This page is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may ask a question, via one of the following methods:

1. General questions: Editors submitted these from 27 October through 10 November; they appear first.
2. Individual questions: Eligible voters may ask an individual question of one or more candidates; it can be added to the section underneath the general questions. Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do ensure you are not overlapping with a general question, or with an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to provide their responses before voting starts on 1 December. They are reminded that voters may support or oppose based on which questions are responded to as well as the responses themselves. Candidates are welcome to refuse to answer a question if they feel uncomfortable doing so; if a question is very similar to another, candidates are welcome to simply refer the editor to their response to the similar question.

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

(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. (UltraExactZZ)

A: Patience. From what I've seen, a lot of ##%$^&^ comes down the line.

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)

A: See my eight nine Featured Articles promoted this year. Actually, Tony, you commented on several. You usually wanted a copyedit, but I don't think you thought they were that bad.

Rejoinder: Wehwalt, I was seeking specific evidence of your ability to write the kind of text required of arbs (diffs of well-written, well-judged administrative posts would suffice, too). The FAs are normally the product of more than one writer, and have been improved in response to reviewers' advice. Tony (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC

How about my comments in this AN/I thread?

Supplement: Now that it has closed, I will add to that this FAC, showing civil skills in dealing with a difficult situation and building a consensus.

(3) 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 the requests page) and for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;

(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Banned User Subcommittee or considering the subcommittee's recommendations;

(E) Overseeing the granting and use of Checkuser and Oversight permissions, including vetting candidates for these privileges and supervising elections for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;

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

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

(H) Carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators generally are given oversight privileges also);

(I) Internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming Arbcom-l mailing list traffic, reminding colleagues of internal deadlines, and the like;

(J) Assisting with policy- and procedure-related discussions, such as working to finalize the long-pending revision of the Arbitration Policy;

(K) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain). (Newyorkbrad)

A: A through F. I don't think I would care much for running checkusers and doing oversight. I write.

(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? (Sam Blacketer)

A: Use my common sense, get advice from other past and present arbs and members of the community. What you have posted is a BIG question, and I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. I should note that I favor openness whenever possible.

(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of 'groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? (Sam Blacketer)

A:I take it you're talking about me, not ArbCom as a whole. I'm a bit of an iconoclast, so hopefully I will steer my own course. I agree that there is a tension between "cohesion of its members" and not being a bunch of yes-people, but if people assume good faith and respect each other, I'm hopeful this won't be a big problem. Again, don't want to reinvent the wheel and I will seek advice from others who have been there.

(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? (Juliancolton)

A:You think you're going to stop my next FA, Julian? Bring up a few of your hurricanes and try!

(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? (Tznkai)

A:I understand it is substantial. Again, I will hope for advice from current and former arbs. We all know there is a curve associated with this kinda thing. I'm sure I will start off reading every byte. After that, I hope I won't decline very much.

(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? (EdChem)

A:Depends on what was done. If it is just a matter of reminding people to get their decisions in, then that's not very worrisome. If it could affect the outcome, then that is more serious. I would be inclined to say privately, except in egregious cases. ArbCom members get publically flogged enough.

(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? (LessHeard vanU)

A: I'd love to see a community based system. I'm not sure the community is likely to reach consensus on this.

(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? (Davewild)

A:Most of the time, it's gotten it about right, upholding a high standard for the conduct of admins. I'm not in full agreement with what it did in the Undertow/Law case, see below.

(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? (Finn Casey)

A:I'd like to see it done less. Perhaps ArbCom should require in its rulings that a desysopped admin, or one who resigned pending the outcome of an ArbCom case by default must go through an RfA. I can see that sometimes it is appropriate though

(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? (Majorly)

A:How then is it clear that the admin's lost the community's trust? There just isn't enough information to answer this question. Maybe ask me a more specific individual question?

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)

A: I can't be specific, but it would have to be conduct so egregious that I felt that most users, acquainted with the facts, would want the tools yanked.

(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? (Od Mishehu)

A:I'd lay down the LAW to them! Seriously, I was not thrilled by the conduct of the admins who were aware of the Law/The Undertow situation, and I think they should have been dealt with more severely. As WP:ADMIN points out, a high standard of conduct is expected, and concealing a sock (let alone an admin sock) of a banned user is just not right, friend or no friend. I think that much more consideration should have been given to making them have a reconfirmation RfA if they wished to keep the tools.

(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? (Davewild) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A:Ask me that after four months on the committee. If I said it now, I'd deservedly be like the people who call in to sports talk radio saying what THEY would do if they were the owner. (what worries me is when the owner calls in ...)

(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? (Davewild)

A:Agree but: there is so much inertia around here that sometimes people have to lead the consensus but I have no objection to editors and arbitrators doing so. Note that I did not say that the Arbitration Committee should.

(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? (Kotniski)

A: That's what I read when I lurk on Wikipedia Review! Seriously though, that is ArbCom at its worst. Sometimes it does a lot better. I hope that I will help it do so more often.

(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? (Camaron/Majorly)

A:Accept. It works, because nothing better has come along to replace it. If we did not have an arbitration committee, we'd have to have something that does much the same thing. What works for smaller WM projects won't work here.

(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? (Camaron)

A:Yes. See my candidate statement. The community needs to be involved from the beginning in any such proposal.

(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can the committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? (Heimstern)

A:I don't really want to have ArbCom do any of these things, if there's a toe in the door ... (clarification). I'm fine with ArbCom initiating community discussions, as it did in the Macedonia matter, so long as it is prepared to live with the consequences if there is no consensus or if it goes a way ArbCom doesn't like, but it should not lay down procedures by fiat. Lead the discussion, for better or worse, ArbCom members are seen as community leaders, but don't issue decrees, we see where that got ArbCom with the Advisory Committee. Obviously, ArbCom has to sanction users who break policy during content dispute, that is a heavy part of its work. But it needs to avoid backdoor ruling on content disputes in the guise of upholding policy against editors. That can be an awfully fine distinction, but I think it is discernible.

(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague 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? (Heimstern)

A:Intractable problem, there will be no stopping these wars, important thing is to beat them down into brushfires. The community is going to have to help out. The ArbCom process is just too clunky to do it. Sanctions at a lower level will have to do the job as best it can, carefully, with community input into how they are administered.

(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? (Heimstern)

A:Obviously ArbCom should promote civility. Those things you mention are mitigating factors, yes. I guess continued incivility despite repeated interventions could be cause for those sanctions you mention. Civility restrictions can be a good thing, depends on the individual involved.

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)

A:Get my work done on time and strongly encourage others to do the same.

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)

A:Vital. There just isn't enough arb time to do anything else than to make ArbCom the last resort, not the first.

