Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Bishzilla/Questions for the candidate

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

1. Ask a general question: post a question on that link. All candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit.
2. Ask an individual question: pick the statement of the candidate you wish to pose the question to from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements, click the "Questions for the candidate" link, go to #Individual questions, and post the question there. Only this candidate will respond to that question.

Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do make an effort to ensure you aren't overlapping a general question that has already been asked (even if the candidate hasn't yet copied it over to his or her individual question page), or indeed an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to answer all questions that are put to them, including all general questions, to ensure the Community is as fully informed as it wishes to be before voting commences. You are, of course, welcome to refuse to answer a question if you feel uncomfortable doing so, but do remember that that may well result in a voter choosing to oppose you. If a question is a near-duplication of another, you are—of course—welcome to as an answer to that question simply refer the editor to your response to the similar question.

General questions

Question from Ultraexactzz

Good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?

   ...

Questions from Giggy

1. a/s/l?

2. What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.

3. What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?

4. Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.

5. Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.

6. Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?

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

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.

1. To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?

2. What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?

3. At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?

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

Questions from Celarnor

1. What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
3. What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

Question from LessHeard vanU

This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction.

1. Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Question from Carnildo

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

Question from WilyD

1. During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:

1. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations? If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
2. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when? If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?

Questions from PhilKnight

1. In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?

Questions from Thatcher

1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?

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

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

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

(c) Write your own answer.

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?

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

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

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

Questions from Newyorkbrad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?

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

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?

Questions from Rschen7754

Arbcom questions 2008 - these will be asked at the December 2008 elections and scored on a hidden rubric, which will determine my level of support.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
4. Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
5. a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
6. 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?
7. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
8. a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
9. (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

Questions from Maxim

1. What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
2. What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
3. What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?

Questions from FT2

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

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

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from rootology

Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.

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

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?

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

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

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

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

Question from Davewild

1. Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?

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

Questions from roux

This question is to gauge your general thoughts on how civility applies as a general principle across WP. Please read the proposals here first.

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?

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

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

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

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. – iridescent 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?

Questions from Lar

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.

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:

   a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

   b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

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?

   b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

   c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

   g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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)?

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

Questions from Heimstern

1. Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
2. Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

1. What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?

2. Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?

Questions from UninvitedCompany

1. Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
2. Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
3. Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
4. Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
5. Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
6. Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
7. Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
8. Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia? What are their user names and their relationships to you?
9. Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
10. What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
11. What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
12. How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
13. What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
14. Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
15. Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
16. To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
17. What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
18. To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
19. Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?

Questions from TomasBat

1. In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)

Question from MBisanz

1. In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond? If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.

Questions from Pixelface

1. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
2. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
3. Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).

Questions from Badger Drink

1. It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
2. What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
3. This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?

Question from BirgitteSB

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

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

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

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

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

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT#CENSORED? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.

Questions From ϢereSpielChequers

For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.

1. How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
2. In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
3. In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
4. How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?

ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question(s) from LtPowers

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

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Questions from AuburnPilot

1. Is this a serious candidacy? If yes, do you intend to speak actual English if elected to ArbCom?

Roar..? Is serious. Intend speak mainly Dino Ursprache. Little Pilot have difficulty understand? bishzilla _ROARR!! 15:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

May take some getting used to, but it could make for some interesting findings of fact. ;-) Best of luck, - auburnpilot talk 16:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Darth Panda

1. If other members on the ArbCom find it difficult to speak to you when you speak in such a manner, will you be willing to switch back into normal English? DARTH PANDA^duel 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Will make effort understand little arbcommers' speech. Hope inspire to conciseness! (Vote Bishzilla for shorter more trenchant arbitration discussions.) bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

• I understand that you will make an effort to understand others, but don't you feel that it is an unneccessary pain to understand you? If others have the same view as me, again, are you willing to attempt to speak in normal English to make yourself understood? DARTH PANDA^duel 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• [Shrug. ] Feedback little arbcom always indicate understand and approve Zilla speech. No pain at all, see [3] with response [4]. If little Panda out of practice dino speech, please apply weenie User:Bishonen for translation. (Feel free speak panda language!) bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

