Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Swatjester/Questions for the candidate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Questions from Majorly

These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)

  1. How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?
  2. Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?

Thanks for your time. Majorly (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discussed in my statement, but I'll restate it here. In answer to your first question, I'm trustworthy, dedicated, and I work well in groups, despite the fact that I am a cat person, not a dog person. I'm patient when dealing with hard work. Anyone who's ever been to law school can attest to that, and anyone who's ever been involved in an arbitration case knows that slogging through the evidence is hard work, but it needs to be done. I also work well in small groups (by small group, I mean 10-15, not large groups such as the entire population of admins). In my law school, we often work in small groups to discuss cases, and develop plans for reviewing and drafting documents. It's a skill I'm rather good at, and I feel it directly applies as an arbitrator, working in committee. This begins to segue very nicely into the second question, so I'll answer more there.


  • I have extensive experience in real life that relates to activities arbitrators have to deal with. First, my time as a past foundation legal intern, and an present OTRS legal queue volunteer, have proven my trustworthiness with sensitive information that arbitrators may be dealing with. Secondly, I spent about five years in the U.S. Army, so I know how to work as part of a team to accomplish a larger mission, as well as how to deal with the pressure of dealing with a large number of pressing tasks at once, all of which are on deadlines (the deadline in arbitration cases being, get them finished soon before the parties' heads explode.) I'm a member of the ABA IP Law Division Special Committee on Computer Gaming and Virtual Worlds. It's a group comprised of attorneys, law students, and industry members from every side: developers, publishers, consumer advocates, corporate attorneys, etc. Though it's only been around for a short time, it's proven to be an invaluable learning experience for me to be in an organization that represents all sides of a debate, to see how the arguments from each side's advocates flow and interweave with each other, ultimately forming a decision. This also ties in with the ongoing learning experience of law school, which I will not go into much further detail here, but which is described in relative depth in question 1, and on the candidate statement page. If there is a future question about how law school has taught me things, I will happily answer it; otherwise I won't bore you with repetition. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


One side note about time management

If there is any question as to how my various hobbies and activities will affect how present I will be as an arbitrator, I've edited every single day in the month of October. I forsee myself editing nearly every single day in November. It's rare for me not to be on Wikipedia for at least an hour or two a day. See this New York Times article in which I'm noted to be occasionally editing Wikipedia eight hours a day or more. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from xaosflux

  1. As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 20:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)[reply]
  • Checkuser is a dangerous thing. Misuse of the checkuser tool can lead to devastating consequences for the person whose information is made public, potentially even for the foundation itself. However, Checkuser is a needed tool. During my time interning at the foundation, I've overseen (I did not have access to any of the data) subpoenas for checkuser information (this was before Mike Godwin was hired). I fully understand the danger of public release of checkuser information, as well as the sometimes urgency in law enforcement receiving timely data (when backed by a court order). As anyone who has spent time at WP:RFCU can attest, there are nearly daily instances where checkuser requests need to be run. Used properly, it can prevent damage to the project. I believe that given the current backlog, we need more checkusers, but we must be extremely about who we choose for such a role. I also believe that given that checkusers include present and past arbitrators, as the arbitration committee gains new members (and as old members who were also checkusers leave, but retain the checkuser rights), that number self polices to some extent. However, I am not averse to additional checkusers being created. As an aside, I support the bugzilla request for recursive checkuser, which I believe will greatly improve the efficacy of the system. Oh, thresholds. For checkuser, 18 years of age, actual identification to the foundation (not just "will do so on request"), must be an admin, should be either an arbitrator, or have access to a sensitive queue on OTRS, or perform some other job entailing handling of sensitive information on behalf of the foundation (ComCom, etc.). I would very much prefer to see any candidate for checkuser to meet the approval of both Cary Bass (Volunteer Coordinator for the Foundation), and Mike Godwin, general counsel for the foundation. Yes, I take the privacy policy very seriously; however I think despite those high requirements we can find new checkusers that will be active.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oversight is also a powerful tool, but not nearly so dangerous or urgent as checkuser. While checkuser is a fairly common tool, the need for oversight, now that individual revisions can be selectively deleted, is much more limited. There are not that many situations where information is so sensitive that it should not even be visible to administrators. Oversight has potential problems. I understand that when oversight is done, sometimes the timestamps on edits shift, so it appears that a legitimate user may have committed vandalism. This is something that anyone using oversight should be aware of. According to Newyorkbrad's answer to this question, new arbitrators automatically get oversight rights. I was not aware of this, but if this is the case, I believe that there is no present need for assigning new applicants. As for a threshold, I would say, 18, admin, actual identification to the foundation (as above), and a user with the approval of a supermajority of the arbitration committee. You will note the threshold is lower for oversight than I have for checkuser. This is because I believe that the potential for danger is much lower with Oversight; it's also because I believe there is far less need for new oversight users than there is for new checkusers that I expect the approval of a supermajority of the arbitration committee to be rather difficult (assuming they oppose on grounds that we don't need more oversighters).⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from east718

  1. Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
  2. How do you feel about notable websites that republish what may be perceived as harassment of Wikipedians?

Thanks, east.718 at 20:32, 11/1/2007

  • Short answer, yes and maybe. I believe that even given a full time period to fully digest, analyze, nitpick, debate, and come to a conclusion based on evidence, arbitrations are taking too long. I believe it to be unacceptable that some arbitrations take months to complete. Not a month. Months. For instance, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong was opened March 2. It closed May 9. Armenia-Azerbaijan was opened 25 February and closed 11 April. More recently Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds was opened 27 august, and closed 19 october. Granted, more recent cases have been in the 1 month or so period. However, I believe we can do better. In simple cases, we can get below two weeks. See, e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein (closed in 10 days). In more complex cases, I would be hesitant to set a deadline since evidence tends to roll in over time in such cases, but I don't feel it is unreasonable to expect the average arbitration case to close within 30 days of being opened. That being said, we need to take whatever time is needed to adequately address the case at hand. Since Arbcom is the final resort for most wikipedians, every case needs to be treated with the same seriousness and due diligence. I believe there have been cases where certain aspects slipped through the cracks. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin, I believe failed to address the editing practices of one of the parties, especially given that one of the acceptance reasons was "Accept to look at behavior of all involved parties not the content issues". However, without knowing the actual deliberations of the arbitrators, I can't second guess their decisions. For instance Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is an instance where at first glance, it appears that the dispute may have involved more than just the editors sanctioned. However, the remedy on editing restrictions effectively shows that the arbitrators considered more than just the banned editors in the case. I will note that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid while had six remedies on the books, and then was dismissed, none of the remedies appeared to have a majority support.
In short, I believe that we can speed up the current cases, and it's indeterminate at this time whether the committee ignored some aspects of cases in haste, since we are not privy to their deliberations.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Ah yes. I don't like any websites (notable or otherwise) that republish what may be perceived as harassment of Wikipedians. Your question does not specifically ask about linking them on Wikipedia, which is different than "how do you feel about them". I will answer it anyways (preemptively).
First off, I'm hesitant to apply any categorical rule "we should always allow websites that harass/we should never allow websites that harass" because this may be one of the times that the actual spirit of WP:IAR applies. I had a run in with a relatively notable site (it's authors have wikipedia entries), that had comments that were abusive towards me, called me offensive names, speculated that I had faked my military service, etc. Up to that point, I was unaware of attack sites as a policy, even though I was aware of individual sites people may consider to be attack sites. I've since resolved my issues personally with the author, who I've since dealt with quite pleasantly on wikipedia. Suffice to say, I do not have a complete firm belief either way on the topic. Were it to develop in an arbitration case, I would likely recuse myself. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My question was intentionally vague. Thanks for the answers. east.718 at 22:10, 11/1/2007

Questions from Picaroon

(note by Swatjester: unlike the above sections, I will answer these inline).

