mainspace (directly or indirectly), and I'd try to remember that as an Arb. lifebaka++ 18:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Assuming there's some legitimate abuse of admin powers going on (rather than a lot of the trash accusations that get put on ANI and the like), yes. No guarantees on the results of such cases, though.

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?
It's been my experience that I can put a lot of time into something if I really want to. I should have four of five weeknights open every week, and will be available most weekends, so I'd guesstimate somewhere upwards of 25 hours a week, on average. I'll be able to put in more most of the time, but there will be times where I'm busy in my real life and won't be as active.

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?
Admins are supposed to just be editors with some special tools. Of course, due to the nature of RFA, they're also very much trusted users. So, I'd cut them some slack, as they should quickly understand that whatever they did was wrong, but I'm perfectly willing to block another admin over editing issues.
Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when? If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
I'd be far more hesitant to block in these cases. If the misuse is serious enough, an immediate block is certainly warranted (unprotecting the main page, deleting all ArbCom cases, etc.). For lesser forms of misuse, first a warning should be issued, and then I'd rather see a community discussion before blocks are issued. Same with continued extremely minor abuses, warnings then a discussion. As an arbitrator, I'd really still rather see the community itself make these decisions. RFA is a community process, so why isn't desysoping?

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]
Not too much, really. Probably anything involving the Magic: The Gathering WikiProject, as I used to be involved there, or anything that names one of the current DRV regulars as a party, as I respect most of those editors and I'm probably biased towards them. Other than that, the schools I've attended or companies I've worked for. I'd rather not give the exact names of the schools or companies, for privacy reasons, and I doubt any of them would end up in arbitration anyways.
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?
First, let me say that it depends slightly on what "describes them as racist" means. Both "You're a racist!" and "Your view seems to be scientific racism." could easily be termed "describ[ing] them as racist", but there's a bit of a difference. I'm going to assume something in between, as the former is clearly a personal attack and I doubt anyone would outright block for the latter. Probably something like "You're pushing a scientific racist viewpoint. Stop it."

Something like that, while sort of harsh, is reasonable to say if true. I'd leave the blocked user a note on their talk page, and start talking with the blocking admin to see if I could get it cleared up. Hopefully, it could be resolved to end with just a warning to the blocked user to avoid blunt language (so that other accidental blocks won't happen). lifebaka++ 01:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Probably the right call. There's no technical reason why the admin would've been forced to take a hiatus on our end, as the block as Anon only and all admins are IP block exempt anyways. So, it's more likely there's something going on in the admins real life (I know, real things aren't on the internet? Who knew?) that prevented xer from editing for a few days. Unless the same vandalism starts from a different IP, which also has the admin on it, chalk it up to coincidence and move on, there's no point trying to view the situation through a crystal ball.

No, the type of vandalism shouldn't matter, as long as there's no indication the admin account itself is involved.

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

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

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

(c) Write your own answer.

I'd probably go with (b), but for a different reason. It's best to have another set of eyes on it to make sure the user in question does in fact appear to be a banned user. All too often we, as humans, see what we want to see instead of what's there, and it's best to make sure a check is necessary to avoid any seeming fishing. (Did I accidentally pick (c)?)

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?

Don't unban him. Clearly Smith hasn't learned to leave Jones alone except where it suits him, and it would be a stupid to set a precedent to allow off-wiki attacks without on-wiki consequences.

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?

A middle-of-the-road solution is best, specifically because of the chance that the mild and severe remedies are less likely to have a majority. I would like to see a public discussion about exactly where this "middle" remedy should lie, however. Disagreement between Arbs shouldn't damage the Committee's image, because it's patently obvious that people don't always agree. Expecting this particular subset of "people" to be any different would be whimsical thinking. Beyond which, it is not as much whether or not Arbs agree that forms the Committee's image, but more so the remedies issued and the general responsiveness of the Committee.

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Wikipedia they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?

I'm planning on giving cases a high priority in my on-wiki work. The stuff I do now can survive just fine without me. If anything I opt out of resolves in a way I don't like, I'll be in the same boat as everyone else. I can bitch, whine, and moan all I like, but in the end if I can't convince the rest of the committee to change their mind, I'll just have to live with it.

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?

I haven't done so explicitly on-wiki, nor to I plan to ever fully reveal my identity except to the Foundation (and then only if I'm elected). There is nothing in any policy which requires me to reveal my identity publicly. Basically all that can be found on the internet is my name, which could have been found in some stuff I posted to the mailing list or connected to some of the accounts I've created for other websites. Since there's no point forcing anyone to do that search, it's Jonathan Hughes (feel free to use it, but it might take me a moment to figure out you're talking to me).

If my identity is somehow leaked publicly, I'm gonna' be pretty damn pissed. So, supposing I find out who did it, I'd have to recuse myself from any cases involving them. lifebaka++ 00:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 should be able to do A, B, the first part of C (new requests), and often E just fine right now. The second half of C (prior decisions), D, and some of E would require me to do research before answering (possibly with someone pointing me at relatively hidden bits), but after that I'll be capable. F I don't consider myself capable of, and as such I don't plan on requesting Checkuser access.

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?

