This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Questions from Sven Manguard[edit]

I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard Talk

  1. What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
    A.
  2. What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
    A.
  3. What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
    A.
  4. Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
    A.
  5. Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
    A. To the extent that both involve progress towards the goal of making all of human knowledge available to everyone in their own language, there is no need to prioritise. If you mean improving existing articles or creating new articles (not content within articles), as a mergist I don't distinguish between the two. --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
    A. Yes, because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. I mean this both in the literal sense (prohibiting anonymity or pseudonymity would mean a significant step away from 'anyone') and in terms of content policy (we use the neutral point of view and prohibit original research, and the touchstone of the viability of content is its verifiability, not the identity or any other attribute of the editor submitting it - allowing anonymity or pseudonymity is a necessary consequence of avoiding reputationism, if I can coin such a word). --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
    A.

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754[edit]

Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!

  1. What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
    The former essay seems to forget two important things about Wikipedia. Firstly, that it is a project designed to give people the sum of human knowledge - if someone doesn't know something, teach them. Secondly, that the edit button is there for a reason. The latter essay seems to be a pastiche of bugbears that don't seem to relate to the title (and supposed theme). --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?
    If there is significant opposition that's usually an indication that there is not consensus to justify that which is being opposed. --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar[edit]

Note to readers
This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.
Notes 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.
  • It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
  • For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
  • Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.
The questions
  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.
    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)
    d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
    e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
    The lawyer in me has always favoured the straightforward conception of the biographies of living persons policy as a simple switch from the project's default stance of eventualism to that of immediatism. From that it follows that controversial material must comply rigorously with content policy or face immediate removal (by extension there also must be a positive consensus to keep something, rather than the absence of a consensus to delete it; and content must meet some positive notability criterion, rather than fail to meet a non-notability criterion). There is some useful advice on parts of the policy page but that's the heart of it.
    With regards to your 'liberal semi protection' proposal, you seem to have merely repeated the semi-protection policy on a page in your userspace (your "territory", as you put it on your talk page headers). What purpose did that serve? The only time you seem to depart from the existing policy is in prescribing particular durations for protection to be applied, as opposed to the general discretion the policy affords administrators.
    I see pending changes (or whatever we wind up calling it) as a simple replacement for semiprotection, and the statistics for BLP pages under the trial seem not to differ to those pertaining to non-BLP pages, so there's nothing special to say here beyond the answer to the pending changes question below. --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Liberal Semi... you completely missed the mark on that one. I'm not offering my page as an example of anything other than of articles that we felt at the time deserved longer protection than they were routinely getting at RFPP. I'm asking you to comment on the notion that longer protections are or are not a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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.
    Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
    It is a question of policy. A question is one of content if its answer has some direct, identifiable impact on a particular piece or pieces of content.
    With regards to the second part of the question, I think you need to be more specific here. Which actions are you referring to? --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to review other candidates questions and answers if you want specific links but I gave three representative cases/actions (Badlydrawnjeff, the summary motion at the beginning of this year, and the BLP aspects of the CC case) but there are many more. I'm interested in YOUR view on what cases are BLP related as well. You were an arbitrator, do you remember any from your tenure? ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
    Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
    It's not a new issue, it's more that discussions involving an unwieldy number of editors are just more common these days than they were before. Switching to voting would be wrong. All that's necessary is to smooth away the impediments to achieving consensus. Large number of people involved? Establish some format for the discussion (rather than the normal freeform) so people can keep track of it. Previous related discussions have caused behavioural problems? Invite some administrators over to keep an eye on proceedings. The scope of issues under discussion too large? Agree beforehand to break it down into stages. To a degree things like this happen already, what with various boundaries (such as maximum duration) set on discussions and agreements about how discussions should be closed. --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you go about making those changes to the consensus process? ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately 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's a great idea, and I think the trial has shown it to be quite successful. The statistics have shown that a large proportion of edits made have subsequently been accepted, these are contributions that would have been much more difficult for users to make otherwise (via talk pages or other intermediate steps). The statistics also indicate that articles that had the most edits submitted for review by IPs during the trial related to current events, and I would wager that many IPs contributing in this way would be contributing for the first time. Editing pages about current events or items in the news seems to be a relatively common first editing experience for many members of the community, and the trial seems likely to have extended that experience to quite a few more people.
    Decision making is slow with regards to these proposals, even by Wikipedia standards, but this is so for any major exercise in reform where opponents are united behind a single option whilst proponents support a number of related but separate options. Healthcare reform in the United States is an example from the real world that springs to mind. I think progress could be quite easy if supporters of the various options could work to identify lowest common denominators.
    No, there is no role for the Committee in relation to this policy debate, unless (and only to such an extent as) it evolves into a dispute involving behavioural policy breaches. --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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 from 2008 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 from 2008)
    Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
    Yes I do support it; see my answer to Sven's sixth question above.
    The Committee (or administrators, or anyone else relevant) should continue to be liberal in using the various tools at its disposal to redact personally identifiable information if the editor so wishes. If anonymity or pseudonymity is permitted it follows that it is a course that can be chosen at any time.
    With regards to those parts of your question relating to 'outing', I mentioned in my answer to general question 3(d) that uses of information about someone do not need to constitute 'outing' to be considered inappropriate behaviour. Outing is best considered as a subset of harassment. There should be less focus on definitional debates and more on considering the actual or apparent intention of a person in using particular information in a particular way. Understood in this way there is no need to consider distinct sanctions, or exigencies like whether actions are taken on- or off-wiki, in relation to 'outing'; rather the approach is simply the same as that taken towards harassment. --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
    Stalking is at the extreme end of the range of activities collected under the banner of harassment, which itself is at the extreme end of behaviour that policy considers problematic. The possibility of stalking occurring can have a severe chilling effect on contributors and thus stalking or the spectre of it damages the integrity of the community. The success of the project depends on a healthy community, so in responding to stalking the interests of the project coincide with protecting the community and the individuals who are part of it. Every case is different and will call for different responses to suit the circumstances; suffice it to say that any course of action either necessary or desirable to be deployed in response should be available.
    With regards to part (e), as I discussed with regards to 'outing' above, it is intention that is relevant. I'm not going to answer part (f). --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have you chosen not to answer part f)? I think that answer itself would be interesting. Most other arb candidates have managed. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A certain editor has been characterized 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?
    Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is not a productive course of action. If an editor is so disruptive that they are banned, the project benefits from their exclusion from the community through avoiding that disruption, and so they should continue to be excluded. Yet where someone breaching a ban has made positive substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia, simply removing those contributions does not benefit the project. No, the sensible approach is to continue to exclude them from the community but to retain any useful contributions, treating them not as belonging to the banned user but as belonging to the project. --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What if you can't tell if their contributions are useful or not? Would you want to err on the side of caution or of inclusion? One particular editor is notorious for that, making contributions that appear useful at first examination to subjects of his interest (read: subjects he's stalked in real life), from newly minted socks. Each contribution takes (someone's) time to check to see that it indeed, has just a tinge of slant or a bit of inaccuracy and if left in place, would slant the article a bit in a bad direction. Comment on the cost benefit, please, of examining closely rather than blanket reverting. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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. 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 (in each case)?
    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? )
    f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
    Criticism (and here I'm proceeding on the basis that we're talking about criticism of the project, not anything ad hominem) may be made anywhere, by anyone. I'm yet to see any sensible justification for why this should not be so. I will note that for arbitrators there are, I believe (and I suspect most of the other current and former members of the Committee do too), extra ethical limitations on engaging in any public criticism in relation to any aspect of arbitration work. Most decisions the Committee makes (in my experience at least) are preceded by frank and fearless internal debate, but its decisions (where not made by public vote, as with elements of proposed decisions) are made in the name of the Committee as a whole. For the sake of enabling this honest discourse, and for the integrity of the institution, I do not consider it appropriate for arbitrators to discuss such decisions publicly.
    I do have an account at Wikipedia Review. It was created about a month or two after the site was established (late 2005, if memory serves me correctly), when it was thought to have promise as a useful venue for constructive criticism of the project. Unfortunately these constructive voices (and there were plenty of these) were drowned out by those concerned not with criticism of the project but criticism of people, and it stopped being terribly useful.
    I do have a Wikipedia-related blog; I call it Thoughts for Deletion. It's useful for discussion that is too tangential or too long-form for the mailing lists. --bainer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
  10. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
  11. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)