Yes I have time (see section on time management, supra.) Yes I would resign my post if I found myself consistently unable to get near that goal on a regular basis. Other than inactivity, I would resign my position for conflict of interest (if there was an ongoing one that forced me to recuse myself from all cases for an extended period of time), or per overwhelming consensus of the community that it would be best that I be removed from the committe.
  • Under what conditions should non-arbitrators be granted access to the arbcom mailing list? Former members, checkusers/oversights who have never been on the committee, board members, others?
I have no problem with certain trusted users having access to the mailing list, provided that they do not clutter it up. For instance, former members, checkusers. I don't really agree with having board members on the arbitration committee; I do not feel they have a need to be involved with such operations (for instance, I'm on the board of directors for a national veterans advocacy group. I do not, however, get involved with the dispute resolution procedures of local chapters or even regional chapters. It's simply not in my realm of operation). I'm ok with office staff having access. I don't really see a need for oversight users that are not a current or former arbitrator to be involved on the list.
I'm also ok with trusted users who are not given read access to the list, to be given unmoderated write access to the list. This is already the case; currently I have unmoderated write access to the ArbCom list.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you show an example or two of a normal case (ie, accepted via committee vote on WP:RFAR, not dismissed without remedies) where you largely disagree with the final decision? Please explain why you disagree with the outcome, and say what you would've supported instead (or, alternately, why the case shouldn't have been accepted).
This would require me to understand the evidence of such cases. I guess an example would be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin. I agree with Vlad Fedorov being banned. What I disagree, however, is that no remedy was taken against Biophys, who I believe to be as much the problem in that case as Vlad Fedorov was. A few months later, we get Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys, in which Biophys again makes an appearance, and again, there is evidence that he is a disruptive partisan user. Will the committee issue remedies against Biophys the second time (this is the outcome I support)? Stay tuned.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please list the total number of alternate accounts you have used, and please list the usernames of as many as you feel comfortable making public.
I have one User:SierraSix, that I originally intended as a name change, but I almost never use. I will likely use it as an AWB account at some point in the future when I get windows running again. Oh, and User:SWATJester redirects to User:Swatjester, but it's not an editing account. That is all that I have.
  • Under what circumstances should a case be heard completely via email, as opposed to onwiki? Under what conditions should the committee block a user without making public the full extent of the reasoning (for example, this user)?
When there are privacy issues that necessitate it being conducted off wiki. This should be quite rare, since I believe most issues of that type can be solved by OTRS. As for the second half of the question, again, when privacy issues or legal issues necessitate that the reasoning not be made public. For instance, in the OTRS legal queue, it's often necessary to temporarily block users who are engaged in legal disputes via OTRS, email, or direct mail, even though the method of their dispute or any threats occured off wiki.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings have been made clear on this. I think it was wrong. I think Zscout370 had a good faith reason for unblocking, even if it may have been incorrect, and that it did not call for a retaliatory desysopping. I further believe that blocking and then going away for a vacation and expecting no action to be taken in the meantime to be unacceptable. Jimmy should have instead either requested a community ban before leaving for the vacation, and then issued the block upon his return, or taken the same actions he did take minus the desysopping. The arbitration committee should have been the ones conducting the desysopping, per wikipedia policy. Jimbos actions, were they to have been conducted by any other users, would constitute abuse of steward rights in that he used steward tools upon someone he was in a dispute with. I believe the desysopping should have been done, if at all, by the committee (bypassing the RFC step of dispute resolution, since there was a large amount of discussion and comment on the situation already).⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under what circumstances should the committee implement an indefinite ban on a user? Under what conditions should probation/supervised editing be instituted instead of a ban of any duration?
Very limited (indef ban). It's hard to imagine situations where an indefinite ban is more appropriate than a 1 year ban. I think it would be appropriate to limit indefinite bans to those issued by the foundation. A one year ban, followed by a two year ban if warranted by persistent bad behavior after the initial ban expired, seems to be a de facto indefinite ban for most users. If for some strange reason a user was banned for one year, it expires, is banned again for two years, and that too expires, and is banned again, that third ban should be indefinite. Note, I'm not categorically opposing them, its just that I can't think of a situation that requires one. If someone can think of a situation that requires one, I may agree with it.
As for probation/supervised editing, I think it many cases it is preferable, with two huge caveats. First, it requires manpower on behalf of the people supervising the sanctioned editor. Secondly, in cases where an editor is clearly and unequivocally going to violate their probation, a ban is more appropriate, since it saves everyone much more time if we know that we are going to be getting to that point eventually. (This should be very strictly construed, for obvious reasons).⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the definition at WP:WHEEL (note: this is pre-desysopping of Zscout370), a wheel war is when Admin A undoes Admin B's action and then admin B retakes the same action. In other words, a wheel war is redoing an action that has already been done by another admin. It is not simply undoing another admins action.. WP:WHEEL is unequivocal about this in both letter and spirit. I believe it is generally bad taste and uncivil to simply revert another admins actions without discussion (except for non-controversial actions). However, that is not a wheel war.
Sadi Carnot: I do not believe this to be a wheel war. There was a blocking by Jehochman, and an unblocking by Physchim62. [1]. Now here's the key. He was reblocked by Sarah, but with the block description "per community consensus at AN/I." While technically that makes a wheel war, I believe that in spirit, the intent was clear. Then, he was unblocked conditionally by DragonflySixtyseven, again, after discussion on AN/I. Technically, Sarah and DragonflySixtyseven have wheelwarred, but for the purposes of the spirit of the rule, they have not.
Alkivar: I believe this to be a wheel war. Alkivar's block of G2Bambino was a unilateral reversion of another admin's unblocking. The reblock was just minutes after the unblock. This differs from Sadi Carnot, where there were several hours worth of discussion between unblocks. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Miranda

Impartiality is a good trait for a member of the arbitration committee. If elected to the committee, how will you be impartial, neutral as well as fair to both sides in a case, while staying civil?

I will view arguments and parties dispassionately, leaving all biases at the door. If there is a question of impropriety, I will recuse myself. Civility is a separate issue from impartiality (i.e. one could make an impartial decision that party A is an asshole, while a more civil arbitrator would say that Party A is not acting civilly.) Perhaps the biggest aspect of impartiality is not dismissing things that a party says, one must give them proper and equal weight. For instance, I will not have an presumption of guilt towards banned or blocked users contesting actions against them in arbitration. That does not mean I will not find against them, it simply means that I will not dismiss what they say, or automatically presume their wrongdoing or guilt. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from CO

  1. Question one: Is consensus really possible with over 200 people commenting on different processes?
    Answer: Absolutely. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement. Nor does it mean simple majority. In fact, any effort to pin down an actual number for consensus is fruitless, to use a term recently found at RFA, a Sisyphean task. Furthermore, consensus can mean different things in different places. For instance, we have a pretty solid definition of what consensus to promote at RFA is. We have a less accurate definition of what consensus to delete is at xFD, and we have a completely different definition of what consensus is for community bans. Remember, Wikipedia does not work in theory, only in practice. In actual practice, we regularly come to consensus on things. RFA's pass with over 200 supports and a handful of deletes. Therefore, I'd say there is an unqualified yes, consensus is really possible, just not all the time.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Question two: Does Wikipedia need some sort of governing body? If no, isn't ArbCom a governing body? If yes, what would you propose?
    Answer: It already has one, the Wikimedia Foundation. ArbCom is a dispute resolution body. It is not and should not be a governing body. I hate making the comparison, but consider the American political system. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the legislature. The Foundation office is the executive branch. And consider ArbCom to be a rather limited judiciary. It does not make the rules. It adjudicates disputes and controversies. This isn't the best example ever, since there are major differences between the courts and ArbCom, but it is a valid one. ArbCom may have some other roles outside of simple dispute resolution (for instance, the issuing of checkuser and oversight rights), but it's main purpose is dispute resolution. Dispute resolution is NOT governance. There is a major difference between creating policy, and resolving controversies arising from interpretation of existing policies.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If ArbCom does not make rules, why do we have a list of them? What prevents abuse caused by ArbCom (such as unnecessary banning)? CO 23:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a list of rules. That is a list of prior precedents. From the page, "Note that the Arbitration Committee is not bound by precedent. This is to avoid having to repeat a ruling that may have proved not to be workable. However, some degree of consistency is considered generally desirable."⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed the second question here. What prevents ArbCom from abusing, is the fact that it is not a unilateral system. You have, say, 11 arbitrators active on a case. To have a ban go through, you're going to need 6 supports for it from the arbitrators. The odds of six arbitrators (a majority of the active arbitrators in our hypothetical case) that are all abusing the system is practically infinitesimal. What do they get out of it? Nothing. If one arbitrator decides to abuse someone, nothing comes of it unless half of the others also agree with him. Well, if they agree with him, that's no longer abuse, that's the majority opinion. One arbitrator alone cannot do anything. Also, please note that the Arbitration Committee is capable of self governance, and capable of oversight from the foundation. If there is serious abuse that they cannot self police, then Jimbo can step in. We can play the "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" game all day long, but quickly it becomes too attenuated to be practical. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from I

  1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, the major problem at the moment is inactivity. Elections will go a long way to solve that. The inactivity problem directly plays into the "it take too long to close cases" problem, which is also serious. Again, the elections will likely go a ways towards helping that. I've discussed my thoughts on the timetable towards cases in above sections. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wanderer57

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not really an "accused" in the RFC process. It's a request for comment, not a levy of accusations. In theory, anyway, in practice many times there are accusations. However, request for comment I believe has gotten significantly better than it was when I first started on Wikipedia. I used to view RFC as having no teeth. Someone does something wrong, you RFC it, there's no enforcement, no real resolution from it, etc. It was just another bump on the road to an arbitration. I feel that is different today. Maybe it's just me, but RFC's have a little more oomph to them, they're a little bit more of a statement "hey, this is the way the community feels, and you better shape up." Sometimes, even administrative actions come from them. I am a fan of the "two certifying users" rule. Hell, I'd like to make it three. Cuts down on frivolous RFC's and sockpuppetry. I believe RFC's are inherently fair, because any user can state any opinion or comment against any other involved user there. So, for instance, if you file an RFC against me for something I did, and your hands are unclean as well, I can use the RFC to discuss your actions. If I don't like the outcome, I can always appeal up to the next stage of dispute resolution. Hence the RFC process is inherently fair. Are certain RFC's unfair? Probably, but that does not cast shame upon a system that generally works. And, as noted before, if the RFC somehow IS unfair, we can solve that in mediation or arbitration. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Daniel