(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. (NuclearWarfare)

A:It was a mistake by ArbCom. I was not asked to serve and was very active in the discussions against it.

(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months.[1] Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. (NuclearWarfare)

A: What are the alternatives? Who else you got? I guess they will have to. Maybe choose arbs with more edits?

(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? (Jake Wartenberg)

A:I agree.

(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? (Jake Wartenberg)

A:I don't care to guess why it acted as it did, I accept that members acted in good faith as stated in their comments. I would have desysoped both, or at least required a reconfirmation vote (slight distinction).

(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? (Jake Wartenberg)

A: This may be controversial and may sink my candidacy, but I would have voted to desysop all of them who were both admins and who were friends with Law/the Undertow, or at least required them to face a new RfA to keep the tools. Friendship is a great thing, but that friendship was a huge COI with their duties as admins. No block or other sanction, but they should not have kept the bits without a RfA. If they were not admins at the time, then nothing should have been done agains them. (Note: I originally answered this in a way that implied that Iridescent was a friend of L/t U, and thus should have been desysoped. This was not in fact the case. Sorry about the confusion, and no intention to offend.) In the interests of full disclosure, I did !vote support in Law's RfA, as I had seen him around and he seemed capable but I had no idea he was a sockpuppet and was not acquainted with the Undertow.

(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). (Camaron)

A:I think the Law/the Undertow case was badly bungled. ArbCom should have laid out a clear COI ruling for those with responibility at WP. As for the best, I think Macedonia 2 was very well handled. Many parties, much evidence, complex issues, all done and meaningful sanctions handed out where appropriate in six weeks. Of course, any ethnic dispute is a minefield, but ArbCom did quite well, sticking principally to conduct, not content.

(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) (Daniel)

(As a point of further clarification, it is entirely unnecessary to read the case these principles were originally decided in — the intent of these questions are to establish your opinion on the general principles that are linked to, while working under the assumption they are directly relevant to a case you are deciding.)

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007

A: Agree. If there's something terrible in an email, such as a threat of violence, there are other channels to deal with the situation.

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007

A:Broadly, yes. There might be exceptions to the general rule of responsiblity other than as stated, but I can't think of any offhand. I frankly would like to axe the exception for checkuser/oversight/OTRS, it struck me that the OTRS volunteers should have been willing to discuss the Afghan kidnapping cases, and should have asked the OTRS requestor for permission once the individuals in question were freed.

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

A:Yes but ... people do throw around legal terms without really meaning them in the legal sense. I might be inclined to water this down a bit. I think in case of doubt, the editor should be invited to clarify what he is saying.

(iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008

A:Agree. Mediation is privileged. Period.

(v) "Outing", June 2009

A:I disagree. It is just too broad. If you disclose your nationality, others have carte blanche to disclose other personal info on you? That's how I'd read it.

(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? (NuclearWarfare)

A:I don't think it was the worst decision ever made. MBisanz was qualified. Sometimes it is worth stretching a rule just a little bit to make life easier for everyone. Probably a little better communication, especially in advance, would have defused the issue entirely.

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

A:I think the book is more important than the cover. If you can show me otherwise, please do.

(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? (NuclearWarfare)

A:I'm satisfied in general with it. If there are specific areas that concern you, please ask me as an individual question.

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)

A:"Wehwalt" is the only account I have ever used. I've probably made a very few edits while not logged in, but very few indeed. Not more than twenty, my guess is, and none recently.

(36) One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? (Newyorkbrad)

A:I'm probably going to be lenient. The project is immense and will last our time and longer, and I don't want to throw away help if it can possibly be avoided. So I'm going to be looking for indications that an editor can be salvaged to help us out.

Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, 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. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.

The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The next question determines your ability to go through evidence. The last question is a bit open-ended.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?

   It did take a long time, didn't it? That being said, I find Coren's explanation in his responses entirely reasonable (note: I do not use other peoples' responses as a basis or to "check" against mine. I read his because I was curious to see what questions were being asked of a sitting arb).

2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?

   My personal opinion is yes, if the article editor wants say, A-class status in the project for the article. Otherwise no.

3. 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?

   Be patient. We've gotten some pretty good editors who started off in a nonconstructive manner, from what I've heard.

4. There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?

   I don't take it that seriously. People soon figure out that a reflexive "no" is barely worth reading.

5. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?

   Are you saying, say, a learning disabled person, or say, a non-English speaker? My answer would differ.

   Either or both. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me start with the language thing. The editors of Croatian national football team kept insisting on bringing the article back to FAC when it plainly wasn't there and had huge language issues, and there were tensions between them and the FAC reviewers and delegates. I did a bit of work on the article, then nominated it for GAR as a means of improving it. The editors were very suspicious, but by the end of the process (the article was kept as a GA and wasn't renominated at FAC), they thanked me for my efforts. It all worked out happily. So work patiently with foreign languagers and get them to realize you're not the enemy. As for learning disabled, I would not assume I could throw a cut and dry answer in, but would seek the widest possible comment and help.

6. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?

   Sigh. If the problem can't be solved in any other way. We are here to build an encyclopedia, in the last analysis. If there is ongoing disruption that takes away from other editors' time and from the limited amount of emotion they are willing to invest on talk page, if we are emotionally tiring them out, then they won't be contributing. As a last resort, after every alternative has failed. I should add that I did not and do not support the DougsTech ban. He should have been ignored.

7. Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.

   Do a reversion of content in any article more than three times in 24:00:00, you've crossed a bright line and absent exigent circumstances (prompt self reversion might help), some sort of a block is in order. Even if you're an established editor, even if you think you have a good reason for doing it that doesn't rise to the level of a 3RR exception.

8. When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?

   Not something ArbCom handles a lot of, but my standard would be if the name is a distraction from the encyclopedia for the average editor.

9. A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?

   Personal opinion: if they are nonproductive. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not achieve Nirvana.

10. During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. b) When the story was made public, do you believe that the editor you chose handled this situation properly in stepping down? Were they forthcoming enough with information?

    Respectfully, I'm going to decline this one. I can parrot their statements, but I decline to speculate beyond that. Please feel free to rephrase and ask again.

    Just briefly summarize why they left. I'm no longer scoring the second half of the question. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am getting very leery about how I characterize other people in this candidacy, having already been burned once. Accordingly, I reply as follows: Casliber resigned for the reasons as stated here. How's that?  :)

11. Tell me as much as you can about User:OrangeCounty39. You may refer to any page on the Internet except for other ArbCom candidates' replies to this question.

    If you are going to test my research skills, please do it in connection with something else than an actual editor, even though I see this one was a sock.

12. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

    How long you got? Seriously, though, one major problem is the difficulty of making changes, the tremendous inertia the status quo has. We're seeing that on flagged revisions (see Lar's questions, below)

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is the purpose of arbitration to resolve disputes, or to uphold policies and community norms? To what extent can, or should, the Committee ignore policy if doing so allows a more effective resolution to a particular dispute?

   Theoretically the former; in practice tending towards the latter. IAR applies to ArbCom just like everything else but should never, never be used in my view.

2. How should the desire to be fair to every individual involved in arbitration be balanced with the need to expediently resolve disputes?

   In practice, hard to do. I think you just have to do your best and err on the side of fairness.

3. When presented with groups holding two competing visions of what Wikipedia ought to be, should the Committee strive to maintain a balance of power between the two sides, or espouse one in preference to the other?

   I have trouble understanding your question. Are these groups composed of members who are parties to the arb? Can you rephrase?

4. Should every infraction discovered in the course of an arbitration proceeding be sanctioned? Why or why not?

   If it is irrelevant to the subject of the arb, and minor, or old, then what's the point of wasting ArbCom time on it?

5. Why did arbitration decisions shift from individual, targeted sanctions, to general sanctions, and finally to discretionary sanctions? How did this trend change the editing environment in affected areas, and to what extent have those changes benefitted the project?

   IN my view, as the encyclopedia grew and ArbCom tried to make its decisions have broader scope, these events occurred. I could not tell you how it changed the "editing environment in affected areas", that is a broad and rather undefined term. I'd like to think that they've benefitted the project by having guidance from ArbCom with greater applicability but honestly I have my doubts as to the effectiveness.

6. Are admonishments, reminders, and warnings effective as arbitration remedies? Why or why not?

   They can be, if you pick your individual correctly. Some would just blow it off.

7. Is the shift away from informal decision-making and consensus and towards formal procedures and rules of order in the Committee's day-to-day business desireable? Why or why not?

   I think so. I think the idea is to have more structure and eliminate complaints about proceedings getting out of control, possible favoritism. People can at least observe the rules and check if they are followed.

8. To what extent should individual arbitrators bear collective responsibility for the actions of the Committee as a whole? Is it acceptable for an arbitrator to undermine a decision he or she disagrees with?

   Sounds good to me. You don't like it and want to stay an arb, stand behind it except to the extent you've authored an oppose vote. If you leave ArbCom, you can criticize all you want.

9. Arbitration has been described as mixing the characteristics of adversarial and inquisitorial systems. To what extent is this correct? To what extent is this desireable?

   Less than some would think, because I don't observe arbs being very inquisitorial, drawback of the online process, I guess. I wonder how a professional arbitrator would regard it ... it's a little sui generis if you ask me. Desirable? Well, it works a lot of the time, so I guess that makes it desireable.

10. Over the past several years, a number of cases (notably C68-FM-SV, Date delinking, and Scientology) have taken an extremely long time to resolve. What are the primary causes of this, and how can they be addressed?

    Scientology had a large number of parties, not sure what was up with the other two. One idea might be for ArbCom to file some sort of progress report in cases (nothing long or arduous) on cases which are taking long times to decide. Or perhaps have a clerk report how much and how recent discussion there's been? Just ideas.

11. Are the main systemic problems with arbitration a result of the Committee's failings, or consequences of the environment in which the Committee functions?

    My view: environment. The Wikipedia environment is something else sui generis. Trying to craft something to be really effective in that just might be difficult!

Good luck! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is your username pronounced? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vay-vahlt, technically. It is from Die Walkure, the name that Siegmund calls himself. I'm not as much into opera as I once was, but when Hunding sings "Wehwalt! Wehwalt!" at the end of Act II, it sends chills down my spine.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident that you are a very prolific content contributor; while the community has expressed desire in the past to have "strong content contributors" on the Committee to give a writer's perspective, holding a seat will almost necessarily mean that your own contributions will be scaled down dramatically. Is this something you have considered and are comfortable with? Or, alternately, do you have sufficient availability to do both?

A: I've thought about it. I'm hopeful I can do both. I doubt I'd have eight FAs next year, but I think I can keep up a slower place while fulfilling my obligations to the community.

You're obviously an excellent mainspace editor but I don't remember having seen you much around ANI, arb cases, etc. Could you mention any memorable on-wiki dispute resolution that you've been involved in?

A:Hi, could you sign in and confirm who you are? Please recall that questions are to be asked only by editors eligible to vote. I don't mind the question, I just feel that I should know who is asking it. You also might want to leaf back through my contributions. My last significant contribution to AN/I was on October 20.

Hmm, you're right, I didn't notice the eligibility thing. Feel free to ignore the question, or maybe someone else can take ownership of it. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably answer it anyway, just give me some time to think about it. Have you considered starting an account? If you are questioning ArbCom candidates, you obviously have an interest in the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd have the edits if you had the account, so no problem about answering your question. I kinda like my verbal duel with Aitias over RHMED, see here--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These questions are being asked of all candidates.

• In limited conversation with past and present arbitrators, they have regularly mentioned the pronounced time demands which being a member of the Arbitration Committee can require, particularly in the difficult or complex cases, on such matters as reading evidence, reviewing behavior of individuals, and discussion of solutions. Do you believe that you will be able to give such matters the time they require?
• Also, as has been mentioned above, several editors have indicated some arbitrators become less active as regular contributors, either because of the "politics" or because of the demands on time. Do you anticipate being able to continue to function as an active content contributor while an arbitrator?
• Also, do you anticipate that your exposure to the seamier side of wikipedia might make you less interested in continuing as a content contributor on the conclusion of your ArbCom term?

• A. Thanks. As I've mentioned above, I understand my arb duties will take away time, but I intend to keep on as a FA writer, possibly at a slower pace. What I will try to do is limit the low priority stuff, like my project to make sure all ICC commissioners have articles, that has meant about 15 new articles for WP. I think I'll be able to give ArbCom the time it deserves, but also find at least some time for the hammer and nails part of building an encyclopedia. I don't think ArbCom service will disillusion me as a WP editor.

You have written a few FAs relating to his politics? What do you think of him and his policies? And ditto for Kissinger. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon, I guess you mean. I like the young Nixon, so full of potential, and I also like the elder statesman. Not a big fan of Nixon as president though. Kissinger, I find something vaguely disloyal about him, in terms of to Nixon and Ford, though he was certainly an able diplomat.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are your feelings on the sometimes lax enforcement of WP:BLP? Should a user be banned for repeated BLP violating edits? Forgetting for a second the username associated with the following edits, do you feel that this edit is appropriate for a BLP? What about this one? One of those edits is from several years ago, so I am not trying to hold it against you, but I do wonder if you now feel that it is an appropriate edit or not.