Neither of them really changes all that much from the current. With yours, I like the explicit text which states ArbCom does not create policy. From FT2's, I like the text on elections and the explicit explanation of how the policy itself can be changed (which I find reasonable; though I would like the community to have full input, it's not at all likely to actually happen any more than currently happens in this election). Stick 'em all into one draft, and you've got my support (inasmuch as it counts, of course). All of the other changes I'm neutral on.

Nothing else I'd want immediately springs to mind. FT2's covers the two major unresolved issues, and between the two of them they cover most of the issues the community seems to have with arbitration (responsiveness, speed, changing/creating policies).

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.

There're a few reasons why the overall case-load is lower that I can see. First, I think a lot of editors don't have faith that the Committee will be able to solve their problems fast enough for them, partly because arbitration can sometimes take a long time, and partly because people want results five minutes ago. There's only so much the Committee can do about this, unfortunately, as arbitration necessarily does take a while.

Second, quite a few editors don't like the Committee. Some have been sanctioned by it, some have had issues with current Arbitrators, some are frustrated at issues with the Committee (whether such issues be real or not), and likely most I couldn't guess the reasons for. These users are less likely to request arbitration. Alienation of users is a real problem the Committee appears to be having, though I am unsure what can be done about it. The Committee will take actions some won't like, Arbs will make enemies, and it's impossible to please everyone.

Third, there are only a finite number of possible cases. In going-on-four years, the Committee has likely already dealt with most of them, leaving fewer and more recent ones.

Overall, this isn't a good or a bad thing, though some of the causes may be. It's just a thing. lifebaka++ 02:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Well, most of the things I really have issue with aren't policies or guidelines themselves, as written, but rather how the community enforces or interprets them. Our policies are there for good reason, and completely removing most of them would screw something up. So, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. It's pretty ineffectual as is, and [{WP:AFD|AfD]] can take the extra 1000 articles a month or so (bringing it up to around 5000 articles a month).

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?

In general, ArbCom doesn't write policy. The community does. So, as editors, Arbs are certainly able to create, amend, or abolish policy as much as the rest of us (or a bit more, as they're very trusted editors). But until and unless the community lets it, the Committee doesn't have binding power over most policy.

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

Yes, but only as far as the rest of the internet is. That is, off-site attacks are not acceptable. So, using IRC as a vehicle for attacking other editors, furthering an on-wiki dispute, or disruption is a Bad Thing™, and punishable by on-wiki sanctions.

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?

ArbCom, for the most part, works. And if it ain't broke, I ain't plannin' to try to fix it. I'd just make sure it actually gets broke if I did, I'll bet. Beyond trying to make decisions fast and be responsive, which you've just got to take my word on, I'm not planning on any reform of the Committee itself. lifebaka++ 03:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Three months, four days, four hours, fifty-five minutes. That's a long time.
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 is supposed to help editors working in the same content area work together to solve problems, improve articles, keep articles consistent, and maintain articles. To that end, they should enforce certain layout and other standards though normal editing. They hold no special power to do so, however.
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)
They should, yes, but again have no special power to do so. It looks good if all highway articles have the same general layout, and such.
Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
Yes, and yes, assuming that the notice itself is canvassing. I'm of the opinion that neutrally worded notices, delivered to non-targeted audiences, is not automatically canvassing. So, while a project newsletter is likely to be canvassing, IRC is less so.
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?
Users that are trying to help, regardless of how bad they screw up, shouldn't be treated like vandals. Fix whatever mess they caused, and let them know they messed up with a nice message (remembering not to bite), and help them to understand why what they did was wrong. If they refuse to listen, or can't understand, then perhaps other sanctions are in order, but first the attempt should be made to be nice to the user.
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?
Probably a disruptive user. Warn them, block them when they've had enough warnings, and have a community ban discussion if necessary after a few blocks. Situation is fairly common.
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?
Try to explain it to them, find someone who speaks their language to do so if necessary. Unfortunately, this takes time and patience, which editors and the community only has in limited supply. If they cannot understand how they should act, and continue to disrupt the project, whether knowingly or not, it might become necessary to block the editor. Repeated blocks may result in a community ban.
a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
The community has issued bans for multiple reasons. As I noted above, the community has limited patience, and when a user reaches the end of it they may be banned to avoid the need to deal with them further. Certainly numbers 5 and 6 above have resulted in bans in the past; 7 may have, but I am not aware of any situations myself. What "justifies" a ban, on the other hand, is whatever the community feels like.
(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?
The community is closed-minded, needlessly dramatic, too focused on minutia, jaded, cynical, naive... I could go on, but, basically, all I mean is one thing: Wikipedia is, by necessity, edited by humans, complete with their various neuroses and emotions. And there's no way to fix this one. (Well, at least not yet. Go, go, WP:BAG!) lifebaka++ 03:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Wheel warring, like edit warring, is a Bad Thing™, only it is more likely to be highly disruptive to one or more users (blocking/unblocking a user, protecting/unprotected a page, deleting/undeleting a page). As such, it should not happen, ever. Only a single revert is acceptable, combined from both parties, and even then only if the action was clearly either improper or unnecessarily controversial.