1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-

a) Do you believe that IRC conversations in Wikipedia channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand?
b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it?
c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?
a) extremely rarely on a case by case basis, only as supplemental information and never as a primary source. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
b) Phrased ambiguously. Does ArbCom have the ability to sanction people on IRC, i.e. to ban them from channels? No, nor should it.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An established user incites on-Wikipedia disruption, canvasses, solicits people to revert-war for them to avoid 3RR etc. - "Does ArbCom have the jurisdiction to sanction people on-wiki, for things they say in IRC". Daniel 07:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on what they do. Soliciting others to violate 3RR may merit an on-wiki sanction if one is available. Inciting disruption, it's fairly broad of a topic, but there might be circumstances where it may be appropriate to sanction. Canvassing, no. We can simply discount SPA's from whatever they are canvassing on. I think we ought to limit very carefully in what situations this is acceptable. At this point in time, I don't feel extremely strongly either way. Also note, however, that even if ArbCom decides that they cannot sanction on-wiki for behavior off-wiki, the users doing these disruptive actions on-wiki themselves may be sanctioned. i.e. you may not be able to get the sockmaster, but any admin may get the puppets as they see them. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
c) Not a great idea. High chances of technical error from bots malfunctioning, potential damage from impersonation of other users, and not really applicable. ArbCom is the last stage of dispute resolution on the english wikipedia. IRC is not the english wikipedia. If something has not made the jump from off to on wiki, it's not within ArbCom's scope. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?

For privacy reasons, absolutely not without the explicit permission of the authors, and furthermore, some mediums, like freenode IRC channels have a no-public logging rule. There are also copyright concerns, since such statements may be copyright material subjected to the GFDL. In summary: Can they? In some cases yes, this is the exception rather than the rule. Should they? Generally no, with some exceptions (permission of the authors, non-controversial, non private material, no external rules governing it). Also, one has to think about "Is it a benefit to the encyclopedia that these emails/logs are here?" If the answer is no, then they do not belong here, simple as that. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?

Let me start in reverse order. Everyking's desysopping, I believe, was more a result of the fact that he considered publically posting information that was deemed to be sensitive and private (and had been removed), rather than the place that he would have posted it. (I'm going from memory here, but I recall that he did not actually post the material). I believe that his desysopping was the right decision. Gracenotes RFA: (disclosure, I was a supporter) No, I do not believe the committee should have intervened. On what grounds? Lack of clarity in their wording? That's what the clarification's section is for. External activities: Only to the extent that any activities conducted on other sites either show intent to violate policy (see Everyking), or (when directly related to Wikipedia), as evidence of poor judgment (but not primary evidence, only supportive). An example of the latter would be an admin who regularly trolls "for the lulz" on the various forums critical of Wikipedia. I would not support using an admins posts there as primary evidence against them; I would support using an admins posts there as supplemental evidence of the admin's bad judgment. Under my reasoning, Gracenotes' posts which he claims to be entirely Mediawiki related, would not be considered as evidence. A hypothetical editor who goes to Wikipedia review or a similar site and bashes other admins, would have those posts be considered as evidence only of poor judgment supplementing other evidence.
PS: As stated above, I would consider recusing myself from an arbitration case solely consisting on attack or harassment sites.

I'm happy to clarify any of my answers here more if you like.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.

The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?

  • No sanctions and immediate resysopping for the OTRS respondent. He is acting in good faith to protect the encyclopedia, and via OTRS has access to information that the other administrator does not (and due to privacy concerns cannot reveal). Inform him that in the future, he should first user OTRS-en-l, or the OTRS IRC channels to get a faster response.
  • No sanctions for the administrator who did the final protection on the article, since it was an OTRS case requiring protection in the first place, but it must be reverted back to the last BLP compliant version. If for some reason he was desysopped, resysop him immediately.
  • Review of the second administrator's actions for permanent desysopping. Based on the facts listed, I would support the desysopping of that administrator. At the very least, a reversion restriction against undoing any OTRS action for 6 months. Possible consideration of a topic ban from BLP's for a period of time, if it can be shown that the person was inserting material that obviously and patently did not meet the BLP inclusion guidelines, and the admin knew it.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?

User repeats an administrator action that has already been undone, whether the initial action was by them or by another admin. Furthermore, I also would include the first undoing of any administrator action without explanation. If there is any explanation in good faith, with the broadest possible construction of good faith, it's not a wheel war (unless, obviously, it's followed up by being redone).⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Addhoc

Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the standard "recuse due to conflict of interest" or "recuse due to interactions with editor" and all other standard recusal reasons, I would likely recuse myself in any sort of BADSITES case. I'd have to review the specifics of a given case obviously before I'd make a decision. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Heimstern

My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

There's more than just one kind of edit warrior. There are nationalist edit warriors, who believe they're fighting racism or fascism, there are crusaders for truth, there are subliminal vandals, whitewashers, etc. They need to be handled differently, starting with identifying which one is which. Then, why are they edit warring, and what are they trying to prove? This doesn't necessarily need to be a nerve-wracking, time consuming process: It may be obvious. However, it's important because it allows someone to choose the right remedy. For instance, a nationalist editor often has great edits to make about their own country so long as they can be kept away from things that are involving the country they are opposed to. User:FT2 has spent weeks coming up with a great article supervision plan for this. As for crusaders for truth, a topic ban is often more appropriate. If they're dealing with stuff unrelated to their crusade, their edits are more likely to be constructive. Whitewashers may need to be put on revert parole.
I think the paroles and editing restrictions are usually a better idea than site bans, with one major exception. Repeat violators. I may have disagreed with the whole handling of the Zscout370 incident, but I do agree with the policy change it stemmed from, that we have way too many repeat violators here that are coddled. In many cases I believe that a site ban will be more appropriate than a time consuming supervised remedy. The determination for all of this should be done on a case by case basis, because while you can generally classify vandals or edit warriors or even parties by type, no two are going to be the same. As Justice Stewart said once, "I know it when I see it."⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

Really not much different than above, except I think a lot of personal attacks that aren't outright "You are a dick" are overlooked. Incivilities, such as putting words into another's mouth, continuous sarcastic strawman arguments, unsupported presumptions about other users behaviors. Those need to be considered as well. I realize that there [[is a duty to assume good faith, and that tensions can run high in arguments, I know that very well, and that should be taken into consideration by the Committee. That being said, arbitration is entirely too hotheaded an affair as it is right now. We can help that by making it go faster, and maybe taking a more dim view of hostilities between the parties during the case. As for how to sanction, case by case basis. It's hard to make a categorical statement at this point when talking about such a broad array of editors.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

As long as adminship remains a big deal, desysopping will remain a big deal. A sysop should be removed for abuse of the admin tools, but we need to consider what abuse is. It's no small thing to say that an admin is so detrimental to the project, that we should take back the trust placed in them by the community. Desysopping is such a big thing that it absolutely needs to be considered on a case by case basis, barring the most patently obvious cases, such as a run amok admin deleting AN/I or some such. There will clearly need to be a balancing test, with one side having the benefit to the community of this user as an administrator, their good actions, assumption of good faith, and the trust placed in them by the community; weighed against the danger to the community of that user as an administrator, their bad actions, potential for future harm, and of course what that user says and does about their actions (apologies, contrition etc.) I cannot emphasize enough how enormous of a situation I believe it is for the desysop of an admin. It's absolutely not something to be taken lightly.
I'm not a fan of temporary suspensions, as I feel they are punitive. I'm not categorically against them, I simply don't see how they are appropriate in most cases. I suppose they're ok for a compromised account, combined with a block, and then resysop the user after they've fixed their password security and added a secure user id hash. I suppose they could also be justified as giving a user a period of time to be reminded what it is like to be a non-admin, but to be honest that sounds kind of punitive to me as well. A case might be made for leniency towards an admin who is a borderline case. I suppose that's probably the strongest argument. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

It shouldn't. If no admin is willing to unblock, there is no need for Arbcom to appeal it. Alternatively, the committee could issue something like a per curiam opinion, without accepting it as a full case. But once again, if no admin is willing to unblock at that point, there's no good reason for the Committee to be going over the community's consensus here. If nobody is willing to unblock but there are enough admins who believe the committee should review a community ban (but aren't willing to unblock) I suppose I might be amenable to a review, but I can't honestly imagine such a situation happening.

5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?