A:Hi, the first one was a reversion of this, removal of sourced material. The second was not appropriate as unsourced and opinion. September of 2006, ah, that was a very good year. And I disagree that BLP enforcement is lax, the current ArbCom has taken steps to beef it up. I'm grateful for your not holding my inexperienced edit from September 2006 against me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do you find the first one, from Jan. of this year, to be appropriate for a BLP? Do you think the source used in that edit is appropriate to use in a BLP? nableezy - 21:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous question was posted, but then removed by nableezy. I'm going to answer it anyway. No, the sourcing was substandard, though still most likely a RS. But it was a very badly sourced article, and I couldn't abide removing one of the few sourced passages. Probably it would have been better for the editor who removed the paragraph if he had questioned the sourcing, with a dubious tag. I then acted to increase the accuracy of the article by changing a characterization to a quote.

Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention at [2]. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it until the case became moot days later because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks,  Sandstein  00:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: So I read in the Signpost. I consider that ArbCom's failure to act in the matter did nothing to encourage you to keep up the good work. I will not, however, speculate as to why they acted as they did, but I think that your motion should have been heard promptly, and dealt with.

Your answer to my general question 23 (how will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency) is so short and vague that it really isn't useful at all. Can you be more specific? What exactly do you mean with getting your work done "on time"? How exactly are you going to encourage others to do the same?

A:For myself, I will not be the slow oar that slows ArbCom up. I'll read the evidence in a timely fashion. If I am asked to write something, I'll have it in when I'm supposed to. I will expect others to do the same, or I'll ask why not, and raise the issue of anyone who is slowing up the boat, most likely on an internal level. Additionally, since much of the task is reading what can be quite a volume of evidence, I will expect ArbCom's clerks to strike any "evidence" which is obviously irrelevant, and caution the parties against posting same.

Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.

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. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.

1. 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:

   Nothing is perfect. It's doing a decent job. I'm cautious about doing too many changes at once, you might not be able to tell what is working and what isn't.

   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.

   At first look, I'm not in favor. If the article is based on reliable sources, then the subject is out there anyway. He's got no cause to complain when he's been found to be notable, he's been the subject of articles. We're the least of his problems.

   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.

   No, similar rationale to previous.

   c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)

   It sounds attractive and obviously you think well of it, but I'd really like to hear more arguments pro and con.

   d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get

   You sound skeptical that Santa will show up. Yeah, I'm for it (see below)

   e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied

   I am inclined to support it, but I would like to see the exact way in which it would be implemented before I decide for sure.

2. 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?

   Mixed content and policy. Principally 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?

   I agree, some have viewed ArbCom's actions as mandating policy. Generally speaking, I have not, on BLP in my view ArbCom's taken a reasonable stance, even though it has stepped on toes now and then. I don't know by what yardstick you measure "too far" or "too little". If you want to rephrase, please let me know.

   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.

3. 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? Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?

   It has been said, true. That don't make it so. Most discussions are not unmanageably large and in fact are usually engaged in by the usual suspects. I think consensus can still work where voting is inappropriate.

4. 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? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?

   I think it is a good idea, and six months after we have it, we'll wonder how we ever managed the other way. Yes, the community can't reach consensus, but Jimbo's putting some cred on the line and pushing it through. I'm agreeing with him (p.s. I often don't). I don't see that ArbCom has an expanded role here, beyond resolving any cases that come up which touch on them. I don't know the full reasons for the delay in implemention, I've heard that it has been taking some time to work out the fine details. As to why the community didn't reach consensus, well, sometimes, the Community has an awful lot of inertia. Too paraphrase Yes Minister: "Why not?" "It's been that way for two hundred years." "Is that the reason" "It has been for two hundred years" (then Bernard breaks in and explains that fifty years ago, the reason was that it had been that way for 150 years, etc.)

5. 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 support it.

   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)?

   (not applicable)

   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?

   You cannot unring that bell, and absent exigent circumstances, such as accidental self-outing (you didn't notice that you copy and pasted personal information instead of the quote you were planning to until you hit save), we shouldn't be doing that job.

   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?

   Bright line rule, my opinion anyway: If someone does not choose to put their real identity on Wikipedia, then another editor intentionally putting it on site or putting it offsite where others will come across it is outing, and that is wrong. Pure and simple.

   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 from last year in that it's more extensive)

   We do just fine with pseudonymous admins, I see no need for change in policy. Individual preference. I do not disclose my personal identity and do not plan 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 think few editors read Foundation documents. WP:OUTING is clear enough. I think that the Foundation should be encouraging projects to uphold policy, and that ArbCom should be zealous about upholding WP:OUTING. You'll find me a hardliner on this one, I fear, though I am usually pretty easygoing.

   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 from last year)

   It makes no difference. As WP:OUTING says, a block's in order. I think that's fair.

6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.

   a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

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

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

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

   e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

   f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?

   I'm declining to answer, and read my entire answer. These matters are so far outside the ambit of an admin, or an arb, that it scares me to think of well meaning people screwing around with this stuff. This is entirely for the Foundation lawyers and their judgment, and for the executives. If I were presented with this stuff, or if an ArbCom on which I am sitting is considering this, I'm emailing the Foundation attorneys, who earn the big bucks to do this, and I'm following their guidance. Which is probably going to be "Thanks for letting us know, we'll handle it, stay out of the way." If that's not the answer you want, please think strongly about it yourself. If you want to ask (e) as a free standing question, I could answer that.

   OK, consider (e) asked as a free standing question. As for the rest, I'm interested in your opinion. I don't buy the "it doesn't matter in the slightest what an arbitrator personally believes" although I'm not saying litmus tests are a good idea either. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me speak to (e). It's a very fuzzy line. If I were to look at it, I would be looking for such things as talk page posts of doubtful civility, mainspace edits undercut or microcriticized, other indications of bad faith. I'd assume good faith on the part of the editor being complained about. For the others, I respectfully disagree with you. How could you possibly deal with (d) with any degree of certainty without outing someone? How do you know someone is a stalker, or a victim? I've read some other answers to this question, but I am giving it to you straight. a,b,c and d are legal matters that the Foundation needs to deal with. I'll answer (f) though: I have not experienced an editor "playing the stalking card" so I don't know. Please don't think I'm ducking questions; I've answered well over 100 now counting parts and subparts. The few more you pose don't make much difference. It's just how I feel.