Questions from EdChem[edit]

1. In this comment, Arbitrator Roger Davies was responding to criticisms of the findings of fact in the recent Climate Change case. He wrote that: "Their purpose is not to build a watertight case against someone, nor to convince the sanctioned editor of the errors of his/her ways, but to give other arbitrators a flavour of the problem." Do you agree with this comment? To what extent should Findings of Fact be persuasive of editors watching a case, the editors directly involved, and the non-drafting Arbitrators? Is it sufficient for non-drafting Arbitrators to base their views primarily on the drafted Findings? Please note, the intended focus of this question is not the specific Findings about which Roger was being criticised but rather the general issue of your view of the purpose of Findings of Fact.

Findings of fact should include all the evidence necessary to enable a reasonable person to reach the same conclusion as the arbitrators who voted for it. This means any reasonable observer, not just parties or others familiar with the case (though I would add that it is to be expected that such observers will be at least broadly familiar with important policies). Such evidence does not necessarily have to be comprised of diffs; it could be a link to portions of the evidence page, or to discussions elsewhere on the wiki, or even to something like a toolserver tool that extracts information from the API. Of course this is often more difficult to achieve these days than when the Committee was established - when a common finding was that some user had breached the three-revert rule, for example - and indeed I would say it isn't always achieved, but that difficulty does not mean that the necessary standard should be compromised.
I will say that Roger makes a very good point in that comment you link to where he says "[w]e could have gone into greater detail but our objective was not to diminish people but merely to exclude problematic editors". That's an important consideration, one that properly guides the wording of proposals. It may also mean that findings need not be absolutely exhaustive; but they still need to be sufficiently detailed to meet that standard of comprehension. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. There have been situations during cases where groups of editors have been calling for, or even pleading for, clarification of arbitrators' views. Some examples include:

I could list other examples, but these are sufficient (I believe) to illustrate my questions, which are: how should / do arbitrators go about handling the need to reveal information that is in the community's interests to know as opposed to information that is instead only of interest to the community. How would you respond to the idea of a mechanism by which questions could be posed to the committee where arbitrators would be obligated to provide a direct and timely response?

