Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Radiant

Since many questions have already been asked of, and answered by, the candidates, I have picked some of the more common questions and answered them already. Of course, I welcome other questions. (Radiant) 01:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.

   Wikipedia works on consensus, with everyone who wants to have a say speaking up. However, when dealing with a dispute, it is sometimes necessary to make a tough decision to cut the proverbial knot. Large communities are, by nature, ill-suited to making such decisions, and in general most people do not want to involve themselves in the dispute. The purpose of the ArbCom, then, is to serve as representatives for the community to make these decisions, using the authority bestowed on it by Jimbo. For this reason, it is important that the people select as representatives not those who they always (or usually) agree with, but those known to have solid judgment regardless of who happens to agree with them.

2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?

   One issue that has bothered me is speedy deletion criterion A8, the one about text copied from other websites. I agree with the principle behind it (getting rid of copyvios is obviously a good thing), but the wording is needlessly convoluted.

   On a more disciplinary note, one policy that I would like adopted relates to administrator accountability, and is taken from other-language Wikipedias. It states that any admin who engages in wheel warring (actual warring, not just undoing another admin’s action once) or edit warring on a protected page, is immediately demoted without prejudice, while it is decided how to further deal with this person. These are clear-cut cases of "Do Not Do That".

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?

   I have read both of them, but will read them again more thoroughly before using any of these privileges. I have a background in computer science and networks; I believe this would allow me to learn quickly how to adjudicate checkuser results. I am less versed in legal issues related to oversight, although of course basic removal of personal information is not difficult.

   Whether I should be granted these depends on how large the backlog is. Of the two, I believe oversight to be more important, as this deals with protecting both editors and the subjects of articles from real-life issues. Checkuser is generally about more efficiently catching vandals - but one can block a disruptive user irrespective of whether or not it is a sockpuppet. So despite the many requests at WP:RFCU, I believe priority should be given to the more serious matters on the admin noticeboard and RFC, as well as (obviously) to ArbCom cases.

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?

   In the matter of transparency, I believe it important for the arbiters to respond to questions asked about cases. Note that by "respond" I do not necessarily mean "answer", since some questions cannot be answered for e.g. reasons of privacy. I believe the arbiters could be somewhat more responsive than they are now (although to be fair, they do get asked quite a number of pointless questions) and if elected, I would make it a point to help with that.

   Integrity is the twin matter of being even-handed, and being perceived as even-handed; the perception is important because it affects editor morale. This means that even though I believe myself capable of fairly adjudicating any case, I would recuse from cases where I could be perceived as biased. In particular, I would be very likely to recuse at the request of any involved party who believes me biased against him or her; and would preemptively recuse if any party is a friend of mine, because I could then be perceived as biased in his or her favor.

   Finally, since it is difficult to hold the arbiters accountable to a higher power (since Jimbo tends not to involve himself in such matters), individual arbiters should be accountable to the rest of the ArbCom, and the ArbCom as a whole should be accountable to the community. The ArbCom’s status derives in an important part from the community, since although it is unlikely to happen, an ArbCom decision is irrelevant if the community as a whole decides to ignore it. It is for this reason that I would favor an elected ArbCom over an appointed one.

5. Humour, a tradition of Wikipedian culture, has seen through several controversies in recent history. This is including but not limited to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, parody policies/essays, April Fools' Day, whole userpages, userboxes... Do you think that they are all just harmless fun, or that they are all nonsense that must go?

   I think most of these are harmless fun. Many Wikipedians have to deal with nasty vandals and personal attacks from time to time, and it helps reduce stress to have a place to come and laugh. Also, sometimes a Wikipedian takes himself too seriously and needs to be told that e.g. having his page protected in the wrong version for a few days is not the end of the world.

   Parody policies and essays, however, are more than harmless fun. Many of these are a satirical way of conveying legitimate criticism, similar to political cartoons. For instance, it would be inappropriate to dismiss WP:STEAM as "harmless fun". These are indicative of patterns of thought in the community, and of what processes or actions the community may be unhappy with. As I stated earlier, for any volunteer organisation, editor morale is very important.

• Thank you for your answers! :D - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad

1. A standard question I'm posing to all the candidates. What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process?