If the committee is unable to agree on anything, first of all, any decision that comes out of it should not bear the weight of precedent. I believe that in that case, a plurality opinion would be acceptable. That would not be the only solution, obviously. The case could be remanded back to the community for further review. It could be sent to Jimbo for his decision. They could even dismiss it in some cases, and look at a different case on the same point later. Obviously such a situation no matter what will be highly controversial. There simply is no easy way out. Most importantly, the committee should do everything they reasonably can to avoid such a situation occuring in the first place. If the arbitrators cannot agree, they need to make themselves agree. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your questions have been very in depth, and I think upon further consideration I may have more to add to some of them. Please consider checking in on this section periodically. Of course, if you have any follow ups, or clarification requests, let me know. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wikidudeman

In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met? Wikidudeman (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More active arbitrators would go a very long way towards solving this. There may well be a good reason that certain proposals are not used. We, on the outside of the ArbCom mailing list, simply don't know. If I'm elected, I promise to read through the evidence quickly and thoroughly (Yes, you can do both), and make my proposals as fair and equitable as I can. I'll do what I can, but I'm just one man. One man alone does not make the decisions. The entire committee does. You have to consider the possibility that what we think is a relevant concern or issue, the majority of arbitrators think is not. We simply cannot please everybody all of the time. With that firmly in mind, I promise right here, once again, that I will do my best to ensure that my actions are as fair and equitable as possible. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ultraexactzz

Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility. I originally was going to go with diligence, but responsibility kinda falls under that. Responsibility is critical to an arbitrator. They must be responsible to be trusted with things like checkuser and oversight, and the approval of those rights. They must be responsible in doing their jobs so that the parties actually get some sort of resolution, instead of their case being stuck in the doldrums. Responsibility to the parties to provide a fair decision. Responsibility to the project to not allow their personal biases get in the way. Responsibility to their job, to ensure that they are active participants when possible. Responsibility to the case, to ensure that they read all of the evidence presented before making decisions, and not as Wikidude's section above says, ignore relevant issues. Responsibility, in its many forms, is therefore the most important thing for an arbitrator. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Blaxthos

How do you feel that the idea of stare decisis applies to Wikipedia generally, and to the arbitration process specifically? Thanks in advance! /Blaxthos 10:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a major difference between the court system and ArbCom. Yes, ArbCom has precedents but it is not bound by them by any stretch of the imagination. The way that the committee drafts its decisions collaboratively, instead of assigning them to a member of the majority and then having a dissent, means that stare decisis is rather inapplicable here. Cases will have different reasons for being accepted by different arbitrators. Cases will have conflicting remedies proposed by different arbitrators. In the end bits and pieces may get pulled together into the final decision. So much unlike a regular court case, arbitration committee decisions are tailored to the unique complexities of that particular case, rather than the case being made to fit within the bounds of prior precedent.
That being said, it's important to note that there is precedent, and there is room for it to be followed. For instance, there is precedent that the committee does not deal with content disputes. There is precedent that premature cases are dismissed. There is precedent that when a user is attempting to push a POV, the remedy is often editing restrictions, etc. Very often this precedent is followed. How often do you see the exact same principles in every case? Similar findings of fact, similar remedies, etc.
However, the Committee is not bound by this precedent. There is no higher court to make binding decisions that the committee must follow. If the majority of arbitrators in a case want to do something a certain way, they just do it. This allows arbitration a sort of flexibility that stare decisis does not offer. In this, I feel the committee has the best of both worlds: a body of past decisions which can be looked to when making future ones, a set of traditions and procedures, and the flexibility to choose which ones, if any, to apply to a certain case. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to give a detailed response with regards to ArbCom specifically. What about Wikipedia, generally? Do you believe that actions outside of ArbCom should generally follow established precedents from situation to situation, or should each situation stand as an island as it's decided by those involved? I'm speaking specifically to applications of core policies, general guidelines, and the trump card. /Blaxthos 14:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a mixture of both. For example, our guidelines are established precedents that we generally follow in most situations. One might argue that policies have the weight of statute, but guidelines have the weight of common law, (and essays, consequently have the weight of dictum). To an extent we've institutionalized much of our precedent, and most of the time we follow it. We retain the trump card, and common sense, to tell us when not to follow it. But that does not mean that we paint every situation with the same brush. Different situations can be handled differently. Because we assume good faith, we look at the intent behind people's actions, and consider our outcomes accordingly. So for instance, we may forgive a personal attack if a user is contrite and apologetic, maybe they had a bad day at work and just released on someone. At the exact same time, however, we may not forgive the same from another user who was being intentionally ornery. And WP:IAR gives us the ability to overrule (sparingly) our precedents when they get in the way of building an encyclopedia. It prevents us from being a formal, rigid organization. The bureaucracy exists to help people navigate the bureaucracy. That's what we want to avoid. Stare decisis provides a stability and a predictability, but it also provides a rigidity that can be incompatible with a wiki.
In my candidate statement, I mentioned that while I'm a law student, and I try to think like a lawyer, I do not want to bring the law into Wikipedia. This is a great example of why. If we find ourselves bound by our holdings, lifting only the most important principles from a case and leaving the rest as dicta, we will simultaneously become both rigid and inflexible, as well as impotent and powerless. Wikipedia is a strange bird, that works in practice, though not in theory. It's necessary that what we do here, we do with that thought in mind. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Geogre

Several times over the past twelve months, ArbCom and the Administrators noticeboards have come face to face with the practice and consequences of "back channel communications" between users (communication by private means or non-Wikipedia means). Do you believe that administrators and users "need" to have private conversations? If they do not need them, do you think that media that cannot be transported over to Wikipedia (IRC, instant messageners) have a proper use? Do you think that media that should not be ported over to Wikipedia (e-mail) because of the expectation of privacy inherent in them have a proper use for non-Arbitration purposes? Geogre 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think there is a need for private communications. (The obvious exceptions, like a rogue admin gone wild doesn't even bear mentioning, because there would not be controversy about someone using IRC or AIM to quickly respond to that). I am aware of the distaste that many have for IRC, for the secrecy of what goes on in the wikipedia-en-admins channel, for the "cabalistic" appearance of admins organizing an action via private means. I think it's highly overstated, and does not actually happen that much, and people make an excessively big deal about it when it happens, but I'm not blind to the concerns. I understand them and even share them. No, most of the time admins do not need to have private conversations. They're entitled to them if they want them, and they should be aware of the consequences that private conversations can bring (in terms of how they appear), but I think it is rare for someone to need them. That's not at all to state that IRC and IM do not have a proper use. They are no substitute for on-wiki discussion, but they are not without use either. Let me restate that one more time so everyone knows where I stand. IRC/IM is no substitute for on-wiki discussion, but they have their useful purposes as well. IRC is a place to socialize. It's a place to get a quick idea of what people think about things. It's a place to chat in real time with people, sometimes talk about things that don't have a place on-wiki, or to chat about things happening on wiki instead of cluttering things up off wiki. I like IRC and IM. In regards to your final question, you make very important points. Certain media have an inherent expectation of privacy, such as email, and to a lesser extent, IRC (due to the public logging restrictions). Obviously, these things have a proper use for arbitration purposes, and the committee is expected to keep these conversations confidential. That's part of the trust and responsibility vested in the arbitrators. Outside of arbitration, however, that trust and responsibility is not there. These private forms of communication cannot have that same presumption of confidentiality, and there's potentially a risk to the users involved if that information is mishandled. I fear that the risk of harm and the potential loss of trust resultant from the misuse of such media outweigh the benefits they confer upon non-arbitration purposes. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:Secret

Nothing wrong with them so long as they do not violate the provisions of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Acceptable uses of alternative accounts are available at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. If the two accounts above were violating Sock Puppetry policy, then they should be blocked. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very broad question, so you get a broad answer. I know some respected users and admins like to go there for some reason, but the only times I've visited, I was neither entertained by the topics, nor the general population. I found many of the posts to be incoherent rants. I don't particularly feel one way or another about the forum as a whole, however it's not my cup of tea, so I don't spend time there. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from John254

You have recently engaged in a large number of inappropriate and excessive administrative and related actions, including blocking Miskin for one month as a result of a single 3RR violation, when his last block for such an offense was over one year ago, then filing a request for arbitration after your block was shortened to one week. You then attempted to invoke your background in the armed forces as an excuse for your own misconduct, in a manner profoundly insulting to many Wikipedia editors who have military experience:

A big reason that I raised... [ Dbachmann's shortening of the block on Miskin ] as a concern, is because I felt hurt by his actions. In the military, when someone goes behind your back to do something against a regulation, often times people die. That's the environment that I come from. I recognize that one of the large reasons for my directing part of this arbitration at Dbachmann, is because I felt hurt by his actions...[2]

You even posted a highly uncivil response to my critique of the excuse you offered for your conduct. More recently, you blocked SchmuckyTheCat for reverting edits by a sockpuppet of banned user, incorrectly asserted that SchmuckyTheCat should not have reverted any of the edits made by the abusive sockpuppet account until it was blocked, and improperly deleted Image:Itmfa-flag.png, which just happened to be transcluded onto SchmuckyTheCat's user page, scarcely three hours after another administrator had unblocked him. Your deletion of Image:Itmfa-flag.png was unanimously overturned at deletion review. If elected as an arbitrator, how would you avoid imposing excessive and improper sanctions on parties to cases coming before the committee? John254 00:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


'In regards to the initial "question" (and I use that phrase loosely), it's pretty obvious that sanctions by ArbCom have to be approved by multiple arbitrators. No single Arbitrator can go ahead and impose excessive sanctions.


