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

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

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

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

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

General questions

Questions from MBisanz

• 1. How long have you been an editor of Wikipedia?

• A.My first edit was February 6th, 2006

• 2. How many total edits do you have on Wikipedia? What is your % of edits to the article space?

• A.

• 3. Are you an administrator? If so, how long have you been one?

• A.I am an administrator, have been so since June, 2007.

• 4. Do you hold any other userrights or positions at the English Wikipedia? (crat, medcom, WPPJ, etc)

• A. Currently, at this time, I do not. I was part of the Adopt a User for a while.

• 5. Do you hold any userrights or other positions of trust at other WMF projects? Which ones?

• A. Not currently.

• 6. Have you ever been named as a participant of a Request for Arbitration? If so, please link case(s).

• A. While not named as a participant, I have either been a filing party or a joint filing party on several cases: They include: Great Irish Famine, The Troubles, Mantanmoreland, R. fiend, and Geogre-WMC

• 7. Have you ever been blocked or subject to restrictions such as WP:RESTRICT, WP:BLPLOG, WP:AER, or WP:SANCTION? If so, please link to the relevant issue.

• A. The only block that I have marring my other-wise pristine log was an accidental block by User:Chrislk02, who immediately unblocked with an apology.

• 8. Have you ever been blocked or formally sanctioned at another WMF project? If so, please describe.

• A. No, I have not.

• 9. What is your best work at Wikipedia? (an article, list, image or content template)

• A. I'd have to say the rewrite of Connie Hawkins.

• 10. If elected, would you request the Checkuser and/or Oversight userrights?

• A.Oversight, yes. Checkuser, I would request it with regards for my ArbCom duties, but I would not exercise it until I have confidence that I can use it properly

• 11. Please list any disclosed or undisclosed alternate or prior accounts you have had.

• A. This is the only account that I've used.

• 12. What methods of off-wiki communication do you use to discuss Wikipedia related matters? (IRC, Skype, WR, Mailing Lists, blogs, etc) Please link to any publicly available forums you use.

• A. I am an infrequent member of Wikipedia's EN-admins channel, and also a member of Wikipedia Review.

• 13. Do you have OTRS access? If so, which queues?

• A.I have not yet requested access to OTRS.

• 14. How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/MONGO and RFAR/Jim62sch as to off-site activities by users?

• A.First off, RFAR/MONGO was over two years ago, and some of its remedies were deprecated in 2008 (see also RfArb/Attack Sites). We cannot pretend that Wikipedia exists in a vacuum. There has been numerous attempts to import off-Wikipedia battles to Wikipedia, and conversely export Wikipedia battles to other places. Basically, if behavior's meant to have an effect ON-Wikipedia, then we need to treat it like it's on Wikipedia with regards to users.

• 15. What is your opinion on the new closed motions process?

• A. I think it's useful to a point, where public discussion would inflame an already rough situation. We must make sure however, that the accused always gets a chance to defend themselves.

• 16. Besides compromised accounts, under what circumstances would you support or initiate an emergency request for desysopping?

• A.In cases of extreme disruption/wheel warring only, and only until such time that it can be formally decided to remove or re-grant administrator access.

• 17. Currently, only Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee are authorized to perform/request involuntarily desysop an administrator whose account has not been compromised. What is your view of community-based desysopping decisions?

• A. I support administrators placing themselves open to recall. Despite the oft-quoted statement that being an administrator is "no big deal", it currently takes a seismic jolt to remove the administrator status of a user who is found to misuse the tools. However, I do not support a "one size fits all" method of community-based desysops. I do recognize that many people will reflexively oppose any administrator candidate who refuses to put themselves open to recall, but administrators should be free to set their own terms of recall, as long as they are not outside the norms of expected behavior. (ie, "I will not resign unless 6 of my closest friends tell me to" is not a good set of recall options) I do recommend however, that administrators be barred from changing their terms while an active recall request is being made. Holding oneself open to the community is the promise you make when you list yourself as open to recall, to move the goal posts during a recall is to break your promise.

• 18. If you owned Wikipedia as the WMF currently does, what would you do to fix the BLP problem?

• A.We need a multi-layered response to the issues with articles that qualify as BLP issues. Wikipedia has the ability to do great harm to living people. People have been harmed due to false and libelous information in articles. We must do our utmost to limit the damage that Wikipedia can do to others. The two suggestions that make the most sense to me at this time, is invoking Flagged or sighted revisions, at least on articles that deal with BLP, and being harsher on dealing with vandals who insert false or libelous information into articles.