As an Arb, I'd support some sort of sanction to admins who wheel war. Depending on the situation, it could be anything from warnings, to temporary blocks, to full-out desysopping.
What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
While I love the idea, as RFA is a community process, any desysopping process would need some controls to prevent things resembling "lynch mobs" or the like for admins who've made enemies.
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)?
Some things we'd like bots to do require admin access (such as clean up redirects). Nearly all actual admin tasks, however, need oversight, and it would be a bad idea to write bots for them (for example, a lot of CSD tags are misused). So, fully automated adminbots (as opposed to bots with admin access), is not a good idea.

High-speed tools have at least some oversight, and it's on the head of the user if they screw up while using it. I've got no problem with editors using things that help them work, whether those editors are the normal kind or admins. Personally, I don't use any, however. lifebaka++ 04:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

No, it doesn't look like it was. But, at the same time, it doesn't look like it was harmful, either. No doubt the decisions would've been the same either way, and the total time for the two cases the same as well. I'd call it unnecessary, but it didn't hurt anything.

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?

Yes, they should. Much as we'd like to think otherwise, no one is fully and completely able to be impartial, ever. Some of us can just fudge it better than others. As long as the Arb does good work most of the time, we should be able to overlook the occasional slip. Arbs should be clueful enough to realize that they won't appear impartial, though, and recuse themselves accordingly, even if it's late in the game.

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?

Much as I'd like it, ArbCom isn't the community's baby. It's Jimbo's. So, since Jimbo created it and controls who makes it onto it, we as the community don't get to tell it how to run. He does. (Unless of course we decide to ignore it and him until they cave to our demands, which is possible but highly unlikely.)

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.

Same as the above. I'd like it, but it's Jimbo's.

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

No, I don't. The community will have its reasons for opposing a candidate, and often the reasons are good. That said, it's still Jimbo's decision who does and doesn't get on, and there's nothing we can do about that (short of ignoring this ArbCom and starting another one).

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?

"Resolve disputes."

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

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

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

D, A, C, B. We all answer to the Foundation, because they control the servers (in the end, that means we do what they want or they lock us out, period). We all serve the community, because it's what builds the encyclopedia, and that's what we're here for in the end (we do what it wants, or it ignores us and we lose all our power; doesn't matter what the Committee says if no one listens). And ArbCom could, if it wanted, give the finger to Jimbo and ignore him (again, doesn't matter what he says if no one listens). I'd like to note that this isn't just who should have power, this is who does actually have power over the Committee. lifebaka++ 04:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?
Not really. I'd say three years is about long enough. It gives Arbs plenty of time to get used to what they're doing, get experienced at it, and have a whole bunch of history and background to draw from. Shortening it would cut down on these benefits, and would force us to unnecessarily either rework the three tranche system or hold elections at very odd times (neither of which are themselves bad, it's just best to avoid them if possible). Lengthening it is a Bad Idea™, as well, because people get really jaded listening to other people's problems. Without any actual evidence to go on, I'd say that three year terms are a decent balance between the two. lifebaka++ 19:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 support the third, oppose the first, and I'm neutral on the second. Ideally, we should look solely at civility issues when we're looking at civility issues. However, it's unreasonable to actually expect people to do so. What the community does is somewhere between the first and the third proposals, and while I'd love to ask that we move more towards the second, policy is not prescriptive. Rather, it is descriptive.
As for why I oppose the first, though it is closer to what the community does than the second, is that it completely ignores repeated small violations for regular users. This is unacceptable. Lots of small things are, in total, one big thing, and ignoring that is hazardous.

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

I support the first and the third, I oppose the second. Civility restrictions may not have worked as well as we'd like, but removing them entirely doesn't make them any more effective. The best solution is to use them sparingly, so that it's clear that when used, the other options for the user are worse. Until we can find some better type, as well, stick with the current, because at least it's giving us a way to temporarily stop uncivil behavior. lifebaka++ 20:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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)?
Not unless it was obvious that one of the top candidates got there by manipulating the voting system, no (which I find doubtful, as an understatement). If the community doesn't think I'm fit to do the job, I'm probably not fit to do the job. Of course, the likelihood of me being picked if something like this happens is extremely low anyways, given how the situation has turned out in the past. lifebaka++ 21:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:
No, it isn't. There isn't any way for it to be "correct" either. It's too subjective a word, too dependent on what you or I want it to mean. The policy, as written, however, does appear to work and I generally agree with. The major points I disagree with are already listed below.

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.
While I'd love there to be some sort of "opt out" system, what's been suggested is inherently flawed because it doesn't take into consideration why the subject wishes for their article to be deleted, only that they do, and it leaves it entirely up to the admin who closes the AfD. There can be both good and bad reasons to want your article deleted, and I see no reason why we should indulge the bad ones. Because it's left entirely up to admin discretion, it's difficult to really appeal their decision (at least at WP:DRV), unless a specific consensus the other way was ignored. I suppose WP:ANI could work to appeal it, but that would likely create a few too many drahamhz and wouldn't be reliable.