   One thing that would help is reducing the amount of arbiters that are required to investigate a case. At present, any principle, finding or remedy needs approval of at least half the active arbiters. This can be as many as eight, but is generally less as arbiters can be recused or on vacation. The net effect of this rule is that having more arbiters available doesn’t really make the process faster. Since it is shown to be acceptable in several cases for four arbiters to make a decision, the process could be changed to allow four arbiters to make every decision, and only if they disagree need the other arbiters look into it. However, care needs to be taken that it is not the same combination of arbiters who makes a decision.

   Something else that might work is asking the participants to clearly indicate when they're done writing evidence. Also, at present the workshop system doesn’t appear to work as well as it should, at least to the extent that participants in several cases have held lengthy debates on suggested findings (or principles or remedies) that aren’t particularly useful.

2. Another standard question I'm asking everyone. If elected, do you anticipate being actively involved in drafting the actual decisions of cases? Do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this activity?

   Yes, I do so anticipate. I believe the relevant experience is not so much in writing, as it is in analysis of the situation. I have several years of experience as president of a 100-man hobby club, which would be the closest real-life experience I have to this. Also, from experience with rhetoric and reasoning, I am quite adept at spotting spurious reasoning and logical fallacies. On Wikipedia, I have contributed to the workshop in a number of cases, including Giano (see also), Children’s privacy and Non-notability, being a party to the latter two.

Questions from AnonEMouse

Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder.

1. A current Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?

   I should note that I filed this case. It is a tricky issue - how does one resolve a proposal where one party claims it has consensus and the other party claims it does not? One might say that if there is disagreement whether there is consensus or not, there by definition isn't any - but that doesn't work out, because it implies that any small vocal party can "override" any consensus. A vote might have resolved the issue, except that it was claimed that there was sufficient support in a previous poll. And to make things worse, several wordings of this page include legal issues, and the matter of "freedom of speech" vs. "protect the children" is bound to raise a few tempers and could turn into a clash of principles.

   To specifically answer your question, I believe that in general the ArbCom should not deal with decisions over policy, and let the community decide instead. However, I believe this to be a (rare) special case because of the dissent over consensus, the legal angle, and it being a heated issue; community resolution would have become a gruelling affair. Some people have said that our intentionally vague system for making rules is outdated and needs formalisation. This sentiment I agree to in theory, but I doubt it would be possible to write such a system that actually works without being needlessly complicated (but feel free to prove me wrong here by proposing such a system).

2. Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?

   Yes, the ArbCom should have this power, simply because they are the highest form of dispute resolution on Wikipedia (other than Jimbo and the Board, but they rarely involve themselves in such). An ArbCom case in the past has resulted in a bureaucrat stepping down, albeit without formally being required to. In the unlikely case that a bureaucrat abuses his status in the future, the ArbCom should intervene, because nobody else is in a position to do so.

   In this particular case, it was found that Carnildo's request for re-adminship did not reach consensus. Since the bureaucrats should not promote people except when there is community consensus to do so, it follows that they should not have promoted him. However, since Carnildo is not at fault here, it would be inappropriate to demote him once more; in that light, having the arbiters evaluate his behavior after two months (as suggested) sounds workable. However, I believe it would have been prudent to add a principle to this case, the purpose of which is not to "put down" the bureaucrats, but rather to reassure the community about consensus. Specifically, I would have suggested that bureaucrats are not empowered to create new policy, and that "probationary two-month adminship" should not be invoked again until and unless the community makes it policy.

3. Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehavior can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehavior is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?

   This issue requires a careful weighing of two principles. On the one hand, the ArbCom is not a court of law. A court of law serves justice, and is expected to measure everybody with the same scale – but the ArbCom serves the encyclopedia, which is certainly improved by banning a nasty incivil vandal, but not by banning a nasty incivil prolific article writer.

   On the other hand, since Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, editor morale is crucial, and editor morale is hurt by unfair treatment. People get upset if they perceive somebody being treated unfairly for having the right friends, regardless of whether this perception is correct – and of course a prolific writer is quite likely to (appear to) have some friends.

   This is tricky business, and it means the arbiters are expected to (and I believe they do) continually self-evaluate whether or not they may be prejudiced either for or against a participant in a case.

4. If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.

   I believe the comparison between admins and good articles is a flawed matter of apples and oranges. Rather, we should compare admins and the writers of good articles. Most admin tasks amount to housekeeping and vandalfighting. These are absolutely necessary to the quality of the encyclopedia, yet most of them are repetitive drudgework and require relatively simple skills that most editors can learn quickly if they want to. Thus, the thing we should admire about admins is their dedication and persistence. On the other hand, featured article writing is also absolutely necessary to the encyclopedia, but is an exceedingly difficult task. Simply put, most people are incapable of writing a featured article, as this is not an easy skill to learn or master. So we should admire these people for their writing skill. We need admins and vandal fighters to keep the encyclopedia from degrading - but we need featured article writers for the encyclopedia to improve.