   To supplement a bit, to explain the reasons for my call: You ask, for example, about a "real life stalker". How the blip would we determine that? How would we determine that someone is a real life victim? Is this possible for ArbCom, even with checkuser? And "stalker" is a relatively recent development in the law, what it means varies from place to place, and it isn't even a concept in other places. We have very competent attorneys experienced in multijurisdictional law, they work for the Foundation and when in doubt I'm going to them. If it wrecks my score, Lar, I'm very sorry, but it's the truth and it's how I feel.

7. 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?

   Your use of the passive voice has destroyed the information I need to answer. Who is so characterizing the editor and who is invoking the principle? Please feel free to clarify or ask a supplemental.

   This question is a word for word repeat from last year. No serious candidate last year had trouble answering it, IIRC. Several other candidates this year have already answered it as well. Give it a go. One key attribute of a good arbitrator is to make sense of statements that might not be worded perfectly. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fine. I will say that each reversion must be justified through an appropriate edit summary. It shouldn't be hard if it is as bad a case as you paint. The idea of someone making large number of good edits in order to put in sneaky vandalism is a new one on me. If this is known to be the case, he should be blocked or given another sanction. He's not making positive edits to improve the enyclopedia, he's just using it as camouflage.

8. 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?

   It is preferable that it remain on Wiki. There are sometimes it is not practical to have the discussion on wiki, though. Unless there is intent to grossly violate our policies, I'd leave it in the good judgment of editors.

   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)?

   I think WR performs a useful function in giving us a semi-outside perspective on our actions. If you note on my user page, I quote them twice, praising me. However, my rapture is modified; they are panning my candidacy ... I'm not familiar with Wicback. Do you want me to look? I'm sure it has an article.

   I doubt Wikback has an article. It was started by former Arbitrator UninvitedCompany in 2008. Whether you choose to research further is up to you. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   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?

   All perfectly appropriate, but I would strongly discourage doing so under your wikiname if you are an admin, and very much so if you are a Arb, where your discussion regarding your role should really be where editors can see it. Good place to blow off steam. However, I'd hate to see an Arb under his own name going there and discussing stuff that he'd not mention onsite.

   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 do not. And yes, it is acceptable, with the cautions as expressed above, and I would consider it a form of outing. "What's in a name?"

   f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?

   I don't know. It's not something I've concerned myself with during my time at Wiki.

9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?

   I think the Law/the undertow snafu showed we are hardly immune from that one. The community needs to make clear it won't stand for it. This should be an interesting election ...

10. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

    Octarine, and if you have to ask it is obvious you won't understand the answer! :)

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration, when it was proposed by an arbitrator that a user's status as a "functionary" should be removed, you opposed with the following statement: "I think there are partisans who feel that if they can come out of this with [the user's] scalp, the rest of the remedies don't matter."[3] I am sure you know that the remedy nevertheless passed. I would like to first say that I have no issue with anyone opposing the remedy. However, my question relates to the seeming attachment of gross bad faith to the proposal, and the provocative language used to do so. First, to what extent in evaluating disputes do you see bad faith (political/personal/other) as a significant factor, and in those disputes, what is your view on the appropriate decorum? Second, would your tone be different in your role as an arbitrator (or was this an unusual case)? Thank you, Mackan79 (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought. Possibly you should have mentioned that the discussion in question took place in the workshop of the arbitration, where ideas are kicked around and frank language is common. As you know, not everyone participates at ArbCom and they might not be aware of that, I'm sure you'd agree only fair to tell them that. I believe your question is phrased, no doubt inadvertedly, in such a way as to imply I felt the arb was guilty of bad faith. Not so. My point, which I stand by (there are times when you have to be blunt) is to say that some of the people engaged in the discussion had that perspective. My view was far from alone, please note some of the comments from editors concerning the proposal

• "Absolutely ridiculous. If this is a serious proposal, the proposer should recuse himself from the case."
• "This is well past draconian... it's just baffling. Poor idea on many, many levels"
• "Would make Draco blush."
• "Why do I get the sense that laws are invented, tweaked and/or interpreted in novel, ad hoc ways during the arbitration to “get” [sic] one person?"
• "Totally agree with Wehwalt that "there are partisans who feel that if they can come out of this with Jayjg's scalp, the rest of the remedies don't matter." This case has gone far afield, and the penalties proposed excessive."
• "You have got to be kidding me."
• "I agree with Ynhockey, Slrubenstein and Wehwalt. It seems like Jayjg is currently a victim of a head hunting campaign by some of his long time enemies, who keep piling up unrelated incidents that are long past prescription."
• "This suggestion is inappropriate to the point of being offensive."

You yourself were strongly in favor of the remedy, something which you do not disclose in your question, which is perhaps unfortunate, and you pushed hard for remedies against those on one side of the dispute. While you are not running for ArbCom, it is appropriate to note the history of a questioner to explain tone and POV in the question asked. I will say, in a purely disinterested way, because I doubt I will procure your vote, that your contribution, which immediately preceded mine, was more thoughtful than many, and at least had diffs. However, I thought less well of your proposed findings of fact, which would have had the effect of excusing poor conduct by certain parties to the dispute who had positions opposite to that of Jayjg. Also, I will note that this remedy against Jayjg passed 10-3 in an arb where most remedies passed unanimously or 12-1. Never any shame in supporting a minority. Sorry we don't agree on this.

Thanks for responding, and as I said absolutely I do not question the view you took. I think this wouldn't be the right forum, which is also why I wanted/want to avoid discussing my own views on the case (I disagree with your take on some of my comments, needless to say). I do think it's appropriate to ask you about the way you stated your position, as an independent matter. I can clarify a little and say that my concern relates to past members of the committee, some of whom seemed unwilling to show respect for editors -- highly productive, long-term editors -- even while continuing to adjudicate disputes involving those editors. I think this damaged the relationship between the community and the committee, not necessarily because the arbitrators took strong views, but because they seemed unable or unwilling to restrain these views in a precise fashion (Newyorkbrad's arrival was, I think, the most important factor in changing this). I think that is an important issue, so I'd hoped you could clarify your views on the matter. For what it's worth I know almost nothing of your editing (other than the impressive article work), so I am genuinely interested, even if it was intended as a tough question. Mackan79 (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for your reply. Please note that I have entirely withdrawn from the editing area in question. I took a wikibreak from it, found I liked not having those articles on my watchlist, and never went back. I think people can count on me to be utterly fair in my Arb work, like I strive for NPOV in my article work. After all, if I have written FA's on both Chotiner and Voorhis, two men who really hated each other (especially Voorhis to Chotiner, I found a file filled with articles on Chotiner when I went to California to view the Voorhis Archives at Claremont), I can show fairness in Arb work. Perhaps I spoke too quickly in writing off your vote, hope you will consider it! Also my campaign fund is kinda low right now ...

Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
   1. Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?

      I'm generally content with it, as I've made clear there are individual cases where I disagree with what ArbCom has done.

   2. Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?

      I would not mind a community desysoping procedure, but as I've made clear above, I don't think it is likely the community will pull together and come up with one. Without that, ArbCom will have to do. At least ArbCom comes back to the community for elections, now and then, and so is the most immediate responsible to the community.

   3. How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?

      I don't see the problem. Admins have been effectively blocked in emergency situations over the past year. The status quo is working there, no need for change at present.

   4. What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?

      Well, if it is not under controversial circumstances, which I take to mean "I'm not fired, I quit!", they get it back on request. That's fine.

2. What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
   1. What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?

      Promoting a collegial environment, and avoiding conduct, not necessarily the use of specific words (I don't go for "zomg he said damme!") which by its very nature tends to discourage others from being a part of the project.

   2. Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?

      I really can't say, not only do I only see a very small part of the project, but also I've disengaged gradually from a lot of controversial areas since becoming an admin.

   3. Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?

      A class? No. A few? Yes. Who think they can be clever and never quite rise to the level of insult, or who believe their friends will back them if they start trouble or who act in a passive aggressive manner. As I said, a few. I think time will teach them the errors of their ways.

   4. Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?

      God, no. Why would you even ask that?

   5. Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?

      Sounds good, I guess, but we shouldn't police every word used by our editors, and we'll just push things into email or WR. Let's allow some leeway and if they are going too far, crack down.

   6. If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?

      To encourage civility and enforce it when it's gotten so out of hand that it is before us, without being a combination of Anthony Comstock and Mrs. Grundy.

3. What is your opinion regarding Wikipedians "rights," or at least "expectations" to privacy and ano/psuedo-nymity, and what is ArbCom's role in either supporting or adjusting these expectations/rights?

   1. We should not tolerate outing in any way. It's cyberbullying in my opinion. If it gets to us, make it clear it is not acceptable.

4. Lastly, please list one to three issues that you believe are of primary importance to the ongoing future of wikipedia and how you will contribute to the handling of those issues. Please feel free to copy/paste sections from your nominating statement if you have addressed it there.

   Where are we going to be in five years? Ten years? I just don't see very much by way of in-project long term planning. No doubt the Foundation is doing more in house. It isn't so much an ArbCom, but I'd use my (ha ha) enhanced status (which is kinda like the high position that a man on a gallows occupies) to try to be a part of that. Wikipedia is like eBay, our getting there first has made us the 800 pound gorilla who sleeps where he wants to, but unless we get our act together are we really going to be #1 with no rivals forever? Don't think so. If we do get our act together (whatever that entails), I see Wikipedia as the start of a centralized repository of knowledge for the ordinary person which could be bigger than all of us.

1. How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?

   I'm cautious about emails from parties. Ideally, everything should be on the talk page record. If I reply to a party on my own talk page, odds are I would put a link in the discussion page.

2. How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?

   Monitor, yes. Participate, I know not all do, and I'd like to hear more from arbs about why that is so once I'm a member (assuming).

3. In both my experience, and that of some other editors I talked to, being "grilled" at arbitration for weeks (or months) is "one of the worst experience of one's life" - and it doesn't matter if one is found innocent or guilty afterwards. Do you think that something can be done to make the experience of parties be less stressful?

   Sigh. Other than being respectful and making sure people know they are listened to, giving them a fair hearing? Not too much. Thing is, the situation adds a lot of stress to things, and not much I can do about that.

4. Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?

   Very well done. I only wish the math was so simple ... you'll notice I rarely block and am more apt to unblock.

5. ArbCom commonly criticizes editors, publishing findings about their failings and remedies to correct them. While nobody disputes this is needed, do you think ArbCom should also try to clarify whether noted failings are exceptional, and accompany critical findings with positive reinforcement, such as here?

   I have noticed in several cases this year, ArbCom has expressed appreciation for the work people have done even when it is unfortunately deemed necessary to sanction them. I think that is very positive.

Do you use any of the wikimedia related IRC channels? If you do, will you please permit any logs of your conversations to be posted, in full? Thanks.

I do not use IRC at all, whether for wiki related stuff or otherwise.

Have you read War and Peace?

Yes. I took a Russian literature course my sophomore year in college.

--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Forgive me if this has been asked or answered elsewhere, and if it's private or sensitive please feel free to discuss by email.

Your statement says that you are a lawyer. It also suggests that in various ways (separate to your abilities as an editor/admin) this would be an asset at Arbcom.

It occurs to me that anyone could make such a claim, as could any genuine lawyer of unknown professional community standing.

In general, if a candidate's candidacy is being significantly bolstered by a claim related to a real-life matter, do you feel they should identify themselves to the community or provide some means of verifying this, so people can form their own view on their real-world standing? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you decide if it is being significantly bolstered? Lawyers are widely hated, you know! I got a few lawyer jokes if you got the time! Seriously, though, if I win the election, I will have to identify to the Foundation, and I think that word would get out if someone made a serious misrepresentation about his or her status. Thanks.

There are some activities of lawyers that the legal system more-or-less officially condones that amount to good reasons why good people might hate them and bad people might not. My view of Wehwalt is mostly positive. But one thing he and another editor did was a type of irrationality that probably results from their being lawyers. I said that a certain Wikipedia guideline did not make sense as applied to an article that was on my watchlist. They both said I should have chosen a different article to apply that protest to. That was the looniest thing I've seen asserted in any discussion of any Wikipedia article. It would have been obvious to any sane person that my concern resulted from caring about that article, not from caring about the policy in question. In some situations being a lawyer seems to impair the ability of people of otherwise above-average intelligence to understand simple things. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is more, should such candidates somehow (not necessarily publicly) expect to show that their claimed credentials are genuine, if they cite them in a high level election? For example evidencing them to WMF or the like, similar to identification in that it's non-public and confidential. I'm thinking of this case, where they didn't, and they weren't, for example. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the person is asking for privileges or election, it is entirely proper to ask "will you send a copy of your law license to the Foundation and let them verify it"? I have absolutely no problem with doing so. Since technically this is not an election, but a selection by Jimbo in which he generally takes the top vote getters, if the qualifications of an ArbCom candidate did not pan out, he could simply decline to select them. I'd like to see some sort of a procedure for this, rather than have it be ad hoc. And it should not be public, I'd like to see the Foundation say "he set us a copy of his license for the current year, we checked it out with the licensing agency's web site and it's kosher." So I think we agree, and I'd be willing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing [4]. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is the 800 pound gorilla of Wikipedia, he sleeps where he wants to. If he say that he'll enforce that with blocks, well, for all intents and purposes, it's policy. I agree with him generally. Until I'm shown a way we could have paid editing without the likelihood of strong POV, it is likely to stay that way. Few are so altruistic as to want to pay to, say, improve Rise of Neville Chamberlain. (that's a campaign commercial for my latest FAC!)