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 don't think the people who originally proposed this are aware of just how bad an idea it is. Beyond that the climate at AfD tends to result in fewer consensuses to keep than anything else (and that "no consensus" is now a much more likely close due to a change in the relisting policy), it would be ridiculous to delete an article because people can't decide whether or not the subject passes WP:BIO and are arguing over whether to merge the content to a list or keep it where it is (we would see this sort of thing, I'm sure).
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?
It's a question of policy which happens to govern content.

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?
They've done some stuff that changed, which some could call mandating, policy, yes. They've also done some stuff that didn't really do a thing (like the BLP sanctions, which honestly just makes admins log things when they give out sanctions; the community already tended to allow the sanctioning bit itself). Most of what they've done is tell us, the community, that stuff's broke, and suggest ways to fix it. That much they're perfectly entitled to do.

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.
As an Arb I wouldn't do a thing. As an editor, I plan to speak up on the changes others suggest, voicing either my support or opposition. That part I plan to do whether I get elected or not. But, as I said, it mostly works as is, so I don't plan on proposing changes myself.
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?
It's fairly accurate that any large enough group won't be able to agree except on a few things, but we've largely mitigated this by dividing things up into smaller (bite-sized) chunks. Most XfDs, DRVs, talk pages, and noticeboard threads, for example, self select to a much smaller set of editors than the entire community, and can therefore get things done. It's only when things get big that we see the consensus model break down, and for the most part it doesn't do that.
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?
While I'd love to see something like this (it would prevent vandalism, help prevent spam, help prevent POV pushing, prevent attack pages, etc.), we're probably too big. We've got about 150,000 active users, right, and 6,834,221 articles. This doesn't count the number of new articles created every day, which the WP:NPP already struggles with (I believe it's about 40,000 per day). There are also other issues, such as who would be able to flag revisions, who would be able to see unflagged revisions, how flagged revisions should be decided, etc. Until and unless the community can solve these, we shouldn't implement it.

The community hasn't yet decided to use Flagged Revisions, and I doubt we ever will. It, by nature, requires a large portion of the community to comment, and as I stated above this means it is less likely to have a consensus result. On the other hand, it is technically possible for the community to decide eventually. But, again, I don't find it likely.

ArbCom's got no say in whether or not we use Flagged Revisions. It's the community's decision, whether that is for better or worse.
Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
I do. I (and likely many others will say the same) wouldn't be here if I was required to give my identity. Requiring such will cut out a huge chunk of editors. That is a Bad Thing™.

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?
Same as if any other individual had their information here. We remove it from the history. Oversight shouldn't be necessary, unless for some reason admins aren't trusted.

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?
Depends on how clearly. If I posted somewhere, as my public and real-life identity, that User:Lifebaka is my on-wiki identity, then it'd be sorta' silly to call it outing. If the thought process takes more than a few steps, however, or requires any sort of subjective analysis, it is outing. We should be protecting editors from outing, but not protecting editors from publicly revealing their identity.

Of course, if the editor doesn't wish the identity to be used on-wiki, we consider the use of their identity to be outing.

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)
You've got my name. You can use it on-wiki if you want (using my pseudonym is likely to cause confusion, however). I don't plan on revealing my identity, however.

I don't see that the community needs to know the identities of Arbs in order for the Arbs to do their work. So, while Arbs certainly can reveal their identities, there isn't any reason they should be required to.

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'd have to say no, because I can't seem to find where the WMF itself has anything to do with setting pseudonymity as either a goal or a guarantee (Privacy policy doesn't mention it). I've always been under the impression it's more of a community thing than a foundation thing. So they aren't, don't need to be, and shouldn't be doing anything about it.

ArbCom doesn't get to do anything unless cases are brought before it. But what it can and should do is make clear that outing is not acceptable, and enforce its own statement by giving heavy sanctions (extended blocks and bans) if cases of outing are brought to it.

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)
They should get a nice, long break from editing. A few months, at least.

Only different I can think of between on-wiki and off-wiki outing is that it might be difficult to figure out who is responsible if the outing happens off-wiki. But, assuming we can easily identify the editor, they get the same sanctions as if the outing had taken place on-wiki.
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?
Probably someone should let people know. Of course, usually by the time people are involved enough to have those sorts of enemies, they should already be well aware that it can and does happen. Putting some on-site notice people get when creating an account would probably get ignored, and a third party doing it would probably discourage new users. Perhaps some group on-wiki that drops notes to people when they start to get involved in controversial sections?

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.
The Foundation is supposed to protect private information gained from editing to the best of its ability, which should help prevent RL stalking. But there's nothing it can do beyond this, or in regards to any other websites.

Unfortunately, there's little the WMF can do to help those who've been victims. I'm fairly sure it doesn't have the extra money to do so, even supposing it could. It also doesn't have access to the actual identities of most users, even if it does can't reveal them, and is busy itself with other matters. Best it could do is suggest the victim seek outside help.

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
They are able to take a break from the 'pedia, if they need it, and users should try to be careful to avoid harassing them soon after the incident. But, beyond that, I'm afraid that the encyclopedia still goes on, and beyond being nice and consoling to them for a while, there isn't much we can do.