• Hmm, I really should try this, it sounds quite fun. Thanks for your response, and best of luck! DARTH PANDA^duel 21:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Alright, fine, time for a serious question. Why did you decide to run for ArbCom with this account instead of your main one? DARTH PANDA^duel 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Er... main... ? Oh. That Bishonen. Sometimes forget about her... but 'Zilla honest, upfront, always admit: am Bishonen's sock. But independent sock! Have broken puppeteer chains! Actually glad little Panda ask pertinent Bishonen question. List reasons Bishzilla, not Bishonen, run for ArbCom:

• Reason 1. Bishonen tetchy, difficult personality. Not suitable for ArbCom. Easy-going popular 'Zilla much better! 'Zilla speak dinospeak, but always polite! Bishonen good English, many verbs, but rude and vulgar! :-( See 'shonen disgraceful response good advice here! 'Shonen friends with evil Giano, too!
• Reason 2. Bishzilla and Bishonen run by same sekrit user, but not same. Not similar. Different. Bishonen puny user, not dinosaur. Please click on link in 'Zilla manifesto where 'shonen explain difference. Summer 2007. Use many, many verbs! (If unavoidable, 'Zilla prepared borrow some verbs from 'shonen to communicate with ArbCom and little users.) Here is link again. Contain many diffs proving all statements. 'Zilla quote a little from 'shonen in case readers prefer not click:

"Let me tell you about Bishzilla... She's not me. She's an oversexed dinosaur with a heart of gold. I'm not.. You surely don't hold me responsible for Bishzilla's edits? Have you ever tried to keep a ten-storeys-high prehistoric monster on a leash? Yes, Bishzilla is my sock (=acknowledged alternative account). Sure. So? She's very independent. She spends her life trying to get away from me. She claims I'm scared of her! ... Her wikicareer is more impressive than mine, and she's much more loved. (Yes, creating her was a mistake. I feel like Frankenstein.) I count at least three arbitrators supporting her request for adminship—pretty good for a sock! She has a couple of bureaucrats in her pocket, something I can only dream of. She's quite likely to comment on an RfC or RFAr off her own bat, and always commands respect when she does, which is more than can be said for Bishonen. She has started to refer disparagingly to me as "little 'shonen" !" Bishonen

• Reason 3. Bishonen not wish sit on ArbCom. Does not like working with little committee. Harbors grudge about some case she part of. 'Zilla never remember grudges! Little committee kawaii! 'Zilla like sit on it, improve community respect for it! (Just like User:Sam Korn; see Sam manifesto here.)

bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Questions from Jehochman

1. Can 'zilla help thin competition? Ingest other candidates. Make loud, fiery belches. Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sending hungry User:Little Stupid to Jehochman's page. bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

• I am heating up the grill. Mmm, fish for dinner tonight. Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Swedophile

1. Zilla biased little humans? Little fellow arbiters? Little trolls?
2. Arbiters allowed choose own clerks? Can suggest diligent assistant! Ohh... already have own clerk?

Tyrannosaurus rex users possibly find 'Zilla softer arbitrator. (See "Love" section in manifesto.) All other users, Bishzilla scrupulously fair! Not require own clerk, but why not assistant, indeed? Deal with possible translation issues (Zilla getting alarmed by weird focus above on Dino Ursprache), do secretarial work, etc. Swedophile do stenography? Er, biased favor little Swedes?

Swedophile confused. Bishonen biased against fellow arbiters. 'shonen prickly personality, has grudge arbcom. 'shonen disapprove Bishzilla candidacy! Bishonen not suitable arbiter. 'Zilla more laid back! Forget old grudges! bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Swedophile also scrupulously fair, will always scrupulously favor Swedes (if female), but bias, no no never. Maybe no expert secretary, sorry, no steno, own desk big mess, but can tell others how do! Also several languages, speak Dino English, även behärska Dinosvenska och lite småmänniskosvenska mm, glad do translation work! May still vote Zilla Arbcom if assistant? Swedophile (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from AGK