• 19. In 2004, the Arbitration Committee referred issues to the Mediation Committee. However, as of recent, the Arbitration Committee has not referred issues to the Mediation Committee. Would you refer more content-based disputes to MedCom or continue the current practice?

• A. I think it could be a reason to reject a case (that MedCom could handle a situation before it disrupts the encyclopedia as a whole) However, once the Arbitration Commitee has accepted a case, I do not think handing it off to another body would be useful.

• 20. In the past the Arbitration Committee has taken a checkered view of wheel wars, desysopping in some cases and not desysopping in others. What do you believe constitutes a wheel war which would result in a desysopping?

• A. It's fairly simple: If you know an action will be controversial, you better have gotten consensus from the community before you do it. When you start putting YOUR judgement against another administrator's... directly.. no attempts at getting others involved.. well.. don't be surprised if others find your judgement lacking.

• 21. How involved must an administrator be to be unable to enforce policy on a user? Given that it is expected that all admins understand policy when they pass RFA, under what circumstances would you not desysop an administrator who was clearly involved with a user they blocked or an article they deleted/protected?

• A. An administrator might be involved but still be able to enforce policy. Indeed on, some of the more conten tious areas, there are literally dozens of administrators who might be considered "involved" on a case. The question is whether the tools were used to further one's side in an ongoing dispute. That would be a lack of judgment.

• 22. Besides the technical capabilities administrators have, the Arbitration Committee has granted administrators the rights to enforce certain general sanctions with regards to specific editors and articles. What is your view on these new non-technical privileges being considered part of the "administrative" function for purposes such as RfC, Recall, and RfAR?

• A.I think it's a good thing. A user may be disruptive in a certain narrow swath of articles, but be a net benefit to the encyclopedia outside that narrow swath. Sanctions do not always have to be a blunt instrument, but instead, a surgeon's scalpel.

• 23. Current checkuser policy at the English Wikipedia prohibits checkusers from fulfilling "fishing" requests. However, global privacy policy does not prohibit such requests from being fulfilled, so long as personal information is not disclosed. Would you support the alteration of the en.wp policy to permit fishing requests?

• A... I'm of two minds of this. Checkuser generally runs on a "least harm done" policy. While there could be a benefit to the encyclopedia to check a large swatch of users.. the potential for privacy violation rises. I would not make it policy that fishing is a valdid reason for checkuser, but leave it up to the checkuser's discretion and good judgement.

• 24. In 2006 the Arbitration Committee asked the community to address the issue of protecting children's privacy on Wikipedia. To this day there is still no policy on how to handle children's privacy on Wikipedia. What steps would you take to ensure children's privacy is protected under policy?

• A.Well, considering the fact that the ArbCom has recently received a great amount of opprobrium for making policy, I'm not sure that any policy created by ArbCom would find a great deal of traction with the general comunity. But indeed, Wikipedia, the community and the Foundation all need to take a second look to determine what obligations it needs to take to ensure children's policy.

• 25. How do you resolve the apparent inconsistency between RFAR/LevelCheck and RFAR/Durova as to what may be considered justification for blocks of educated new users?

• A.

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

• A. ArbCom should not pre-judge a case, or appear to have pre-judged a case. Some will take a look at the case title to see where ArbCom is looking to apportion blame. If there's a single user, then there is less problems involved, but by positioning it as a battle "A versus B".. you run the risk of A) It being considered a battle in the ArbCom text, and B) people taking sides on that battle.

• 27. A case is presented between two administrators who have repeatedly undone each other's administrative actions with regard to the deletion of an article. The basis for the deleting administrator's action was an OTRS ticket showing the article to be a copyright violation. In performing the deletion, the administrator clearly referenced the OTRS ticket number. Assuming the undeleting administrator did not have OTRS access, do you penalize him more or less for wheel warring? Do you penalize the deleting administrator for wheel warring?

• A.The undeleting administrator is wheel warring here. Wikipedia does NOT need to be battling with the world at large. OTRS is there for a reason, to provide people who think that Wikipedia is doing them wrong a way to get their concerns answered. One should stop and get more information ON the OTRS ticket before seeking to counter the actions of an OTRS ticket.

• 28. To what extent do you believe policy on Wikipedia is or should be binding?

• A. Policy can change, as can consensus. But when people sign up to contribute to Wikipedia, they agree to abide by Wikipedia's policies. So this is fairly easy. Policy is binding upon Wikipedia's users

• 29. Do you believe that former arbitrators should be on the Arb Comm mailing list? Why or why not?

• A: Former Arbitrators can provide a useful "institutional memory" on issues. In general, I have no problem with former arbitrators being on the mailing list.