Now, to the misrepresentations of fact. Yes, I did block Miskin, and the arbitration committee found my block to be in good faith, as Miskin was found to have violated the 3RR. I also agreed to a reduction of the block. Stating that his last block was "over a year ago" misrepresents the fact that this block occured in May, nearly 6 months ago. Stating that his last previous block occurred over a year ago from the present date may be accurate, but please don't try to make it look like he was last blocked in May 2006. The end result was that I was cautioned to take into account the length of time between blocks in the future, which to this day I have done so.
I also find the statement about my military service to be a misrepresentation. That was the justification for my including Dbachmann as a party; it was not justification for my block against Miskin. In addition, nobody ever complained to me that my response was insulting to military wikipedians. Who, pray tell, are these "many people" who felt insulted? And why did they not mention their concerns at all to me?
As for incivility in my response to you, lets point out what I was responding to: you directly attempted to present my block as an act of military insubordination, which I felt was a low blow against me, knowing my past, and I said as much. I'll note that your proposal was widely condemned. How about the responses here?
  • "This proposal/thread has no prospect of being helpful, and should be withdrawn. Newyorkbrad 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"
  • Agreed. I'd suggest further that we might want to be less active on the workshop page; I can't see how this mess is going to help the arbitrators, who are perfectly capable of crafting their own findings and remedies. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unhelpful in the extreme. Suggest withdrawal of this one - Alison ☺ 03:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unhelpful attempt to hype Swatjester's opinions and take them out of context. Sam Blacketer 20:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact, it resulted in a proposal from Ryan Postlewaithe that you be dismissed from the case. "3) Due to John254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) unhelpful remarks in the case, he is banned from editing all Miskin related arbitration pages for the rest of the case." Was calling this a low blow, and calling it "absolutely fucking ridiculous" less than perfect? Sure. Was it true? Absolutely. Was it warranted given the vicious assault you directed at me? Absolutely and I stand by my action 100%.
Turning to the Schmucky the Cat matter, this was extensively discussed between User:Ryulong and I as well as being concurrently discussed on WP:AN/I. Schmucky the Cat was mass reverting the edits of a user who at the time had not yet been shown to be a banned user. I gave Schmucky the proper warnings to stop, and told him the proper move was to go through other channels than mass reverting, or by providing actual evidence that User:Kowlooner was a sock of Instanood. There was none other than his belief that it was and his statement that he has lots of experience finding Instanood socks. When blocking him for continuing the disruptive reversions, I noted to him that I would be more than happy to unblock if it was shown conclusively that Kowlooner was an Instanood sock. Let it be well known that even afterwards, it was Ryulong's decision not to unblock Schmucky. I therefore was not the only one that thought that he was being disruptive.
Afterwards, I was on User:Jeffpw's talk page, when I noticed the ITMFA image and clicked on it, and viewed the source. There was a genuine question of fact as to whether that image was really in the public domain, since it was not uploaded by the original author, and there was not an explicit statement of release into the public domain. I therefore was bold, and deleted the image. DRV overturned it. I should note that the DRV was not actually unanimous.
So now you all know the actual facts here. You can judge for yourselves whether they constitute an actual "question" or not. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed John254's followup, as there were no questions. This page is for questions for the candidates, not a review of ever block they've ever made.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a question. Do you believe that it presents a conflict of interest to remove comments from a page associated with your own candidacy for the Arbitration Committee? If elected to the Arbitration Committee, how would you respond to conflict of interest issues? John254 15:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is a decent question. No, I do not think it is. This page is entitled "Questions for the candidate". Ergo, things that are not questions to the candidate, or answers by the candidate, should not be here. In regards to the second question, if I were involved in a conflict of interest over a case, I would recuse myself. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as another followup question, would you, as an uninvolved arbitrator, have agreed to the finding of facts in the Miskin case (i.e., including the finding that your block was excessive and your prior investigation insufficient)? I am asking you this because so far, I have yet to see you admitting that the blame for that rather ugly falling-out back in May didn't entirely lie with parties other than yours. In my book, the capability of admitting to mistakes is very important in arbcom members. dab (𒁳) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would have agreed, as I currently do agree now, that my block of Miskin was excessive, and that my prior investigation could have been better. I believe I have said the same before in the past, as well. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DarkFalls

Given the highly criticized decisions that arbitration sometimes brings, how will you deal with attack and criticism from high visibility blogs, email, WR, outing of personal information and the likes? Furthermore, how will you value community input and consensus against the personal opinion of you and other arbitrators? --DarkFalls talk 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy answer first: My personal information is already online, and I've never made an attempt to hide it. As for attack and criticism blogs, a wise man once told me that when confronted with bad press, the best solution is to do things that earn you better press. If I'm criticized and attacked on blogs, I simply need to counter it by earning good press. Email doesn't bother me. I have a delete button. Wikipedia Review does not bother me either. I don't enjoy reading it so if I'm ever attacked there, I'm not likely to know, and arguing with the WR crowd over it is not likely to be fruitful. As for high visibility blogs, this has already occured to me. The result was, I resolved the dispute and made friends with the author of the criticism.
Remember, a single arbitrator can't change anything. If I'm being criticized for a decision, it's extremely likely other arbitrators will be criticized too.
More difficult answer: community input and consensus against my personal opinion is important. Arbitrators don't exist in a vacuum, and the standards and beliefs of the community are important too. This is something I would want to discuss with the other arbitrators to get a feeling for what works for them. While I cannot give you a complete answer until after I've had a chance to discuss this with other arbitrators and learn their feelings, successes, and failures, right now I can vow to be open-minded and to value community input. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ragesoss

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 03:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific points of view are not necessarily neutral, they simply represent the consensus of the scientific community. Scientific point of view and neutral point of view are two decidedly different things. Wikipedia:Scientific point of view is now historical. The rule on Wikipedia is neutral point of view, not scientific. I understand the argument that NPOV works better for social sciences and SPOV works better for the hard sciences, but I do not subscribe to it. Under scientific point of view, we would be required to judge anything that does not meet the approval of the scientific community. Religion, controversial minority points of view, all would be represented in a negative light. Under neutral point of view, we can acknowledge these things without passing judgment on their veracity or plausibility. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sarah777

Do you have any regrets about the incredibly wrong-headed, intemperate and abusive block you imposed on me for refusing to stop replying to you on your talk-page? And would you act in a similarly intemperate manner if I ended up before you in an Arbcom (as I tend to do)? (Sarah777 21:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

None. That block was appropriate. I had already answered your question on my talk page, as well as on your own. I removed your continued questioning on my talk page, since the matter was closed, and you reverted me on my own talk page. I removed your edits again, making it very clear that I did not want you there anymore. You continued to post your comments, after I made it clear that I did not want them on my talk page. and did so again. That is why you were blocked, for harassment. I'll note that I unblocked you just over 3 hours later.
I'll note to you that you had been blocked just days before for much more than that, see e.g. referring to other editors as "uncle toms", being blocked for edit warring just days earlier, you receiving warnings from other admins about your personal attacks, etc. Your unblock request for my block was declined by User:Kurykh. And you persisted with the administrator abuse complaints, after being repeatedly directed towards WP:AN/I, despite all of your personal attacks, confrontational tone, and incivility.all of which can be viewed from this diff.
So was my block "wrong headed, abusive" etc? No, it was entirely appropriate. I have no regrets about it. If you have a tendency to end up before ArbCom, you need to take a look at your editing habits, and question why you find yourself in so many disputes that do not get resolved. It's likely to be your refusal to accept your own culpability, and instead blame everything on the admins. It seems that you still have not learned how to not personally attack others. Interesting. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. So what you are saying is that you'd be prejudiced against me at Arbcom? (Sarah777 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Not at all. If you requested it, I'd consider recusing myself. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have been reading your replies and was taken especially by your remarks about trust. Could you be trusted in a position of power? You appear unable to admit to any error and the response to my first question, which included citing what you imagine are recent uncivil remarks, could be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation in this Wiki hothouse. (I think the community would appreciate it if you could reply to this without more attacks on the questioner). (Sarah777 20:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have no problem admitting error; I will not admit error where no error exists. To do so would be a breach of the trust the community has already granted me. My trustworthiness has been proven beyond reproach to the foundation, as evidenced by the sensitivity of the type of material I was entrusted with. As for what the community would appreciate, I'll let them decide that; you do not speak for the community, and I have not personally attacked you. If you believe that I am trying to intimidate you, you are sorely mistaken. Thank you for your questions. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Veesicle

What are your opinions of secret evidence being given privately to ArbCom? To what extent is this acceptable? User:Veesicle 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it's acceptable when for privacy reasons, the evidence cannot be publicly displayed. To the greatest extent possible, evidence should be public. I absolutely do not believe evidence should be kept private because the submitter does not want to make public the methods used to gather the evidence, as happened in the Alkivar case. As long as the privacy policy is not violated, and we maintain all the other standards, like not publishing certain information about minors, evidence should be public. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from WJBscribe

A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer.