As for Jimbo himself and his continuing role, I think he is wise to be continuing to reduce his role on the English Wikipedia.

And yes, I like short questions. Especially ones that are different from all others so far asked!

If elected, will you plan to recuse yourself from matters involving Mattisse (talk · contribs)? MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address the question at some length. I thought this would become an issue.

As you may be aware, Mattisse has copyedited a number of my FAs. She also collaborated with me on the FA/TFA Rudolf Wolters, along with User:Fainites, who unhappily has had less pleasant experiences with Mattisse. She is also someone I bounce ideas off of. She helped shape my latest FA, Nikita Khrushchev, the longest biography FA ever to pass, she read the book although she did not participate in the writing. It helps to have someone who can comment on the writing and will do so fearlessly. At the risk of costing myself votes, I will describe her as a friend.

I am also aware of the problems she has had, and is having, elsewhere on Wikipedia. I do not choose to get involved in those issues. I have read the proceedings before ArbComm, and have restricted myself to one procedural comment there.

"Friends" of Arbs, or even admins, can be a touchy subject. It is my belief that one cannot both be a friend of someone and sit in judgment over her formally. I have done my best to be supportive of her throughout, as she is a valued member of the project. I did not, however, intervene in her difficulties. Other admins and some arbs, have had different standards. The community member might be excused if he thinks that "Friend of Arb" is a get out of jail free card after the Law/the undertow situation. Incidentally, I am still unconvinced that all who knew Law was the undertow, and who occupied positions of trust at Wikipedia, have come forward.

To me, the office of Arbitrator at the English Wikipedia is a great office, I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity of the men and women who run for that office and who might obtain it. I tell you therefore, that if I become aware of a serious violation of policy by another Wikipedian, I will disclose it. I'd frankly like to see all others seeking to become Arbs, or seeking reelection, make the same pledge. If not: You will have to pass judgment on that particular point.

As for Mattisse, of course I would recuse myself. I would much rather have her as a friend, then sit in judgment over her. You can't do both. Some might say, throw her under the campaign bus, so what? That isn't the way I work. I will not sit in judgment over her; I will have her for a friend—regardless of what they say about it, I'm going to keep her.

_{Just in case you didn't get it, I'm quoting or paraphrasing from the Checkers speech to advertise my FA/TFA. Also to be a bit tongue in cheek. My only FA for WikiProject Dogs ...}

Would you rather have Richard Nixon as President or Barack Obama? Why?

A: I'll take the fifth. You want a glass or shall I empty it all myself?

Gotta be Nixon for me, Obama's an empty vessel, speaking of which make mine a large one. RMHED (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume from the fact that I've written FA's about Nixon's early career anything about my political views. After all, I have two FA's about Democratic politicians.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I'm not assuming, the view expressed above was solely my own. Oh and I'm a card carrying union member, I just can't stand shallow politicians. RMHED (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I asked the ten editors who have viewed your userpage the most times if you were more of an inclusionist or a deletionist, what would most of them say as the answer (this is a limited question, no "well it isn't that clear" answer).

Second, if I asked them to describe why they answered that way, what would most of them say (this is an unlimited question, I'm hoping for a detailed answer).

I honestly don't think they would have a strong view on the subject. I'm an article builder. I have not been intensively involved at AfD. They'd say different strokes for different folks, and Wehwalt spends most of his time in mainspace writing articles.

You are free to ask them of course!

1. What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?
2. How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.

My talk page is always open. I pledge to listen, and do my best to absorb it all. I pledge to remain an independent voice, as I have been here on Wikipedia. I promise not to jump to conclusions, and to let everyone be free to remind me of this pledge. I promise not to get all sullen when there is widespread disagreement with one of my positions (as far as I can see, every Arb has been through that one). These are my intentions, and I really hope I will remain true to them.

1. A major concern of mine is the use/abuse of WP:CIVIL to silence editors by Admins who are often less than objective or neutral. Have you any concerns about the enforcement of WP:CIVIL?

I can't say how widespread the inclination of admins to spare fellow admins (either because of a sense of fellowship or a "if I make it easier to get him, it will be easier to get me") and friends is. I agree it does exist. What is in a way worse is that there is a perception among some that it is prevalent, which I gather you share. I would work, when matters came before ArbCom to ensure that there was fairness. I can't control what people think except by giving them no cause within my control to think it.

2. Related to the above; I believe that there is cultural difference in the acceptability of robust and frank language between America and Europe. An illustration of this is the censorship of "bad language" on US television, words which would pass unnoticed on TV in the UK or Ireland for example. How do you react to the charge that US standards of "civility" are being imposed on Wikipedians from places that happily embrace forms of expression that some Americans seem to find "uncivil"? Sarah777 (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young people today, in unguarded talk, drop the f-bomb at a rate unheard of when I was a teen (and I like to think that it wasn't that long ago!). Probably many American editors here, adults or teens, talk much that way. But I think there has been always a feeling here that talk should be a bit more guarded and formal than that, and it's hardened into a community standard. I don't think it is particularly American.

1. When you stood for adminship late last year, you deemed it appropriate to recuse yourself from taking any administrative action on pages related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, on the basis of your involvement in the topic area.[5] Yet in response to the same request made in relation to your candidacy in this election a couple of days ago, you declined to similarly recuse yourself if elected to arbcom on the basis that you are "not an I/P partisan" and that you haven't edited in the topic area "in the last six months".[6]

While it's true you have edited only a handful of I/P related pages, it seems that whenever you have ventured into this topic area you have ended up being accused of partisanship by others. At the Adam Shapiro page for example, one user characterized contributions of yours as "POV and even libellous edits".[7] Another accused you of treating the page like "your own personal little fiefdom".[8] At the Rachel Corrie page, a number of editors expressed frustration with your approach, with one calling your edits one-sided,[9] another noting a pattern of "keeping out sources that express one POV, while being relatively lax with those that support the other",[10] and a third going as far as to state that your "pattern of editing" drove him off the article "in disgust".[11]

Outside of namespace, your contributions include a vigorous defence of pro-Israeli editors caught organizing an off-Wiki lobbying group,[12] and your defense of these users in the related arbcom case,[13] including a well-known pro-Israeli POV warrior, User:Zeq, who was subsequently indef banned.[14][15] While I don't want to belabour the point, a look at your other contributions indicates a consistent tendency to line up on one particular side of the fence in relation to this topic area.