1. In the course of your Arbitration work, do you intend to use broken English? If so, do you not see this as being a bar to effective communication involving the Committee? (A serious answer in understandable English would be appreciated. ;) Good luck with your candidacy. AGK 17:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see serious answer Darth Panda above, including links. "Broken"? Novel concept! bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for the response. I've added a follow-up question below, if you'd like to respond at your leisure. AGK 19:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1. (B). Do you hold any concerns that your style of writing may be a bar to communication—perhaps to those who fail to understand it? Do you think that your style of English may negatively impact the Committee? If not, what benefits to you conceive it will bring (if any)? Thanks, AGK 19:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Benefit of roaring, which everybody understand! Also benefit of brevity. Will not mention names ('Zilla enjoy benefit of great tact), but certain arbitrator may benefit from emulating Bishzilla conciseness. bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Question from Lifebaka

1. How do you plan to balance your time between terrorizing island nations, editing/terrorizing Wikipedia, and your duties as an Arbitrator? (feel free to ignore this one, I just thought the general versions lacked flavor)

2. It seems you keep the current ArbCom in your pocket. However, if you become an Arbitrator yourself, how will you fit into your own pocket? Will a new, larger pocket be required? Will such a new pocket still be cozy for smaller Arbitrators? If you share a pocket with the other Arbitrators, what steps will need to be taken to ensure that you don't accidentally step on them? Would a new pocket require a larger craps table, so that you can also play? Please be as honest as possible with this question. lifebaka++ 18:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

   Zilla very struck by pocket questions. [Thinks. Thinks some more. Goes cross-eyed. ] Perhaps if keep Reichstag itself in pocket, will still be able to pocket arbitrators all sizes including self and climb up it..? Hmmm. Perhaps if advise with vacuum cleaner creature sucking up itself in Yellow Submarine...? bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Question from User:Novickas

Which of the cinematic portrayals of your dynasty do you consider the most NPOV? Novickas (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956) combine Japanese POV (Godzilla), American POV (Raymond Burr). Together approach NPOV! bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Ah, your opinion accords with that of #1 son. But #1 nephew, also a scholar of the genre, awaits consultation. Although both are Americans, or more accurately Born In The USA, one must maintain the hope that scholarship transcends narrow considerations of birthplace - destruction and redemption being universal themes. Sincerely yrs, Novickas (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Question from Kirill Lokshin

If you are called upon to draft formal communications on behalf of the Committee, would you be willing to do so in formal English? Kirill ^(prof) 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Thornier than look! Far from sure all little users under arbitration understand formal English. 'Zilla self have trouble understand English of ... eh... [calls on all her tact ].. hmm. Of, uh, some arbitrators. Prepared write simply. [Distastefully: ] May perhaps call on Bishonen if necessary. bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

From little giggy

Out of curiosity, why am I mentioned in your candidate statement? :-) Giggy (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoping attract little Giggy vote! bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Questions from jd2718

1. In your candidate statement you fondly refer to little Paul, the former mathematical arbitrator. In light of that statement, and this and this and this and this and this and and a whole lot more of that, can we expect you to surfill Paul August's little mathematical seat?

   Heheheh. Excellent scary mathematical dinosaur, impressive! But 'Zilla only count up to hrair, regret! bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

2. Also, how do you feel about editors making up words? Is it better to do only outside of mainspace? on talk pages? or is it ok anywhere we feel like it? Jd2718 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

   Uh.. er.. Not question for ArbCom. Community make up mind! bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Questions from Tex

(Serious questions to show 'Zilla's thoughtful side)

1. What do you think of the arbcom's unwillingness to fulfill their mandate in the IRC case?

   Disgraceful. IRC case poorly handled altogether. Perhaps handled according to considerations never revealed to community, but this is wrong. Will work for more transparency of arbitration process! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

2. What can one arb (even a very large arb) do to ensure "remedies" in cases are actually acted upon?

   Will work for more transparency from ArbCom. Arbitrators too unwilling give reasons for failure fulfill undertakings. Many, many questions from community ignored in IRC case. ArbCom turn back on community! Compare ArbCom RFC; agree comment Shoemaker's Holiday: "When mistakes are made, the arbitration committee handles dealing with them poorly. They often insist they were right after all, and refuse to make the simple apologies that would largely solve the problems. Their main alternative, silence as an official response, also does not help matters" [5] bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

3. What do you think you can bring to this process to keep the community from losing faith in arbcom?

   Will try, but quite frankly not sure possible on present system. ArbCom turnover designed to be slow and conservative. Perhaps on assumption community too childish to fully select (and also dismiss) arbiters? Will work for faster turnover and more power to community. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