  1. Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?
    No. I think that the community should be appoint arbitrators that it trusts to do a good job in the first place. I fear that a recall mechanism would simply be abused, and that the odds of an arbitrator needing recall are too slim to justify the potential disruption caused. The recall mechanism for arbitrators should be the arbitrators themselves, or Jimbo.
  2. ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?
    Not for insufficient use. Withdrawing access doesn't help anything as long as they're not abusing it. On the times they are available, they can help. If they are helping, albeit rarely, they're still helping. Withdrawing therefore wouldn't benefit anyone. Again, this is assuming they're not abusing the tools, which would be grounds for removing access no matter how active.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to say no, because there may be a critical policy that a decision MUST be made. That being said, I do lean towards "No" on this one. I might expand on my answer here in the future, but suffice for now to say mostly no. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cla68

Have you successfully nominated any articles you've heavily edited for Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 01:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated a couple articles for GA. I don't know if they made it or not. I'm not really sure what this has to do with the arbitration committee. I've recently done a couple of DYK's, and I continue to create and improve articles, including FAs and GAs. However, I don't nominate articles for FA or GA, barring the one or two that I did some time ago. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from jd2718

ArbCom practice:

  1. To what degree should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators?
Two ways. Number 1: Administrators should know better. We trust them to know the rules and policy, so when they break them we should keep in mind that they should have known better. I'm not talking about things where an admin has an occasional lapse of civility, or makes a bad deletion or block or something like. I'm talking about blatant edit warring, blatant personal attacks, etc. We need to hold our admins to a higher standard on such things. Number 2: ArbCom needs to understand that the practice of being bold applies to admin decisions as well, and accord a slight measure of deference. Admin sees an editor who is pushing the line, but not crossing it? Don't punish that admin for being bold and taking an admin action against that editor. If an admin makes a judgment call and it's not clearly wrong, consider giving it a bit of deference. ArbCom does not need to be in the business of second guessing every admin decision made.
Fortunately these points, I believe, are already in practice. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Disputes over nationalist conflicts involving multiple editors seem to find their way to ArbCom fairly regularly. Do these topics, articles, or editors need to be treated differently in some way by ArbCom?
Differently than other conflicts? Slightly. Differently than they do now? Absolutely. User:FT2 has a very well thought out idea for article supervision that is directly meant to combat nationalist conflicts. It's no secret that I think the worst sorts of conflicts on Wikipedia are the nationalist ones, and that I believe that the editors who are involved with those conflicts deserve significantly firmer sanctions than they do right now. Nationalist editors appear to me to be more invested in their disputes, more likely to use sockpuppets, and more likely to subtly vandalize a number of different articles rather than just one. I think that nationalist editors who have some good edits, but also some bad edits, need to be treated much more harshly by the committee and individual admins, who tend to look at it as "Well, they have these disputes and all, but they have good edits too that outweigh it." No, Wikipedia is not a place to fight nationalist battles, and we need to treat those editors significantly more harshly than we do right now.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Views/experience:

  1. If you could by fiat change one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, what would you choose? Why?
I would change the RFA process to make it fit in line with "adminship is no big deal", because currently it absolutely is. I'm sick of seeing opposes for ridiculous reasons, sockpuppet voting running rampant, and good candidates being torpedoed by stupid things. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Can you point to a dispute (could have been at ArbCom or Mediation, or even on a talk page) that you've gone into (as an involved party or 3rd party) with a strong opinion, but had that opinion change in the course of discussion?
RSTA/STA/C4ISTAR and associated pages. I had created and written most of the content on the RSTA page. I was strongly opposed to a merger and move between RSTA with C4ISTAR, or any disambiguation of the page. After extensive discussion across multiple pages, we came to the decision first that a move was necessary, and then debated about what to name it, and finally it went to the current page. At the start I was strongly opposed to any move or merger. By the end of it, I had seen the comparative merits presented by the various british editors, and agreed with the merge. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electing arbitrators:

  1. Without specific reference to yourself or other candidates, what qualities, characteristics, or experiences would you be looking for in an arbitrator? What qualities, characteristics or experiences might lead you to oppose a candidate?
Above all, trust. If I do not believe that I can trust that candidate with the most sensitive information and the most potentially damaging information that Wikimedia has to offer, I cannot and will not support that candidate and would actively oppose. Activity is important to me, as well as knowledge of the committee and how it works in reality, as well as how it works in theory, because both of those are important. Knowledge of the privacy policy is critical. Experience wise, I want someone who has shown in other venues that they want to help Wikipedia: are they on OTRS, unblock-en-l, etc. I do not believe that I can support someone who is an admin and is simply looking for the next step up. I make no bones about it: this is going to be a difficult and sometimes unpleasant job, yet I want to do it because I believe in Wikimedia and I believe that I'd be good at it. If I can't get that same feeling about another candidate, I can't in good conscience support them. Thankfully, there are currently other candidates that I do get that feeling from.
In summary:
  1. Trust
  2. Trust
  3. Trust
  4. Other positions (OTRS, ComCom, Crat, etc.)
  5. Motivation behind running?
  6. Will they be good?
  7. Trust again.
I cannot overstate the importance that if I cannot trust a candidate, I cannot support them. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Last year the community nominated what looked like a solid bunch of Arbitrators. Yet 10 months later it turns out that several had very spotty levels of ArbCom activity. Do you think that this was at all predictable? And if so, how?
I'm not sure if that was predictable. I think we could have asked for solemn promises from the arbitrators that they will be active. I certainly am more than happy to give that promise. Many of the arbitrator candidates in this election are running specifically because the previous batch was not very active. This signals to me that this group will be much more active than the others.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You:

  1. I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator, a WPian needs to first be a good editor. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? How do you consider your own editing?
I believe it has some truth, but maybe with a little variation on "good." To be a good arbitrator one does not have to be the most skillful copyeditor, or write the most flowing prose, etc. They do need to be a "good" editor in that they need experience learning how to resolve disputes amicably on an editor to editor level, to learn the process of building articles and what stumbling blocks come up etc. Importantly, they need to learn what constitutes someone who is NOT a good editor, to see why that is, and to learn how to quickly tell the difference. So yes, I do agree with that sentiment in a fashion. As for my own editing, I consider it pretty good. I've saved some articles from deletion (see Commander Mine Squadron SEVEN which I saved from an incoherent mess), written some DYK's (United States v. Oppenheimer, Erie v. Pap's A. M.), etc. I've mediated some editing disputes, and I know what to look for with a good editor who wants to help, and just has trouble sometimes.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You are a law student, which I assume means you'll be a first year before three years have passed. Is it reasonable to expect you to serve for three years?

Thank you for indulging so many questions. Jd2718 07:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a first year law student, so I assume you meant I'll be a first year associate before 3 years have passed. This is true, however, that point will not come until halfway through my final year on the committee. I will be able to evaluate at that point whether I should run for re-election. Even first years have free time, and since wikipedia is a major hobby of mine, I do not foresee myself dropping off of the activity list. So, in answer to your question, yes it is reasonable to expect me to serve for three years. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: jd2718 wins the Swatjester award for best candidate questions I've seen!!!!⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Revolving Bugbear

In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear 16:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, ArbCom does not have to deal with these kinds of things on a technical level. Legal threats are legal threats, and we block for them. Complex issues of substantive law, are to be determined by Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel. If an editor has a legitimate concern, they can do what every other editor with a legitimate concern does: contact OTRS at info-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org, or correspond with the office by snail mail/phone. The OTRS legal queue will review their complaint, contact Mike Godwin if necessary, and then take any action needed. ArbCom does not really have any decision making capacity with who's laws we should be following: they receive their direction from the foundation. And once again, we have a very simple policy against legal threats: Direct them to the foundation, block the user.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jossi

What is your opinion on the use of multiple accounts in Wikipedia, as it relates to the recent discussions on the subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a new policy is needed, and I don't see why checkusers should be doing this sort of thing, nor that this is an appropriate use of the checkuser tool. If you want to run multiple accounts, you do so at your own peril. The legitimate uses for that are outlined already under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. If there are special circumstances that absolutely warrant a person using multiple accounts without association to each other, we can deal with those on a case by case basis, via OTRS or ArbCom or the like. But setting up a list of approved unassociated socks via checkuser was not the intended purpose of that tool, nor is it a necessary purpose. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Piotrus