In light of the above, are you prepared to reconsider your position, and agree that it would be appropriate for you to stand aside, if elected to arbcom, from I/P related cases?

No. At the time I was involved in a few articles, I have disengaged from them and am not involved in them. I believe I have only one I/P related article on my watchlist at present, Gaza beach explosion (2006), I see it as a possible future GA. Incidentally, if you go to the talk page of that article, there has not been any accusation of partisanship, such as you claim, which kinda makes your claim that I cant step into the water on that conflict without raising claims of partisanship demonstrably false (although I do not claim to have walked on the water either). As for bringing up what individual editors have said in the IP dispute, where wild comments are common, that holds about as much water as a punctured toy balloon. As for Corrie and the editor who made that claim, I thoroughly debunked his claim in my RfA by citing to his own comment. this, saying that while he strongly disagreed with my addition of language, he felt that my earlier contributions had been "mostly helpful". It was only when I ran for admin that he suddenly started making wild claims. For an outside, neutral persective on Corrie, see here. Also please note the final comment from an editor I had crossed swords with at Corrie, here. Incidentally, feel free to belabour the point if you can find anything in the past six months. I disengaged from contentious articles like that because they were a distraction from my serious work here. I'm done engaging in that kind of article. That permits me to view the whole thing with equanimity.

I well understand your reasons for moving on from I/P conflict editing - my own trajectory here followed a similar pattern as I too found I had to move to other areas in order to retain my sanity. However, just because I mostly ceased to edit there, obviously does not mean my political views suddenly changed, and I very much doubt your own views on the topic area in question have changed either. I think you have made an error in judgement in not recusing yourself from an area where numerous editors have questioned your impartiality, but that is your choice and you are free to make it. Gatoclass (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the whole line of questioning that you've brought: After all, ArbCom doesn't deal with content disputes. If you think I'll be tougher or easier on one side or another for poor conduct, I urge you, if I'm elected, to wait and see. I assure you I won't be looking at the headgear the person is wearing, but at what he/she may have done.

I should also note that you and I have worked together quite constructively at the Beach explosion article, see the concluding passage here (page down just a little bit) reply that my position "made sense" and "sounds reasonable". Also see [16]--my position carried an anti-Israel implication because a "beach blast" could be dismissed as a party, and a "beach explosion" is a more serious title. You said that my position "sounds reasonable". Don't these put into serious question your whole effort to paint me in your question as a POV warrior? After all, you were involved, and you left them out rather than, er, um, "belabour the point". Doesn't that prove to you that your position that I should step aside is ill-founded?

No it doesn't, and for the record I have never accused you of being a "POV warrior". My point is that you have done quite a bit of editing at I/P pages - especially at Rachel Corrie - and that numerous editors have expressed the opinion that your edits have favoured a particular POV. Perhaps they are mistaken, but the fact that the perception exists that you favour one side, right or wrong, should be sufficient for you to stand down. I personally like to think that I too edit I/P pages with an admirable degree of impartiality, but that doesn't mean I think I should be allowed to act on this project as if I was an uninvolved admin. Seriously, do you think, for example, that I should be allowed to hand down judgements involving I/P disputes at, say, AE, because I think I'm impartial? Would you really be happy to see me doing that? Somehow I doubt it. Gatoclass (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you would be fair or not, and frankly, on a committee of 18, I would be inclined to give you a chance, especially a committee that is not there to deal with content issues. As I've noted, we've worked together constructively on the beach explosion article, and crossed paths without conflict at DYK very often.

2. In your candidate statement, you laid heavy emphasis upon your content contributions, particularly your FA's.[17] While I certainly respect such contributions, all that really tells me is that you have a reasonable degree of competence in English and no shortage of persistence. Given that you yourself admit to having employed your admin powers "fairly rarely", and that you appear to have refrained from getting your hands dirty by involvement in dispute resolution, how can I be sure that you have the kind of judgement and sensitivity necessary to be a competent arbitrator? Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are very active at DYK and at shipbuilding pages, but I'm not sure if you've ever taken an article through FAC; you are not listed at WP:WBFAN so I guess either you haven't or you tried and it failed. FAC requires "judgement and sensitivity" in droves, expecially when dealing with contentious articles like Natalee Holloway and Jena Six. My informal mediation at TFA/R requires a skillful touch, because it is very important to a lot of people that their article appear on the Main Page. Enforcing the point rules there is not easy, especially as I have no official status, just the confidence of the TFA/R community. I thank you for your faint praise of my literary skills, but if you think taking two articles from nil to FA is easy, and 13 others from mostly bad, abandoned shape, and if you think you can avoid having to get your hands dirty with respectful content conflict along the way (especially with dealing with five articles dealing with Richard Nixon!), I wonder if we are editing the same encyclopedia.

I never suggested FAC was "easy" - I did say one needs perseverance after all. And possibly I have underestimated the skills required to mediate at pages like TFA/R. All the same, I'm still inclined to the view that it's a different set of skills to that of judging difficult disputes. But perhaps we can agree to differ on that.

Thankyou for the prompt and frank responses to my questions. Gatoclass (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. I don't have any great expectations that you will be contributing to my campaign fund :) . But I hope we can respect each other if we agree to disagree. I just think there was a less obviously partisan way you could have put your questions. As it stands, it looks more like you are trying to appeal to the voters than to get information for yourself from me. But perhaps we are each mistaken in perception. All the best.

You said here that you are planning on voting in this year's election. Do you plan on just supporting candidates, or supporting and opposing? Also, are you going to vote for yourself? NW (Talk) 17:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I was trying to figure out what the custom is on that. I'd like the opportunity to determine which of my fellow candidates I'd like to see on the Committee. If anyone knows whether it is customary for candidates to abstain or stick to supports or what, please leave a note on my talk page. Or here, I don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: NW tells me on his talk page that the custom has been for candidates to avoid voting. Therefore, I will, unless some sort of new consensus on that emerges. I know it is secret ballot.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading through the questions and answers and found this exchange kind of curious, so I just looked at the public voting log (which shows who voted, not who they voted for) and in just the first few hours of the election, I count at least eight candidates who have voted. Neutron (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then obviously the custom is for candidates to vote, and I will.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it is possible that all (or some) of those other candidates followed the "tradition" (if there is one) of only voting "support" for other candidates. Since the ballot is secret, I guess we'll never know. It seems to me that if there really is some solid, longstanding tradition that candidates are supposed to follow, the candidates should have been provided with some authoritative statement of that fact, in no uncertain terms. But maybe that is not the "wiki way".  :) Neutron (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is what I'm thinking a lot about. I don't have an obvious answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]