   P. S., lack of transparency mean critics (like 'Zilla) not aware background to many decisions: arb discussions sekrit, silence official policy. Former arbs have access to sekrit mailing list (disapprove this, as such). Note candidate User:Sam Korn (Smoddy) former arb, therefore write from great knowledge. Warmly recommend read Smoddy knowledgeable comments these matters! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

4. Since Giggy didn't ask this of you, I'll "borrow" his question: What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? Tex (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

   For the record, #4 is asked on the questions-to-everyone list that gets added here in a few days (I think). Giggy (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:Everyking

Is this joke candidacy intended to ridicule or disrupt the election? Do you feel your candidacy is respectful of the community and the process? Will you drop out before the election is held, or are you actually going through with this? (Answer these questions in standard English or do not answer at all.) Everyking (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User Everyking: Speak civilly or do not speak at all. Sincerely, Bishonen.

I added that part in italics because I figured you would otherwise respond to my question in Godzilla-speak. I suppose the questions themselves are a little harsh in phrasing, but I find stunts like this to be very frustrating, and I really wish you'd answer the questions. Everyking (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is not an appropriate place for you to give orders, whether in italics or not. As for your opinions, you have taken every opportunity to express them, for years, so you must know I'm aware of them. Question marks do not actual "questions" make. You are misusing this page, and Bishzilla does not choose to engage with your rhetoric. Bishonen. 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

The questions are directly relevant to the very nature of your candidacy. If you choose not to answer them, I feel that will reflect very badly on your candidacy. Apparently you are telling me I'm unwelcome here (where have I heard that before?), so I will post nothing further, but I will check back to see if you have answered. Everyking (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies (and necessary groveling) to Bishzilla for stepping in here, but it is very much disrespectful to treat this candidacy as anything except serious. Simply because of a unique arrangement of accounts (socks, puppets, puppet-"masters", etc.) is no reason to believe it is a joke. Further questions of this type are unnecessary at best, and blatant personal attacks at worst. Everyking, your comments are of the latter sort. lifebaka++ 03:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

These are valid questions to be asked, especially given the nature of this candidacy. Further, I think your characterization of these valid questions as "personal attacks" is a bit wide of the mark and does Everyking a disservice. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, folks, lighten up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of not disrupting the question page too much, I'm going to copy the above over to discussion and continue there. lifebaka++ 07:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Eluchil404

Do you intend to recuse yourself in cases where Bishonen has a conflict of interest (say those involving Giano)? And more generally, what do you regard as the proper standard for Arb recusal?

Recusing self in cases involving friends is minimal integrity. All must. Convinced present arbs do so, and 'Zilla certainly will. (Giano is Bishonen friend, but 'Zilla-Giano also on good terms; cordial posts have passed, see kindly note here.)

Note: recusing in cases involving Giano will surely save 'Zilla much time, as nine out of ten arbitrations do involve Giano! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC).

Questions from J.delanoy

1. If elected, would you support changing MediaWiki:Blockedtitle to say "has brutally burned and eaten"?

   No. Simple, tasteful "Eaten". Value conciseness! bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

2. On a more serious note, from what I have seen of your contribs, 'Zilla, you seem like you would be a good addition to ArbCom. I do not mean to offend your (former) owner/leash holder, but I am not so sure about Bishonen being on the ArbCom. For myself, I find it extremely difficult to truly display two separate personalities. Do you think that you will, for three years, be able to keep your "Zilla" part away from your "onen" part?

Thank you for your time.

-- J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(Hrair years? Gulp.) 'Zilla character immutable. Little 'shonen more labile. Shown signs merging— take on puny dino personality. Specially on IRC. No guarantees 'Zilla not devour 'shonen within hrair years, in fact. But not problem! 'Zilla arbitrator, 'shonen not arbitrator! bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

Questions from User:Bubba Scotland

So what is this, a big performance piece? A la Suzanne Muldowney? Bubba Scotland (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Effortfully read lead section Suzanne Muldowney. Interesting! Hmm, possible similarity: "'Zilla perform her very serious dance interpretation of the cartoon character Bishonen." Emphasis on "serious"! bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

Question from User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Is it lonely being the only sensible reptilian candidate? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is. But little User:Haukurth inspire optimism 2009, comment: "After the 'Zilla landslide this year I bet we'll see an all-monster ticket next time."[6] bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

Questions from Gnangarra

1. Do you have a remedy for the headache your signature has given me?

   [Glare balefully. Much offended. Take great pride in sig. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

   FWIW, I like your sig, Zilla. Seeing it in arbcom decisions will be epic. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Can a you explain what actions would be required of an editor to re-establish the trust of the community after being sanctioned?