  1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
I think it would be silly to expect an arbitrator to be active in ALL cases he/she has no conflict or interests in, but I think that he/she should be active in as many as possible, certainly most. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
I would like to see much more workshop commentary by the arbitrators. I'm not sure if the general lack of commentary by most arbitrators (flonight comes to mind as an exception) is some sort of internal rule or unstated custom that we're not privy to, or whether arbitrators just don't feel like commenting on workshops after already doing so on the list. I guess we'll find out. However, I pledge right now to be active on the workshop pages, at least moreso than arbitrators have been in the past. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?
No editor should be specially privileged. An experienced editor should know better than to personally attack or edit war, and maybe should be treated more strictly than a new editor, but this should be balanced against keeping in mind that experienced editors sometimes make mistakes, and lapses in judgment should be weighed against all of the good contributions of an editor. This is a difficult balancing test that we have to do every single time. However there is no such thing as "more equal". That simply equates to special privilege, which is NOT the same thing as I describe above, and special privilege is against the egalitarian spirit of Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I've long had a desire to see a sort of civility noticeboard, and a stricter policy on civility. Technically the policy does not say anything about enforcement of civility, as of 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC). It has remedies, such as "remove uncivil comments, etc." but no actual enforcement, i.e. "If you continue to be incivil, you will be blocked." Yet, we regularly do (and should) block users for incivility, though many times this is because it crosses over into personal attacks. I believe that civility issues can be enforced by Arbcom by direct blocks, civility parole (any uncivil comments may cause the editor to be blocked, etc.) etc. There may be novel ideas we haven't tried. For instance, sequestering a user only to the mainspace, which has the side effect of preventing him from making any controversial edits that require talk page consensus. Or, we could ban a user from leaving edit summaries at all, if they have a persistent problem with incivility in edit summaries. Remember, enforcement is designed to prevent future occurrences of the event from happening, rather than simply cleaning up the mess a user leaves. We've had too much of that lately. As an arbitrator, I would take a much stronger stance on incivility. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the past we tried civility noticeboards (WP:PAIN being the most direct). All of such attempts have failed. I still think they were a good idea, but the community ruled against them. Do you think they could be recreated in some improved form - perhaps with some ArbCom involvement? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I'd be willing to help with the development of one. A personal attacks noticeboard actually is the least helpful, simply because we can just point it out on AN/I and warn/block/problem solved. A civility noticeboard, however for incivility and stuff that doesn't rise to the level of personal attacks, but is blatantly incivil, would be extremely helpful. ArbCom may have a vested interest in setting one up, in that it could reduce the number of cases that ever make it to ArbCom if it works. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great in theory, doesn't seem to work out well in practice. (disclaimer:your mileage may very). My vision of a civility noticeboard would be more directed and narrower in scope than wikiquette alerts. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age questions from AnonEMouse

On Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007#Age_limit.3F you propose a minimum age of 18 for arbcom candidates, based on "the gravity of the position". Please expand on your view of how age qualifies someone for gravity.

  1. Do you believe that no one under 18 can be qualified for arbcom?
  2. If someone under 18 is elected to arbcom, and you are, how would you work together? Would you treat them differently from other fellow arbitrators?
  3. Do you believe that arbcom is the only position of similar gravity? For example, should there be a minimum age for Bureaucrats? Administrators? Editors? If so, should the minimum age be 18 always, or lower, for these positions of less gravity?
  4. How about a maximum age for arbcom? In other words, do you believe that gravity qualification increases with age unlimitedly, or goes sharply up after 18 then remain constant forever, or does it drop off after a while?
  5. In an arbitration case, how would you deal with petitioners of different ages? How about one party using the fact that their opponent is under 18 as an argument that they lack understanding of an issue? That they lack gravity? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand the reasoning behind my argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with maturity, and everything to do with being of the legal age of majority. A person under 18 years old should not be given access to sensitive information that may involve legal action by the foundation. Checkuser is one of those things. So is ArbCom private content. See Access to nonpublic data policy, which states that users must be personally identified to the foundation, including proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Access to nonpublic data policy applies without exception to ALL oversight and checkusers. Exceptions to that policy can only be made by the board of trustees. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just to clarify our understanding of your position, however, could you also answer the other 4 specific questions, please? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.
  • Question 1: Yes, as outlined above.
  • Question 2: I would assist them in the work that, due to their age, they could not do. Otherwise, no different. Remember I am not concerned with this as a matter of maturity, only as a matter of policy/legality.
  • Question 3: Obviously the same applies to any private data access position, which does not include crats, admins, and editors.
  • Question 4: A maximum age is ridiculous. The policy only requires private data access users to be 18. That's why I only proposed a minimum, because once they hit 18 it no longer matters how old they are.
  • Question 5: Ages of the petitioners are irrelevant. I'm only concerned with ages of people that can access private data, which petitioners cannot. Arguments by the petitioners against other petitioners under those lines are irrelevant and will be ignored. Your usage of the word gravity is incorrect.
I did not answer your questions originally because I thought it to be clear that my argument is not about the maturity level, only about the policy issue.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TDC

Would you support making all current Arbcom deliberations public? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. ArbCom deliberations often involve private information such as checkuser and oversight data, personal emails from users, etc. Such information must remain private for obvious reasons. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about with any personal information redacted? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, then you're talking about piling extra work on an already heavily worked group of people, and I wouldn't expect that to be likely. I'm not opposed to it, and in some situations it may even be appropriate (for instance, if the case is particularly notorious or drawing a lot of controversy) but that's something that will have to be figured out as things go along on a case by case basis, and it certainly shouldn't be the norm. Most cases relying on such evidence, I would think, would not lend themselves well towards being useful at all with redacted information. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?

When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--David Shankbone 18:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not at all a positive development; however encyclopedias even in print are not immune to the ravages of POV. See some of the 1911 era Britannica articles, for example. As for the why, I think there is a major difference between being educational about what different viewpoints think, and being a mouthpiece for the viewpoints. We are not, and should not be, a mouthpiece for anyone. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from AniMate

Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how far back you want to go as "recent". My favorite contribution was the salvaging of Commander Mine Squadron SEVEN from deletion. Much more recently, I wrote DYKs on United States v. Oppenheimer and Erie v. Pap's A. M.. I'm in the process of doing a cleanup and improvement of the articles in the Category:Landmark cases.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Jeeny

  • I've noticed you speak of trust, and how important it is. Which I very much agree. But, what does trust mean to you? What have you done to deserve the trust of the community which you mentioned above? By trust, is it to do the "right" thing? If so, in your opinion, what is the right thing?
Trust to me, means properly using the responsibility that has been placed in you. In my case, I have earned the trust of the community over several thousand edits. I've earned the trust of the community in my RfA. I earned the trust of the Wikimedia Foundation when I was hired as an intern, and appointed to OTRS and the communications committees. They trust me to be responsible with private information, with legal documents, important information. As for what the right thing is, that varies depending on the situation, I cannot give you a broad answer to that.
  • Do you believe that strict adherence to policy is a must with no grey areas? If so, why or why not? And which policies are more important than another, or are they all important? Which policies, in your opinion, are/is the most important? - Jeeny (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, however policy is policy for a reason, and generally should be adhered to. If it is deviated from, there should be a compelling reason. All policies are important, however, the Core Policies (the Five Pillars) are the most important. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cla68

So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, and I have been a highly outspoken critic of Durova's actions. i.e. After her "apology" and archival of the AN/I thread that started all this, I started the "Followup" section that asked for further review of this. I understand this is a blanket question but....come on now, seriously? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Avruch

Do you think the tone of outrage you adopted in the AN/I and other discussions regarding the Durova fiasco indicate that you may have difficulty acting and communicating calmly and deliberately in emotionally charged situations? AvruchTalk 01:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I believe that any Wikipedia editor, after reviewing the facts of that case, would be outraged by the actions Durova took. It has nothing to do with calmness or deliberation; it has everything to do with a sense of moral responsibility, especially by someone standing for the same position (one that involves highly sensitive material). Had we not had this outrage, perhaps we would never have seen the true extent of the Durova fiasco. Wikipedia would have been the worse off for it. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you don't see any value in discussing a situation of import calmly despite the depth of your feelings on the subject? I'd suggest that the whole event could have been handled to a similar end result without the vitriol you and others demonstrated. See in particular comments by Newyorkbrad. AvruchTalk 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all what I said. A person may be morally outraged and yet discuss a situation calmly. The two are not mutually exclusive. As to "vitriol" on my behalf, please see comments by Giano II and others, and then ask if my comments are even remotely as angered or outraged as theirs are. As well, please review my contributions to the arbitration case, in which I have cooly and calmly commented upon the proposals at the workshop. I get the feeling you are confusing strong opposition with an inability to be rational and reasonable. These are not the same thing. One can be strongly opposed to an action, or a proposal, and one can be outraged by the actions of another, and yet still be rational and reasonable. The two are not mutually exclusive. So again, in your response that is not at all what I said. I used my outrage at the situation to formulate a response that generated the discussion that ended with Durova's desysopping. I had no trouble acting and communicating calmly throughout this time. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll further note that while we're talking about "the whole event could have been handled to a similar end result", had Durova admitted the deep extent of her error, the presence of the external mailing list, the inadequacy of the methods used, etc. this whole event could have been handled much more cleanly. Given the extent of the misrepresentations and the sheer lack of transparency involved, strong feelings and demands for action are basically a given, and the fact that they are in some cases heated should not be confused with them being ill-considered or the person making them being unreasonable. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754