3. You were an arbitrator at the time of the OrangeMarlin affair, which FT2 has described in his extended statement (User:FT2/ACE2010 extended statement under "The OrangeMarlin debacle (long)"). That statement raises issues of judgment about both FT2 and the rest of the Committee at the time. Do you have any comment to make, either on the accuracy of FT2's account from your perspective, or on your own involvement?

Well, I said in answer to Lar's eighth question above that I believe there are certain ethical restrictions incumbent on arbitrators with regards to disclosing details of internal debates, for the sake of facilitating the frank and fearless nature of those debates. There were many contributors to the mailing list at the time, none of whom contributed with the understanding that the contents or substance of their contributions would be made public or discussed publicly. Even if I didn't mention people by name I would still, by implication, be putting words into their mouths. Moreover, the Committee at the time had many members, but if I were to start talking about its discussions publicly you'd only be getting my point of view. That wouldn't really serve to enlighten you at all. Not to mention that anything I said could have substantial errors of fact, or leave out huge chunks of the story, and you wouldn't know any different. I hope that's an adequate answer to your question. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. In the fallout from the Randy outing accusations and the subsequent AUSC report, Giano was blocked by Coren and quickly unblocked by John Vandenberg. In the RfAr that followed, JV wrote "As other members of the Committee know, there have been prior incidents of Coren taking action without strong Committee backing. It is my opinion that this most recent block of Giano was another such example of poor judgment on Coren's part." and also that "Coren wisely does not want to name me as part of this "spat", and would like us all to disregard the context. That is not going to happen folks." This clearly adds to the perception that ArbCom closes ranks to protect its own. Have there been situations (to do with the Randy incident or otherwise) where you felt that the community had a right or need to know something, but that has not been disclosed for reasons of protecting an individual arbitrator or ArbCom as an institution? How important is protecting the reputation of ArbCom itself?

Well I don't want to look like I'm splitting hairs, but closing ranks would involve some positive show of support. Yes, there have been times where the Committee has learned of information pertaining to the conduct of an arbitrator (or other functionary), which the community certainly had an interest in knowing, but the information was not released immediately. It's not deception driving it though, but the reality of the process of decision-making by Committee. Take Sam Blacketer's resignation, for example, where the Committee learned of the alternate accounts but was still formulating its response when Sam resigned (the timeframe being on the order of around 24 hours, if memory serves me correctly). So the answer is yes to the first part of your question, but it has not been for the reasons suggested. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your questions Ed; I should have time to answer them, and the others I haven't got to yet, later tonight or early tomorrow morning (my time). --bainer (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up questions from Carcharoth[edit]

A few follow-up questions, some related to your answers to the existing questions:

Shilling for business isn't in the job description. Nevertheless, were the Committee more prepared to accept requests relating to administrator misconduct, I would expect the number of requests to rise. Ordinary dispute resolution processes have only limited usefulness in relation to disputes about the use of administrator tools, given that (in the majority of situations) only the Committee may compel the removal of those tools.
I happened to notice that one of the voter guide authors is strongly recommending that I be opposed on the basis of my (what I suppose might be called strict) approach to administrator misconduct during my previous term. I make no apologies for that approach. Administrators are afforded discretion in using their tools, but it is discretion that is firmly limited by policy. Wikipedia is not the wild west. --bainer (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For starters I made it a rule, as often as practicable, to post case proposals to the workshop before putting them on the proposed decision page. Although this does mean the proposed decision is not available as early as it possibly could be, the benefits from greater community involvement in the process and indeed improvements that can be made to proposals as a result of workshop discussion make the trade-off worth it. Later in my term, in particular, I made an effort to try to comment in relevant discussions on the various case talk pages, particularly in discussions about elements of proposed decisions.
One type of participation that I probably did not do enough of in my previous term was asking questions or starting discussions about evidence in cases. Giving guidance as to what evidence the arbitrators would like to see, or seeking to clarify issues raised by existing evidence, can help get the arbitrators, the parties and other interested editors on the same page in the same way that posting proposals to the workshop can later in the course of the case. --bainer (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I did when I was first elected. --bainer (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for standing as a candidate in these elections, and thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Offliner[edit]

Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that nationality has any relevance to an arbitrator's performance, but yes, the nationalities of the project's heavy editors would seem to correlate with the nationalities of past and present arbitrators. I say heavy editors here as opposed to casual editors, or to editors for whom enwiki is not their home project, or indeed to readers. Enwiki is much more diverse in those areas than most of the other projects (save for Commons), but its core of regulars, as with the other projects, is comprised of native speakers.
As mentioned on my user page and in my statement, I'm Australian. --bainer (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More