Question from Ultraexactzz

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

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

A:Wise. Wise enough to try to avoid answering difficult questions with one word at least ;) SirFozzie (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Giggy

1. a/s/l?

   34/M/Near Boston, MA.

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

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

   I'm of the archaic notion that, in general, banned means banned. Especially considering our how should I say.....more prolific and enthusiastic banned users, folks who deal with them regularly shouldn't have to go through their sprees and try to determine what's a good edit and what's not. If an edit is good, it can come from somewhere else. Certain Banned users need to get the point that their contributions, good, bad or indifferent are not welcome. I can understand in some cases letting the rope slip a bit, but for certain "remarkably unwelcome" users, the sooner they get the hint that their contributions are not welcome on Wikipedia and to depart with whatever dignity they had left, the better off the encyclopedia is.

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

   Obviously, I'd have to go with the Mantanmoreland case. From my discussions with various Arbitration Committee members, it seems like there was a real divide between those who thought that the evidence was there to connect the accounts, and those, who, conversely would not be convinced no matter how much DUCK informaion was presented, if there was no smoking gun (IE, a checkuser result). I think that, looking at the AE discussion that's going on now, I think I would have posted a remedy that states due to the past abilities of Mantanmoreland to avoid linking accounts with checkuser (the one that got him banned was over a couple thousand edits before he finally messed up and provided checkuser with the information that linked his accounts), that new accounts showing up would be under greater scruitiny. (IE, if you don't want to be treated like Mantanmoreland, then don't act like Mantanmoreland). Instead, the remedy we got maybe assumes too MUCH good faith. It stated that new users under question have to affirmatively state that they're not Mantanmoreland, or have a COI, etcetera. We have to AGF with a user who's already shown the ability to take AGF and tie it into a pretzel and use it as a weapon against others.

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

1) my work on Connie Hawkins. The article as it stood looked to be a copyvio of a Lakers fan site, and since I had previously read a book about the treatement that this player had, it was actually kinda fun to do more research and rescue the article. 2) My DYK's on the Stanford Super Series and the Red Brick School. Two things I would NEVER write about normally, but one is local to me, and the other caught my eye in the news. Building a new article from scratch (or in the case of the Red Brick School, greatly expanding the article from a one sentence stub that only provided its geolocation coordinates) was fun. 3) The investigation on the Mantanmoreland case. Not just the work that I specifically did, but the knock0-n effect that others took my research as a starting pont and dug deeper to determine the true facts on the ground, working collaboratively. It was somewhat stressful, but it actually seemed to be proof about the value of collaborative effort. 4) My work dealing with a well known vandal, who had come up with a way to get back at Wikipedia for excluding him. He took a series of articles on a subject, stripped out any sentence that didn't have a source attached to it (Normally taking down to one or two sentences) and then immediately placing a speedy delete notice on the article. If the admin who responded to the speedy tag didn't look back in history to see what the article was like before the hatchet job was done, the article was deleted. He did this on numerous articles, and rang up something on the order of 500+ sock puppets, using open proxies to get around his various bans. 5) Trying to be a voice of reason on various long-running disputes, such as the Troubles, and the RfC's that dealt with certain well-known individuals. Of the barnstars I have on my user page from various users, I treasure the ones that state Well done for all your excellent work in keeping the peace on Northern Ireland-related articles and I do hereby bestow upon SirFozzie this Mediation Barnstar for displaying exemplary courtesy and patience in his interactions with a certain user. The fact that his entreaties have apparently fallen on deaf ears does not make them any less important.

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

   Yes, I will be, and I urge any user who commented on the ArbCom RFC, or has issues with the way the Arbitration Committee has been run over the past twelve months to vote (even if it's NOT for me *grins*). As I said in my candidate statement, the candidates that we the community pick influences the direction of the encyclopedia for years to come. I urge the community to determine the candidates that best serve their vision of the encyclopedia and to vote them into the ArbCom.

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

(Thanks Giggy, good questions!) SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

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

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

   Policy is basically the rules and regulations of how this site works. Or at least, how it should work. So I think it's binding on users who agreed to abide by Wikipedia's rules and proceedures.

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

   Useful for "institutional memory", and advice welcome, but I would judge their advice for myself before following it.

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

   I don't think that ArbRecall is a good idea, to be honest. Just about every case that ArbCom handles is an unusually divisive dispute amongst editors and arbitrators. Every time that the ArbCom handles a decision, they will disappoint/anger at least one side involved, and quite possibly all involved.