   Soon forgotten if start perform useful work! Self blocked one time twice![7] Remember: half Wikipedia community always arrive last week. No historical memory. bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

3. Do you still associate with this chap and are you willing to foresake your building climbing for the betterment of Wikipedia? Gnangarra 14:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

   Never associate Cousin Godzilla. Associate Spiderman! Climb Reichstag! bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

Question from LessHeard vanU

In light of Jimbo's comment that a successful candidate would need to have the confidence of himself, the current (standing) ArbCom, and (some) past ArbCom members that a candidate can fulfil the role of arbiter, do you have any concerns that those parties may foolishly fail to recognise your suitability - even if sufficient quantities of the community do? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No concerns. On good terms present committee. Also had charming tête-à-tête little godking on IRC during netsplit one time. Plenty confidence! Jimbo jump into 'Zilla pocket, take nap! Kawaii! (Please check with Jimbo! Some users believe 'Zilla statements jokes (snort).) Hopefully, godking remember netsplit, sweet harmony, pocket lint, even though not last (sigh). 'Zilla later de-pocket Jimbo over disagreement de-sysopping Z-scout. [8]. Little User:Little Heard please consider: godking never yet fail follow community majority on selecting arbs. Cannot believe critical stance, or even de-pocketing, disqualify candidate. bishzilla _ROARR!! 01:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Thank you. I well remember your comments regarding the ZScout360 (better than I can remember said re-instated sysop account name, anyhoo) matter, it being a major reason why I am carefully considering this candidacy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor

These are questions I am putting to all candidates - apologies if they have already been asked you before.

Vested contributor

1. Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself. On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki. On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days. Which definition do you prefer?

   Vested contributor? Bah and roar. Trick question? "Vested contributor" always cheap term opprobrium, used imply "vested" users think they have special rights. Insulting term. Too late redefine. Some users disapprove narrow civility conception, yes. Not mean they want special incivility rights for selves! Never met any such vested users in fact. But frequently meet with term "Vested contributor", used by contributors wishing to insult, and short of logical argument. Advise little surveyor spend time thinking before use insulting term Vc at all. Attacking colleagues bad for Wikipedia atmosphere. Not battleground. bishzilla _ROARR!! 15:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

2. Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
3. Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?

   Ridiculous. Expert contributors greatest resource encyclopedia. "Infinite supply"..? Infinite supply experts out there, yes, but why would become contributors when see other experts treated badly? P. S. Never seen this "often argued" claim, either. Little surveyor make it up? bishzilla _ROARR!! 15:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

4. 

   UNvested contributor

   Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right. It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly. But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back. Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented. In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
5. Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR. All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests. Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use? If so, what should those be?

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

Thank you for your good answer, o scaly one. Here is a picture of an unvested contributor as a present. Thank you for your picture. The Land Surveyor (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:Ceoil

There is a fear among the community that you will eat editors you have judged to have contravened wikipedia norms. I know User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back is particularly nervous. Are you prepared to make yourself open to recall if you eat a more than an acceptable amount of editors. One or two every so often is ok and to be expected; I mean if it becomes systemic; becomes a few dozen a day. Eating many editors a day is likely to have a chilling effect. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fat users only selves to blame if never come back! Undertake eat skinny editors only if ArbCom majority vote "eat" as remedy. Note also: eat articles only if AFD discussion closed as "eat". bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Good enough. It will be an interesting template left on the pages of editors for whom ArbCom majority have voted "eat" as remedy. We'll have to carefully word that one. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Curtains

Bishzilla has unfortunately had to withdraw from the election. Please see explanation here. bish*, 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

And there was great mourning and ahowling and weeping among all the people continually. And in one place they were heard to cry, saying: O that we had repented abefore this great and terrible day. Swedophile (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Verily I say unto thee, it was difficult to explain my rent (rended?) garments at work this morning. --barneca (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)