5. While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)

   One type of remedy that I dislike is that of short blocks - e.g. a remedy to block a user for a week for personal attacks. The reason for this dislike is that because a case may well last one or two months, the user ends up blocked for a brief while for an incident that was quite some time ago. I believe that in most cases this is punitive, and I would be more inclined to use probation as a remedy. Note that I have no such objection to long blocks, e.g. to keep a seriously disruptive user off-wiki for a year. An example of this kind of remedy is in Heqong's case.

6. It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?

   I have watched him work through several cases, and I believe it is (mostly) right simply because he is very good at this (but he makes the occasional mistake since he is as human as the rest of us). I do think it would be preferable if more people were involved in decision writing (e.g. Fred does some cases, Alice does some others, and Bob does the rest). Like systemic bias, this is an issue not to be solved by asking Fred to stop, but by getting others to help. As such I would definitely be willing to offer this help.

7. For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?

   I do not believe admin tools are necessary to work as an arbiter. As long as at least one arbiter is an admin, any deleted content relevant to a case can be shared among them via the mailing list. Also, it is my understanding that arbiters rarely or never perform the blocks they choose as remedies.

   However, I find the apparent chasm between "admins" and "regular users" a worrying tendency. Adminship is supposed to be a bunch of tools, not a higher rank. Although it is understandable that some people see it like that anyway, it is important that admins should not see it like that. I believe it would aggravate the issue to reserve certain seats on the ArbCom for non-admins; this encourages the idea that the chasm should exist and implies that the various factions are in opposition. Rather, I hope this issue can be resolved through greater accountability for admins; indeed, the ArbCom in the past year has shown increasing willingness to demote problematic admins.

8. Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard? :-)

   If I say no, will you promise to make the questions more difficult for next year's batch? :)

Questions from jd2718

1. If you were appointed to ArbCom, would you continue to actively participate in policy-making discussions? Would you recuse yourself from cases involving interpreting policies you had personally drafted or reshaped? If a case reached you, would you avoid involving yourself in discussions of the governing policies?

   The short answer is no, both because being an arbiter costs time and this by necessity detracts from other tasks, and because I believe it is not the role of the ArbCom to set policy. However, I would still be willing, if asked, to give feedback on the talk page of a proposal.

   Regarding recusal, that depends on whether you mean judging on the merit of a policy, or dealing with a user violating it. In the former case, I believe (as per AnonEMouse's first question) that in general the ArbCom should not deal with it. In the latter case, if a policy has been accepted by the community as a whole, I do not believe anyone who was involved in writing it needs to recuse himself; whereas if the policy is relatively new or unstable in some way, one who was involved in writing it should recuse from the case.

   In any case, the ArbCom must be able to discuss the governing policies. For instance, the blocking policy allows for blocks for "disruption", which is not strictly defined. If a dispute centers around a dubious block, the ArbCom must by necessity discuss the (governing) blocking policy. Again, as above, if the policy was relatively new, unstable and/or co-written by me, that would be grounds for recusal.

2. You are concerned about the chasm between "admins" and "regular users" and write "Adminship...is not a higher rank." But you refer to the ArbCom as "highest body." Is this contradictory? Can you clarify?

   It's not contradictory. There are a multitude of tasks on Wikipedia, such as copyediting, RC patrol and stub sorting. In general, anyone who wishes is free to take up any of these tasks. None hold greater weight in adjudicating these; admins simply have a bunch of extra buttons for the job. It is sometimes said that admins hold more trust and influence, but this is a case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc in that people did not gain greater trust because they became admins, but they became admins because they already had greater trust (and by implication, several trusted people are not in fact admins).

   However, there are a few select "bodies" that are empowered to make decisions that cannot be made by the average user (although in principle these decisions could be made by the community as a whole, this would be rather impractical). These include the ArbCom, the Wikimedia Board, and the Developers. I suppose one could call the ArbCom a higher "rank", but that would imply a greater sense of hierarchy than Wikipedia has or needs.