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.
Neither of those are cool, and the use of this website to further any goals beyond building an encyclopedia is prohibited. Now, that said, we've already got technical measures in place which can deal with this, and community options as well. Nothing special is needed.

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?
Somewhere between compiling a private list of bad edits and posting a list which includes simple bad decisions publicly in multiple locations. The former would clearly be a useful list if something like Arbitration is sought. The latter includes unnecessary bits, and is clearly meant to showcase that the user is somehow "bad". I'd put the line somewhere on top of creating a single public list. Private lists are fine, as no one else can see them. Public lists are far too easy to be seen as harassment, and should be avoided.
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?
Usually, users who get banned have very few (if any) constructive edits, and are in fact remarkably unwelcome here. Reverting their edits has a vastly positive effect. For users who are less unwelcome and problematic, I would highly prefer that whatever constructive edits they have are kept, with a summary to the effect listed or such. I don't care much about the technical nature of such a system, as any would be preferable to reverting a constructive edit.

For the user who makes a bunch of good edits and then gets themselves banned (or the other way around) to test it, I would like to point out that's disruption, but that I believe the good contributions should still be kept.
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?
We're not in any position to tell outside parties not to talk about us, and so it's unreasonable to assume that some of our own editors are a part of one or more of these outside parties. So, while it all should be able to be on-wiki, there's no reason it has to be.

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?
I do not.

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)?
WR's got some good stuff and some bad stuff on it. There're some sociopaths, some paranoia, and a lot of good criticism. ~~I'd probably be participating there myself if I could create an account using my gmail address. I'm not interested in using any non-anonymous email address, unfortunately.~~
I just registered an account, 'cuz I emailed the site operators and requested one for the reasons I listed here (except in more detail). So, now I do myself participate there (well, as soon as I get around to posting anything...). lifebaka++ 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikback's currently down, so I can't see if I'm correct in my interpretation, but it does appear that it just plain never fully got off the ground. Looking over the rules (quoted conveniently on WR, in fact), it seems a bit more strict that I would've liked, but I probably would've tried it.

Ideally, we shouldn't need an outside criticism site. Barring that, pretty much anything that gets rid of crazies would do.

d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
I've got no issue with anyone participating, regardless of who they are, as long as they don't do anything unacceptable there. There's good criticism and silly socializing to be had at outside sites, neither of which there's anything wrong with.

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

By "anonymous or pseudonymous" I assume you mean that the account isn't connected to a Wikipedia account (let me know if I'm wrong). This is fine. Getting the opinions of people who don't contribute to Wikipedia is useful. Getting the opinions of people who don't want to connect accounts on the two sites is useful. Getting the opinions of banned or otherwise sanctions users is useful (assuming the user isn't paranoid and crazy).
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)?
Yeah, we do. There are some users who the community doesn't enforce the rules with, while it does for most other users. Unfortunately, this is human nature. So, the ways to fix it are for the community to admit it's a problem and try to correct for it, or to have Wikipedia edited by bots (again, go, go WP:BAG!).
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
Green. Hell if I know why. I just like it. lifebaka++ 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?
It's a problem, yes. ArbCom can't do anything except be on the lookout for cases put before it that look like nationalist or ethnic disputes, and hear them more often if necessary. The community and admins can't do anything except be on the lookout for these issues and respond quickly for them, issuing sanctions as normal for all edit wars.
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?
Unless I'm reading this entirely wrong, it already has told admins not to unblock without discussing first, in these sorts of cases at least. They're going to need to change that to make sure that the blocking admin can reverse their own decision without needing a discussion, but it at least prevents potential wheel wars. I'm very sorry, but in light of this recent development and overlap with other questions I find it very difficult to answer this. I'm happy to answer more specific questions about the motion itself, however. lifebaka++ 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare[edit]

What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
I certainly wouldn't accept it if I was below 50%, even if I was in the top seven. Otherwise, only if I'm in the top seven (or there are obvious issues with election rigging).
Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
Not generally, no. Formal systems are too easy to game. I've posted above that I'll be available for recall under entirely subjective terms, but I don't speak for other candidates. lifebaka++ 00:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from UninvitedCompany[edit]

Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
I've done some gnomish work and article maintenance, I've worked at building articles about Magic: The Gathering sets as information became available, I've participated in AfD's here and there, I've worked at DRV for nearly a year, I've done a bit at AN and ANI to help solve people's problems.
Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
Apologies for being horridly general, I prefer not to reveal much. I've studied math and computer science to various degrees. I have worked at companies which do computer-based modeling for electrical utilities.
Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
I've done some forums here and there; social stuff. I did some (fairly crappy) art at DeviantArt. You can find it all by Googling "lifebaka" (no, Google, I do not mean "lifebook").
Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
Nothing comes to mind, but I'll bet my memory is just failing.
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'm American, but not terribly nationalistic as far as I know, so I don't think I have any conflicts.
Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
None, really.
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?
You've got my name. I don't plan on giving out my address. If someone comes to me with it, my response will be something along the lines of: "Good job for finding it. Now excuse me while I post it myself and start a thread on ANI about you. Cheers!"
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?
My brother edited a bit, but never got into it. Same with a few friends. I prefer not to give their usernames, so they won't get harassment because of me. As is, I don't believe any are even autoconfirmed.
Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
I've participated in the mailing list a bit. I don't have an IRC client that works, though (if anyone's got a good free one, I've been lookin').
What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
I'd serve the community. In the end, the community builds the encyclopedia, and nothing besides the encyclopedia matters.
What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
The Committee should accept cases where it'll be of use, and where other dispute resolution has already or is inherently doomed to failed. So, unless both of those are true, the case should be refused.
How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
Insofar as it is able, yes. Taking breeches of behavioral policies and guidelines off-wiki does not make them acceptable. ArbCom is not, however, able to issue sanctions except to Wikipedia editors.
What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
Bans work, as do other editing restrictions. Civility restrictions and other creative remedies are best used only sparingly, so that they stay useful.
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?
No.
Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
Newyorkbrad. Making good points in poem form is, simply, awesome.
To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
To whatever it takes to convince the Arbs. Hopefully a high standard, but even Arbs are human.
What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
Haven't had any direct interactions with it. Devs do a good job, though.
To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
They do good work. If they didn't, more people would be yelling about it.
Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?
No. I assume the previous Arbs had a good reason for keeping it confidential. lifebaka++ 01:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?)
What's best for the project is paramount, all else is secondary or lower. Of course, that said, the other option is one of those secondary things, right behind building an encyclopedia. Clearly you can't build an encyclopedia without the users, but sometimes users must be sacrificed (to a vengeful tribal god, on an altar of stone, using a ceremonial knife) for the benefit of the project.

As for your specific example, I would be patient with the user. They're here in good faith, and want to help out, so I'll try to show them the ropes and get them on the right path. And the worst case scenario is that I'm just wasting my time, which isn't a big issue. lifebaka++ 02:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Probably just reveal it myself. I'd just prefer not to and wouldn't have gotten started here if I'd had to. At this point, it's not worth the trouble of keeping up pseudonymity if someone really wants to "out" me (I doubt I could actually stop them), and I'd much rather take the fun away from whoever's threatening me. lifebaka++ 02:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?
None.
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. lifebaka++ 02:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?
~~I haven't yet had time to research this or Giggy's fourth question above. I'll do my best to get it done as soon as I can, but I regret that it will take a while.~~
I've actually had this "done", at least in the half-assed sense, for a bit over a day now, I've just been lazy about putting it up. I figured the worst that can happen is it'll get me another few opposes if I waited, and it's pretty clear I'm not gonna' be in the top seven or over 50% (which, as I stated elsewhere, means that I will refuse to be on ArbCom even if Jimbo decides to put me there, though he's unlikely to do so anyways). I also haven't had a chance to review to my satisfaction more than a dozen and a half cases, picked at semi-random from those closed in the past year, so it's likely there's something I disagree with even more that I haven't seen yet.

But anyways, the two, to cover this and Giggy's fourth question, are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC. In the Sadi Carnot case, it is clear to me simply from reading the statements, talk page, and a small bit of the evidence that Physchim62 was abusing his admin tools to further and enforce his view in content disputes, and did not show any sign of acknowledging that fact or stopping. That another case was brought against him less than a month later is proof (I would like to note that I read the Sadi Carnot case first and had these thoughts then, they were only reinforced after reading the later case). Something slightly harsher than warnings was needed to make it clear that abuse of admin tools is not acceptable. My recommendation would be a final-type warning. "Do this again and you get blocked", basically, rather than encouraging the parties not to engage in the same behavior.

In the IRC case, and everywhere I've looked since, I haven't seen any evidence that ArbCom ever resolved the IRC issue itself, instead leaving only that it "will be addressed separately by this committee" as a remedy. The talk page, which is supposed to list motions before 18 July 2008 (which are listed here instead, and still doesn't have anything on IRC), doesn't come to any conclusion on what was actually to happen. Seems it's been just lying that for nearly a year now. What I would have liked to have seen, and what needed to be done, is to have some remedy passed forbidding the use of IRC as a vehicle for personal attacks against other users. As I've opined above, moving personal attacks off-wiki does not legitimize them, and they should still result in on-wiki sanctions. Had I been on the Committee at this time, I would have strongly pushed to make this clear, whether as part of a remedy or elsewhere.

So, there we have it. I do hope I haven't done something silly like shoot all my future chances in the foot (or feet, I'm not sure), as I do hope to run again next year. Cheers, and my sincerest apologies for these two taking me so long. lifebaka++ 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
No offense to the current ArbCom, but that was a complete farce. It came out okay in the end, but handling in the beginning and middle could have been a lot better. And since it was conducted in private, I still don't know what, if anything, originally set it off. I don't feel I can make very informed decisions without having some idea what the causes were.
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?
Fill's and Hiding's are pretty good. I haven't read through the whole thing (and probably never will) because it's so huge, so there a probably (understatement) a few other gems I haven't found. Biggest problem with the RFC is that it's so huge. Discouraged me from actually commenting when it was still going, as well as probably quite a few others.

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]

Seems like a good idea to me, for the reasons you provided. I might amend the first one to

Have at least two Arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence on each involved party in isolation.