  • What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
I see no productive value in reviewing an arbitration case 18 months old. Can you ask a more specific question?
  • a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
WikiProjects serve to assist editors who have a specific focus topic that they enjoy. They do not own articles, but they can act as consensus providers for articles within their scope, for things like templates and article layouts. This is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. For instance, the WP:MILHIST, a very large and very structured (also very successful) wikiproject, there is a clear consensus on the article layout and template format for battles. This is a good thing, considering wikiproject milhist editors are likely to be the ones editing those battles regularly.
  • Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on sibling WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
There is no such thing as a Parent to Sibling relationship. Parent Wikiprojects may enforce standards upon CHILD wikiprojects. There is no such thing as a parent to sibling relationship (parent automatically implies child/sibling does not necessitate parent). Between equals, no wikiproject has a right to impose standards on another.
  • a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
My definition is per WP:CANVAS. It does not include project newsletters. It MAY include IRC, in some situations, however what happens off-wiki is not necessarily within the purview of canvassing policy. Not a good idea, but not necessarily anything we can do things about.
  • 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?
Blocks should be an absolute last resort for good faith but horrible edits, as you describe. If an editor is making a mess of articles, with a good intent, the best solution is to rollback. That should be easy. If for some reason it's not that easy, full protect the article until it is fixed, and then unprotect it. Also, talk to the editor. If the editor continues after being told that they're damaging the article, and you've done what you can to try and help them, you can preventatively block them (perhaps with a note in the block log saying that they're making good faith edits, just screwing things up). During their block period, I would expect the admin to attempt to help the editor fix whatever is wrong with them. Oh, as for vandalism, we're very clear on that. Block per blocking policy, protect per protection policy, rollback liberally. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did make a mistake on question 3 - it should read as follows.

  • 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)
To the extent that parent and child projects exist, yes. For instance, the WP:MILHIST project has several sub-areas within its scope. One for battles, one for biographies, etc. The main wikiproject is obviously able to impose standards upon those. However, these things are not technically "separate wikiprojects", they're more like subsections. If two wikiprojects are truly separate, it's hard to find a parent child relationship between them. i.e. Wikiproject Firearms and Wikiproject Milhist are on similar topics, but are not parent in child. Or, Wikiproject Mountains, and Wikiproject Climbing (which I started). Wikiproject Mountains has no "right" to impose their standards on Wikiproject climbing articles (not that we have any, but if we did). When the standards conflict, some sort of collaborative consensus is needed.
A prime example would be articles on specific mountains that are popular with climbers. These fall under both WP:MOUNTAIN and WP:CLIMBING. WP:MOUNTAIN has standard templates and infoboxes. Lets assume hypothetically WP:CLIMBING had one too, that was a different format. The proper solution would be to have the two projects come to an agreement, and using common sense one can see that using the mountain infobox would be better.
Now hypothetically, lets say that WP:CLIMBING had a subproject WP:BOULDERING (bouldering is one of the major types of rock climbing). WP:CLIMBING would have the ability to set standards for WP:BOULDERING to follow. WP:MOUNTAIN, however, would not.
If that doesn't make sense, I"ll be happy to clarify more.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None necessary, I figured that was what you meant, but I didn't want to make the assumption for you.

Question from Risker

There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing[3]. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one may take a while, and I think I'll give you a brief statement tonight and add more tomorrow. I honestly can see where both sides are coming from. Policies need to adapt and evolve to fit the changing needs of the project (Community Ban being a perfect example), but that being said, there are constant edit wars on major policies, changes made without consensus, allegations of "gang-consensus" to "push policies" through. Both sides have valid arguments. Speaking from my role as a prospective arbitrator, I would want to see a carefully presented statement from "both sides", before making a decision. Speaking from my personal position as an editor, I cannot believe that a "stable policy version" and "consensus base editing" are incompatible. I'm sure it is possible to prevent free-editing, i.e. cutting down on edit wars, while allowing policies to evolve in some form by pre-formed consensus. I'm sure that is possible in some way or another. I have not figured out yet what that way is, or if that is the best solution, though. It may not even be a good solution. It bears considerably more thought, and I'll sleep on it and comment more in the morning. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Outriggr

I am asking users who have indicated an affiliation with the for-profit encyclopedia Veropedia the following. Your indication is on your user page.

  1. Can you explain how a Wikipedia editor like me (one who is not that familiar with the detailed workings of ArbCom) can trust that the positions you take on the ArbCom, if elected, would be free of conflict with your activities on Veropedia and your interests stemming from that organization? Thank you. –Outriggr § 07:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the two things are in any way connected. ArbCom is the final stage of dispute resolution. Veropedia has no disputes. Veropedia works by a user improving a Wikipedia article to a certain standard (determined by the Veropedia parser). These are little things, like ensuring that all ref tags are placed after the punctuation, rather than before. Once the article is deemed in a worthy state by Veropedia, it can be uploaded to Veropedia. The version on Wikipedia is now improved, and even if it eventually degenerates into an edit war, the version on Veropedia remains in the condition it was at it's height (because generally there is no editing on Veropedia). I fail to see how Veropedia would become a subject of an Arbcom case. I would consider recusing myself from a case specifically involving Veropedia, but I hardly see such a case being likely to arise; and if I DID recuse myself, I certainly would make myself available to instruct the other arbitrators on what veropedia is. Arbitrations tend to be very drama-filled. Go into #veropedia and type !drama and see what happens ;). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Blue Tie

1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?

No, it doesn't, and no it shouldn't. It can propose policy just as anyone else does (see the Ferrylodge case, in which the committee urges the community adopt a policy on bans), but ArbCom is a policy interpreting, not a policy making, body. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member?

Rarely, if at all. I'd much rather interpret the current policy than propose new ones. There are other people who are better at it than I am. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cool Hand Luke

I'm a law student myself, and I do believe that spending 8 hours a day on Wikipedia as a first year law student is not rational. I fear that you will reach this conclusion after you become an arbitrator. Tell me: why am I wrong? If I'm not wrong, is it wise to rely upon your continued irrationality, or is this something that isn't unique to law students? That is, are all candidates in a sense irrational to spend so much time resolving online conflicts? Cool Hand Luke 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't intend to spend 8 hours a day on ArbCom cases. The 8-hour mark is a bit of a misnomer really, what it means is that within at least an 8 hour period during the day I'm using wikipedia, either to edit, to check watchlists, etc. Doesn't mean I'm devoting 8 solid hours to it. As for time constraints, well it's worked well for me so far, even as a 1L involved with Mock Trial, and several student organizations. I certainly don't feel overly pressed for time. Maybe it has something to do with the military teaching me time management skills. Think of it this way: if I'm spending exactly as much time on wikipedia now, as I would as an arbitrator, and I'm able to maintain that schedule now as I have for the past year or so, wouldn't that tell you that I don't expect it to change as an arbitrator?⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SilkTork

How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that....Could you explain to me what the second half of that statement means (i.e. registering v. sleuthing)? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question has been badly worded. The majority of the others have also had difficulty reading the intention. My apologies. Thebainer paraphrased it as "requiring user registration for certain things is preferable to having to investigate all participants for duplicate participation", and I'm happy with that reading. Though prompted by the recent Durova case, among other things, I didn't wish to tie it to that incident as there has already been enough drama about that. The principle is that Wiki needs protection from certain kinds of abuse - which method of protection is better: an honest, upfront restriction, or an open door policy that requires secret surveillance. Of course, you are free to find a more interesting reading of the question - I respect Barthes and recognise that you may find more than one reading in the question. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Irpen

The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private.

Mailing list

Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?

Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?

Recusals

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?

Community oversight over the arbitration policy

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?

Question from Mrs.EasterBunny

As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really NuclearUmpf, but no discussion on what got NuclearUmpf banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=NuclearUmpf, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edit was reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?

The above may not be the best example but I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases that illustrate the point better. On occasion, I have seen what looks like an editing admin block someone unjustly, perhaps because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing but that the blocked editor was not editing an extreme POV. The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first misconduct excuse the second? Or is the second one misconduct (socks) much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy answer because excusing admin actions would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to act on whim. However, excusing the second misconduct might seem to encourage socks). In the SevenofDiamonds case, there doesn't seem to be any ArbCom determination of the merits of his/her edits. If they were entirely reasonable, would you have advocated a lesser punishment or no punishment?

The above issue has some similarities with the Durova / !! case where some say that !! was doing no disruption. Please note that I am not asking your opinion about the Durova case because it involves a 2nd issue (e-mail). This may be another "content vs. behavior - what should be ArbCom's priority" Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough question, and more the confusing one because I did not follow the SevenOfDiamonds case and at the present don't have time to look it up. It seems to me to depend on the situation. If you are an editor, blocked over a bad block, and you make a sockpuppet to evade it, your behavior is bad, but the block initially is bad too. I see arguments from both sides, but I think I'd lean towards ignoring the sock creation in that case. However, if you used that sock to blank things, such actions would not be excused by the initial bad block. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from wbfergus

What is your position on the following?

  • A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.
  1. After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
  2. If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
  3. Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
  4. Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
  5. Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
  6. Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?
Please ignore these questions. A user filed an RfArb yesterday, as you are aware of now. wbfergus Talk 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pinkville

Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/Swatjester/Questions_for_the_candidate&oldid=1117610494"