   What I meant with "highest body (of dispute resolution)" is simply that there are several ways of dispute resolution (talking; asking an outsider; mediation; asking the entire wiki; and asking the ArbCom) and that if one fails, one can attempt a "higher" or "later" form. If talking doesn't work, mediation might (but on the contrary, if mediation fails, simple talking is unlikely to work any more at that point). The ArbCom is simply the last step in this line (technically, the next one is the rare appeal to Jimbo). This is why the ArbCom tends to reject disputes that skipped over the earlier steps).

3. What would the ArbCom lose if you were not selected? Specifically, what skills, attitudes, experience or abilities would be missed? Jd2718 16:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sure that I'm not the only one with these skills and attitudes, but I am level-headed, have a strong analytical mind, experience with sifting through lengthy debate to separate fact from fallacy, a focus on the spirit of our rules rather than the letter thereof, and an attitude of being stern but even-handed.

4. Another batch: You left the project on the heels of the user box wheel war. Can you talk about your departure, and your return? Jd2718 16:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

   What caused my departure was a series of rash reactions to a user who claimed to be a pedophile, and was permanently blocked for that statement. However, it turns out he was an underage boy with a likewise underage girlfriend - so he was not confessing to a crime, but making a (poor attempt at a) joke. Now admittedly such a joke is in exceedingly poor taste, and a block for disruption may well have been in order, but a permanent ban to an otherwise reasonable contributor was not. So after a discussion on WP:ANI, I unblocked him.

   From there, tempers flared and things went downhill really quickly. When I came back the next day, three long-term users had been permablocked, five admins had been demoted, and I had gotten a official warning from Jimbo to stop supporting blatant trolls. Also, an arbitration case had been put together that misstated the discussion on ANI, implying that my unblock was unilateral and heavily opposed, when in fact it was the opposite.

   Since it seemed the hasty decisions would only get worse from there, I left. Four other involved users left along with me; one of them has never returned, and one has apparently gone on a rampage and is now banned. Simply put, this was a situation that was handled very poorly, mainly because of a sense of immediate urgency; although much later I learned that the ArbCom had done a reasonable job at cleaning things up afterwards. At any rate this happened a long time ago and it is something we should put behind us.

   My return is pretty simple, actually. It's hard to stay away from reading Wikipedia since it's an excellent resource for information. At a certain point I read about a large Wikimeeting in the Netherlands pretty close to where I live. I never got to attend that because I had plans with my family that day, but it prompted me to look at what was happening on the site once more. My talk page was full of sympathetic support as well as a few apologies, so I figured I should give it a shot and log in again, and see where I could lend a hand.

Question from Ragesoss

1. In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?

   I must say I haven't seen the term "SPOV" around much, but I would say that neutral point of view is more broadly defined. There are many topics in Wikipedia on which science doesn't really have an opinion, such as Hollywood celebrities. There are also articles on which a scientific view would be very short. For instance, an article on astrology from a SPOV would probably not be much longer than calling it "unfalsifiable fantasy" or somesuch. The same article from the NPOV could say that (most) scientists do not consider it worth studying, but nevertheless give a list of common astrological beliefs and proponents thereof.

Three questions from Carcharoth

These are copies of questions initially asked by John Reid.

1. Who are you?

   I am Radiant. Then again, you knew that. Am I correct to assume that you're asking after personal details? I am somewhat hesitant to answer that, first because I don't think it should make a difference, and second because I have heard some nasty stories about people who were too open with real life information and got harassed as a result. Is there anything specific you wish to know? I am male, I live in the Netherlands, I am a polyglot and I hold a masters degree. On Wikipedia, I am a discussing kind of guy, a mergist, and the kind of person who, when people are polarized between two solutions, tries to find (or create) a third.

   My interpretation of that question is along the lines of "what makes you different from other people?" But I also think the way people react to the question is instructive enough, regardless of the actual answers. Thanks for asking, as I was intrigued by the forthright nature of that question as well. Carcharoth 02:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Are you 13? Are you 18?

   No to both, I'm somewhat older than that. Suffice to say that I am old enough to hold a masters degree.

3. Should ArbCom arbitrate policy disputes or any other matter outside user conduct issues? Why or why not?

   I can think of three kinds of issues off the top of my head: conduct, content, and policy. There are doubtless others that don't occur as often. It is a well-known fact that the ArbCom examines conduct issues and not content issues. I believe it may be a good idea to establish some kind of panel to judge content issues, but such a panel should be unrelated to the ArbCom. Policy issues should in general be dealt with by the community. The ArbCom should not create policy, although there are a few rare cases where the ArbCom may be asked to recognize policy; see my first answer to AnonEMouse for details.