(addition bolded) or something similar in case the Committee wants to have different sets of Arbs build evidence of each involved party. lifebaka++ 01:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Let me start by saying that I don't have a background in real science. So some of my opinions may be based on layman's misunderstandings.

In my mind, peer-reviewed = reliable, assuming that we're meaning the same peer-reviewed as highly reputable sources use. So, such sources can be used, but whether or not they should be used is decided by weight. It would be entirely acceptable to use the above journal in homeopathy, but less so in medicine.

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?

It means "We don't remove stuff just 'cuz it offends you." A lot of the things that people would remove if not for that are good to have here, and are useful. Articles on illegal drugs and their effects, for instance. Beyond a few people (who would probably find something else to object to if we did censor, anyways) there's little uproar about article like Fuck, Sex, and Cannabis.

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.

I don't know how to accurately describe the weights I'd like, but the following construction should usually work:

While popular opinion is that <POPULAR OPINION!>[ref][ref], scientific studies have instead suggested <SCIENCE!>[ref][ref].

Or something along those lines, at least.

Questions From Ϣere SpielChequers[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?
I haven't fully reviewed any case (every subpage read to the letter), but I've gotten an overview of quite a few. Thus far, I've agreed with nearly all of the principles, most of the findings of fact, and a lot of the remedies. Most of the areas where I don't fully agree I have great advantage of hindsight, however, and at the time would have agreed with, or still been entirely neutral on. I apologize for answering all three at once, but since I agreed with the majority of all decisions in the cases I reviewed I believe it quicker.
How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?
The procedures themselves should handle it just fine. A request for clarification or modification comes up, the Committee handles it as a motion, and changes the decision. It isn't, in theory, difficult for ArbCom to do so. Whether or not the Committee is willing to do so, however, I'm only slightly confident of currently. lifebaka++ 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ϣere SpielChequers 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]
There's certainly a group, yes. I'd say the group is smaller than we'd think, since there's a lot of editors out there who aren't terribly vocal, but of the active, established, and prolific users it's certainly significant.

There are a few possible causes. Some have been sanctioned by the Committee. Some have been sanctioned by or been in disputes with Arbitrators, whether the Arbs were serving in an official capacity or not. Some people are annoyed at flaws they see in the Arbitration system, such as the Committee being slow or non-responsive. Some can't stand the drahmahz. Some are, as you said, simply apathetic or cynical to begin with. And some I've got no idea about. For the most part, there's no actual changes to the written policy or procedures that will help any of these cases. What the Committee can do, however, is try to be as quick as reasonably possible, be responsive where possible, be consistent where possible, and be fair in all decisions and at all times. What I personally would do is these. I hope they'll work. If they don't, well, I'm out of ideas. lifebaka++ 01:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions[edit]

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

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.
The community should, in my opinion, be able to decide who has access to all rights, unless they explicitly give that power away. I haven't seen any consensus that the community at large did, but the lack of huge uproar at ArbCom having the power suggests that the community isn't worried about it.
See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
The community can do whatever it feels like, including ignoring ArbCom, Jimbo, or even the Foundation itself (though the consequences in the last case would likely be dire). For the first two, the only thing that gives them power is that the community believes they have power. Community starts to ignore them, and poof, no more power. ArbCom has no power to enforce what it tells the community, so if they choose to, they can overturn, rework, ignore, or do pretty much anything to an ArbCom decision. And, yes, it's perfectly capable of banning users on its own; it does so every time and again on WP:ANI and the like.
Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
If they're still actively involved in the use of the CU/OS rights, and still want them, it doesn't hurt to have more Checkusers or Oversighters, does it (assuming they do good work, of course)? If they aren't using them, or don't want them, it's best to take them away to avoid potentially bad situations. The mailing list is slightly different. Having former Arbs on the list gives the current Committee access to their experience and knowledge, which is a powerful tool. As I stated above in the general questions (#Questions from Sarcasticidealist, question 2) I haven't yet come up with a workable compromise.

I don't currently think I'll be asking for either the Checkuser or Oversighter rights, as I wouldn't really know how to use the information the CU right would give me, and I get the impression I'll be too busy to use Oversight. Assuming I end up with either, I'd probably rather keep them after resigning and at least trying to do the work involved with the positions; if I don't enjoy it, or feel I am doing a good job, I would ask for the rights to be removed.

When I resign from the committee, whether it be explicitly or just by not running again, I won't want to be kept on the list. I don't plan to stop until I'm sick of it (or I fail to get elected, whichever comes first), so I wouldn't want to keep seeing the stuff on the list.
Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).
I covered this a bit in #Questions from Sarcasticidealist question 3, and the same process would work for any user rights I've got (including those I already have).