Questions from Badbilltucker

Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?

   Barring a force majeure situation in real life (which is not particularly likely at my age) I do not think I would have to resign for anything. On the other hand, there may be a situation where I would choose to resign. While negative feelings from some party to an arbitration case is the inevitable par for the course, if I were to initiate or back up an ArbCom decision that caused strife or hard feelings throughout the community, I would seriously reconsider whether I am capable of arbitrating for that community.

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?

   In such situations, it is good that Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. Ideally, we should report on both sides of the debate equally and fairly, using the sources available. Even if they're not familiar with the subject, the ArbCom can look into people's behavior, essentially leveling the playing field by countering undesirable behavior such as revert warring or sockpuppetry. To cite Kosebamse's law, "People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views."

Questions from Anomo

1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   No. The ArbCom has a maturity requirement, but actual maturity is unrelated to physical age. Also, since people in Wikipedia may remain anonymous and as such are not required to state their age, or other personal details, it follows that we cannot enforce an age requirement.

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here [1]. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   This appears to be a leading question. You allege that admins block accounts for no good reason, and allege that "most support it"; I have seen evidence of neither. Obviously I do not support blocks that have no good reason, and neither (I should hope) does the rest of the community. Note that it is possible for a seemingly-inactive account to have contributed to pages that have since been deleted (and thus don't show up in his logs), or to have used the Wikipedia mail-this-user system to harass people. Also note that there are no publically accessible checkuser logs, thus it cannot be determined whether or not there was a checkuser attempt. If you take issue with the blocking behavior of any particular admin, I suggest you bring up the matter at WP:ANI or WP:RFC.

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   I have not heard of such a policy, and double-checking CAT:P I ascertain that we do not have such a policy. In my experience, the term "kicking while they're down" refers to taunting blocked users, which is incivil and should not be done. The user pages of blocked users may in some cases contain misleading information, personal attacks or violations of WP:NOT and as such can be deleted via the appropriate criteria for speedy deletion, or the WP:MFD process.

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   I believe that by "text mentioned something wrong" you are referring to personal attacks on that editor? Removing personal attacks is, as far as I know, an uncommon and somewhat controversial practice. In my opinion it tends not to help the situation, so I would consider it mostly pointless. As above, if you take issue with any particular user, I suggest that bring this up at our dispute resolution process.

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   I am unaware that this is frequent practice, or that is done to avoid communication; could you please show evidence of this? I know of a select few cases where a blocked user was using his talk page inappropriately, generally to engage in personal attacks upon the blocking admin or upon other people he disagrees with. A user blocked for disruption is not entitled to continue this disruption on his talk page, and for this reason the talk page may, in some cases, be protected for the duration of the block.

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Mu.

   Or, more verbosely, this is a leading question in that it presupposes a feeling on my part that does not in fact exist. I do not feel that the ArbCom has always sided with the admins, as demonstrated by the fact that several arbitration cases have resulted in demotion of such admins.

Question from Scobell302

1. Can you explain your seven-month absence from 2006-02 to 2006-09 (In particular, why you declared your absence and later rescinded it)?

   Please see the answer to jd2718's fourth question, earlier on the page.

Question from Dfrg.msc

1. In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

   I am level-headed, have a strong analytical mind, experience with sifting through lengthy debate to separate fact from fallacy, a focus on the spirit of our rules rather than the letter thereof, and an attitude of being stern but even-handed. (Radiant) 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting in the elections

1. Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? --Cyde Weys 20:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   I think there's a wide area between not voting on other candidates, and vehemently publicly attacking them. Nevertheless, I will refrain from voting in this year's election because of the perceived conflict of interest. Likewise, I will not comment on other candidates except to state that there are zero candidates in this election that I have personal issues with, and zero that I would refuse to be in the same committee with in the event that the both of us were elected.

   As an aside, I do believe all candidates should be free to comment on one another and vote for or against one another as they see fit. I think it highly unlikely that any candidate would vehemently publicly attack another, and I think that such a candidate would likely be voted down by the general public anyway.

Remark

1. Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that by the end of this election, there should be no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observations at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restraining to comment in your votes is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you.

Question from Elaragirl

My questions are short, but tricky.

1. There have been a number of contentious AfD's that have ended up as contentious DRV's. A number of these have lead to ill will between Wikipedians, edit wars, etc. Do you think ArbCom should ever take any actions in such contentious XfD/DRV (such as the Esperanza MfD) when the debate is clearly damaging Wikipedia's community?

   The ArbCom does not (and should not) take action unless asked to. I believe the Esperanza issue is mostly resolved without ArbCom intervention; yes, there was nasty debate for a few days, but then Esperanza decided to reflect on themselves and remove some of the most-disliked parts.

2. Assume there are two editors, both in good standing, both with over 5,000 edits, both who have contributed to Wikipedia heavily, who get into a dispute and edit war over an article. Do you see the ArbCom's job to fix the problem or remove an editor who is causing the problem? If the latter, would you ban one or both editors frome editing the article?

   The ArbCom's job is to fix the problem. However, sometimes the problem is caused by one (tendentious) editor and best dealt with by removing said editor from said article. Also, in many cases the problem is caused by both sides, and in such a case removing one side wouldn't help. Your question does not give enough information to determine which of the two is the case. (Radiant) 08:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

3. (Radiant-specific question) You state ArbCom is the highest body of mediation and conflict resolution. Should ArbCom's decisions be binding on Jimbo as well, in the (admittedly unlikely) event a majority of ArbCom feels that Jimbo's actions in a dispute are not in the interest of Wikipedia?

   Given that Jimbo is in the process of devolving his power more, I'd say the answer to that is "yes". Of course, I don't see it ever happening with an official sanction against him. I've known Jimbo to ask advice from various users including the ArbCom, and I'm quite sure that if Jimbo were to do something the ArbCom believed to be a very bad idea, they'd notify him unofficially and discuss the matter.

4. (Radiant-specific question) Since you were so involved in the Userbox Warz, and left over them, what is your current view of userboxes and the so-called "divisive" effect they supposedly have on Wikipedia? Have you seen instances where userboxes touched off an issue (aside from the pedophila userbox) that merits ArbCom attention, and if one did, would you recuse yourself?--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

   I was not "so involved in the Userbox Warz" and did not leave over those; my statements further up on the page explain why I left. My opinion is that the entire userbox issue is blown way out of proportion and that both sides overreacted to it. I've never seen an instance where a userbox touched off an issue, but then I haven't paid much attention to userboxes in the first place. If one would occur I see no reason to a priori recuse myself, but might do so depending on if I had prior interaction with the involved parties.

Questions from NinaEliza 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. As concisely as possible, please explain how you would continue with your stated commitment to the ArbCom process as an ordinary editor, should you NOT be "elected". Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

My reasons for this question are three-fold.

First, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a powerful statement that has many meanings. It means that, among other things, any user has the power to do pretty much anything, should they wish it. I submit my own user contributions as evidence.

Second, one thing that's a constant is Wikipedia's GNU License. As an online-encyclopedia, the history of everything, every edit, every comment, every misdeed, every injury, and every achievement are readily available to anyone who wish to look at it. All they need is a computer, frankly, and they can dig away.

The third is merely a perception. Power is great, but when the entire history of your actions are utterly transparent, and anyone can do virtually anything on their first day here, it's really just a big illusion. I further submit that the more "power" you think you have, the more you have to "lose". You also have to more "work" and have less "fun".

2. What do you think about this "election"? What do you think about your fellow "candidates"? What do you think about "campaign banners" on an online, open-source encyclopedia? What do you think about your own "campaign"? Please answer as concisely as possible, preferably in 100 words or less. For reference, please see this: [WP:Wikipedia is not a Democracy]]?

3. What, specifically have you done wrong in the past as an editor, community member, administrator, and human being trying to create a world-wide online open source encyclopedia on Wikipedia? For reference, see my own user contributions. Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

4. Do you apologize for your actions, and who are you apologising to, specifically? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

5. Hypothetically, how would you deal with an explosion of editors and users behaving very badly because Wikipedia has just aquired a bigger "stick". For reference please see Soft Power.

6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.

Questions from LoveLight

Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• As a reader I must say that this is beyond my area of expertise; I can only reiterate what I heard in the news, and am not in a position to judge if this article is factual or accurate. As a (possible) future arbiter I feel I should not be making content decisions, for that is outside the ArbCom's mandate. I am not sure what you mean about the "status quo imposed on ever-burning editorials"; this is simply not a kind of article I edit (because it's not my expertise) so I am unfamiliar with this status quo. I should point out that it may benefit Wikipedia to instate a "Content Committee" to make difficult content decisions; for obvious reasons this committee should be distinct from the ArbCom.