Likely, though, someone would like an alternative to asking me nicely (or not nicely, as the case may be). Best other place I can think of would be ANI. It's high profile enough to get a good consensus, and while there would be a whole ton of drahmahz involved, if I'm seriously screwing up it'll still get the job done. But hopefully I'm not so dense it'd ever get there. lifebaka++ 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question from Rspeer[edit]

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is the scientific consensus (if it exists) a point of view, or is science a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science, itself, is an attempt to find absolutely truth. And, while science strives to find this truth, written down in such a way that every reasonable (and sufficiently learned) person can agree with it, and therefore generate the only (and therefore "neutral") point of view on everything, it has yet to achieve this lofty goal. We have no choice but to treat it as another, though certainly informed and expert, POV. Now, there are areas where there's no reasonable opposition to it (such as the Earth being round), and in those areas we can treat it as the neutral POV (or even truth, if we're so inclined). But where there's significant opposition, criticism, or disagreement, we need to represent our articles as such. We accurately represent what the sources are telling us, and so long as the sources are telling us a bunch of different things, that's what we need to represent. This is both my opinion on this, and what our policy currently dictates. (Apologies for not answering in question in turn, but the answers should all be in there.) lifebaka++ 16:56, 26 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?
They do appear, overall, to work, yes. I doubt I can come up with anything better, anyways.
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?
Supposing that admin B's actions were clearly improper (meaning that it takes no more than fifteen seconds for any reasonable person to come to that determination), admin A may do so unilaterally, yes. Otherwise discussing first is better. Admin A unilaterally overturning any other action is potentially dangerous, and grounds for some sort of sanction, ranging from warnings for small or first time situations, to desysopping for repeated or "What the flying fuck were you thinking?!?"-type situations.

If you're trying to get my opinion on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin (which seems likely), you'd be best off asking directly. It's difficult to answer general questions any way except generally, and general answers obviously won't cover all cases. lifebaka++ 01:44, 28 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)} 15:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers one and three I've got no problem with. Number two, however, I agree with the principle behind (upkeep of the project) but not the exact wording. There is content that is both neutral and verifiable, but still has no business being here (extremely fringe views, in-depth summary of the plot of every episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc.), and which admins are expected to deal with at least from time to time. I can't think of a good wording myself, but something a bit more general is probably better.

I also notice there's nothing in there talking about consensus. Whether for good or for ill, admins are expected by the community to find and enforce consensus. Judging by the fourth law, I'd say the omission is deliberate, but I still wanted to point it out. lifebaka++ 16:54, 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?
While it makes the workload a bit heavy, fifteen's probably about right. Too many more would reduce the effectiveness of the position (to a degree, the US House works with 435 voting members), while fewer would make the job even more hell than it already is. I could easily support changing it to eighteen, but would hesitate to go higher than that or lower than fifteen. I also note that with the current election system it should always be a multiple of three.
How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
As I stated above (#Question from Davewild), three years seems a reasonable balance.
What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
They're free to try. Arbs should probably make a note of it on the relevant case, but should be able to make decisions without actually being influenced anyways.
Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Yes. Besides that it's part of our allure, policies and guidelines are (mostly) just around to tell people what the community norms and practices are. Community norms and practices change, and so policies and guidelines change too. Putting in a bar of full protection would require that each change gather consensus, which would take time and sometimes never actually happen, which would both lead to out-of-date polices and guidelines.
Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
As editors, sure. Nothing wrong with that. Arbs don't get any special power to do so, however.
Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?
As I stated in #Questions from Newyorkbrad, question 2, I would like the community to fully control it. However, as ArbCom is currently Jimbo's, it isn't currently reasonable to expect community control.
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"?
Usually it is, yes. Subjects which aren't notable tend to have their articles deleted. Determination is usually made based on WP:N, requiring third parties to have written about it (basically: evidence that people might still care about it in a year), which at least is a mostly objective system.

There are, of course, exceptions. Some things, even though they're of extremely small interest (such as individual asteroids), tend to have articles (or list entries) regardless of actual coverage, because they're clearly of some academic or other value. Of course, this might just be because we don't have things like Wikipedia:Notability (science) (WTF that's a blue link?) or Wikipedia:Notability (monkeys).
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?
The implication that the English Wikipedia is itself that world does, yes. Of course, so does pretty much every other single encyclopedia out there. Because, unfortunately, there's bits of human knowledge (how to build an atomic bomb, the in-game coordinates of specific World of Warcraft bosses, full texts of books, scans of ancient manuscripts, etc.) that belong elsewhere. That's why there are other Wikimedia projects.
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?
It's probably both. There's likely some underlying content-based issue that the editor has with the articles, which is why xe keeps nominating them for XfD (I'm open to the possibility that the pages aren't articles). That this continues, even in the face of huge controversy, indicates there's some behavioral issues as well, probably on both sides. However, unless it's blown up hugely already (in which case there's no point wasting the time), I'd refuse it and send it to RFC/Mediation first.
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?
It's both a content and behavior dispute. The content dispute is whether or not individual asteroids should have their own articles. The behavior dispute is over the non-responsiveness and disruption the nominating editor is causing (whether the actions are right or wrong, continuing to cause drama, after it is obvious one's actions are causing drama, is disruption). I'd easily accept this case, as there's no point sending it back to RFC or Mediation. It's already too high-profile for those to have any effect.
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?
Wikia's a hosting service. There's no inherent conflict of interest having employees or shareholders in it edit here (so long as they stay away from the article). If editors here also work or edit at Wikia, it's entirely their own choice whether or not to reveal it. No one (except the CEO) really has the power to do anything except try to make them. lifebaka++ 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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