Question from Zoe

What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ooh, that's a tough question. I have a feeling that whatever I'm going to say here is going to be disliked by people. But let me answer anyway by analysing the proposed decision, in particular the point that states that MONGO engaged in admin abuse.

• In the midst of an edit war in which he was involved, MONGO blocked an editor for 48 hours without warning minutes before reverting his last edit.
  • First, I note this incident took place on June 18, half a year ago. To show evidence for a long-standing pattern of abuse, I would want to see more than one incident every six months.
  • Second, Tom Harrison and Pschemp investigated and concluded the block was proper. Tom notes that Pokipsy had "failed to gain consensus on the talk page, [and is] now trying to force the language [he prefers] by reverting". Pschemp protected Pokipsky's talk page for abuse of the unblock template.
  • Thid, Pokipsky made remarks such as [2] [3] [4], which could be interpreted as trolling, depending on this user's overall behavior. I have not fully investigated Pokipsky, but since his talk page shows several related remarks, it seems quite possible that he was in fact trolling; if so, the block was proper; although MONGO arguably shouldn't have made it himself, this user's misbehavior seems to extend quite a bit beyond the one-phrase-revert on the article in question.
  • Finally, Pokipsy's talk page shows he had been warned several times by several editors, including MONGO. So it is factually incorrect that he was not warned.
• MONGO threatened to block an editor with whom he was in a content dispute.
  • The editor made the remark, "Be careful with razors, you can cut something important." This was apparently in reaction to an earlier editor citing Occam's Razor; MONGO interpreted it as a physical threat. This is an overreaction on MONGO's part. It was discussed on WP:ANI, and afterwards, MONGO retracted his remark. I conclude that MONGO was incivil and owes SalvNaut an apology for overreacting, but also note that MONGO has not abused his admin tools here since he hadn't actually blocked SalvNaut.
• On November 27, he protected Steven_E._Jones, which he had been active in editing.
  • This finding fails to mention that he was active in editing it on November 10th, or two-and-a-half weeks earlier. On Wikipedia, that is a long time. The protection was because of an edit war over this edit; he unprotected a day and a half afterwards. It is telling that MONGO's earlier edits were to note that Steven is a conspiracy theorist; the edit war was on the same issue. However, MONGO protected the page in a version without that claim, thus protecting it in the version he disapproved of. He did not involve himself in the discussion on the talk page, and a compromise has since been reached on the wording. In other words, MONGO has stopped an edit war in a version he didn't like, and allowed a compromise to be reached on the talk page. That is not abusive.
• On December 6, 2006, MONGO removed the full protection of September 11, 2001 attacks, which was protected after a dispute he was involved in.
  • It was protected November 29th. Now in general for edit wars, it's not necessary to protect for more than a few days. Hopefully in these few days the matter is discussed on the talk page, and a compromise is reached; if so, I don't see the problem if a previously involved admin unprotects to enable the compromise to be inserted. Aside from that, the edit war was over whether or not {{pov}} should be on the page; MONGO had made a single edit to the page in the week before, which was unrelated to this dispute. Given the tiny scope of the edit war, the fact that MONGO's single edit was outside this scope, and the length of the page protection, I don't see how it is abusive that MONGO unprotected this page.
• On November 13, MONGO unprotected Operation Gladio, which was protected during an edit war involving Seabhcan, with whom MONGO was in a dispute.
  • I fail to see the problem here. Protection can be abusive if an admin protects in his favored version. Unprotection is basically leveling the playing field, so unless it enables a troll or something (not the case here), how is this abusive? Why would it matter who was involved in an edit war, if the edit war is over and the page can be unprotected? Additionally, I count zero edits by MONGO to this page or its talk page, so I entirely fail to see how this qualifies as admin abuse.

• I therefore find that the evidence for MONGO abusing his admin tools is shaky at best. Since the remedy of his demotion is based on his abuse of tools, I likewise consider this remedy doubtful. At best, it is backed by evidence not listed in the findings of fact. At worst, it is not backed period. During the hour-and-a-half it too me to investigate this, I did find several nasty remarks and other instances of incivility on MONGO's part; hence I would fully support a civility or NPA parole as a remedy for him.