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

Thanks for your questions. Please let me know if I can expand on these answers for you. SirFozzie (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Celarnor

1. What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?

A:This is a tough question. I don't think that ArbCom should be creating policies out of whole cloth, so to speak, but I generally favor giving ArbCom the freedom to think outside the box (what an overused saying, but it fits), for example, placing articles on general sanctions, etcetera. Sometimes the problem is unsolvable by standard remedies, but if you avoid the head on approach, there may be a way to get around it.

1. What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

A:Very good Arbitrators will know where the problem areas on Wikipedia are, and be able to think of possible ways to fix the situation when it gets to RFARB. The BEST Arbitrators will know where the problem areas on Wikipedia are, and start thinking of possible ways to fix the situation so it never gets to RfArb.

Thanks for your questions, Celarnor. SirFozzie (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from LessHeard vanU

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

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

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

1. I would be more willing to hear cases involving possible misuse or abuse of the administrator's tools. As I've said previously, while the tools themselves are no big deal, the amount of harm that can take place from misuse of administrative tools is orders outside your garden variety edit-war. We must make sure that administrators are using their best judgment when using the administrative tools. SirFozzie (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

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

   I hate to be pithy... but as many as the job requires. I can't say how many hours it will take, because I've not been one. Anyone who tells you that they can expect to give so many hours to the job without actually having done it in the past is set to be overworked and overstressed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from WilyD

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

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

A: My answers are:
1) Yes, it is appropriate to block another administrator over a regular editing issue (for example, WP:DE, the brightline of 3RR, etcetera). Just because administrators have an extra bit, does not mean that they are any less responsible for following Wikipedia's rules and policies.
2) I would encourage anyone considering this to remember one of the suggestions given to new administrators. GET CONSENSUS BEFORE DOING ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL. Blocking another administrator because of misuse of administrative tools is inherently controversial. Take the extra time. Engage the ArbCom. Create a thread on AN/ANI. Work with the other administrator to resolve the situation quietly and peacefully. But don't.. DON'T make an already bad situation worse by thinking your judgement should surpass another administrator's automatically.

SirFozzie (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from PhilKnight

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

1. Well, I'd try to recuse myself in cases where I already have a strong opinion on the people involved. For example, I may feel its best that if I was to recuse myself in a case involving folks that filed a RfC against me and several others (as well as a RFC me and several others filed against folks). I'm not going to go into details, because I don't want to bring up history on both sides. It's over and done with, and it's been quiet for months, so I'm not going to be the one to start things up again. 2. Well, there's a thin line here. I WANT to say that you can describe the VIEW as racist without calling another editor a racist but that could be dismissed as sophistry. Secondly, you don't have to like the people you collaborate with on Wikipedia articles, you just have to WORK with them. I would suggest a user RFC as a next step if the views are leading to PoV pushing in article content. SirFozzie (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Thatcher

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

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

A: The burden of good faith says that we have to believe that the user is innocent UNLESS there is further evidence that links the two together (for example, common targets, phraseology, etcetera). I would keep an eye on things for further edits, if the administrator IS the vandal, they may try something new once they figure the heat is off.

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

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

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

(c) Write your own answer.

I would have to say that b) is the best answer, although I certainly understand A). There's too much risk of appearing to use the checkuser to gain an advantage in an editing dispute. Perhaps, a blend of the two. Asking another checkuser "Hey, can you run a checkuser on Suspicious Account A? He may be the returned Banned User B. If you have questions on B's previous tactics, let me know and I can answer any questions for you.

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

I would say that if Smythe is continuing the behavior that got Smith banned (via the off-wikipedia harassment), then I would not be inclined to grant an unblock.

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

I've seen this happen on several cases. The Committee may have been discussing the case vigorously in private, but to the community, it looked like the ArbCom was fiddling while Rome burned. Several disputes were exacerbated because there was no word from the ArbCom, which led to ill-feelings being increased, and in one particular case, disputes on the workshop and talk pages led to an editor being blocked for edit-warring. I honestly think that public discussion when split is healthy to a point. At the very least, ArbCom should be upfront in any case that is taking a while to develop behind the scenes. Perhaps posting the remedies and findigns that a majority can agree on at first would help keep emotions in check, while noting that other remedies are being discussed privately.

There's also a feeling amongst the community (rightly or wrongly), that it seems like one or two members of ArbCom come in, and write the proposed decision, and then everyone comes in and rubber stamps it. There may be tens or even hundreds of hours of discussion privately, but all we see is "Proposed Decision" written by one person, and pretty much everyone arriving enmasse to initial it. Perhaps writing some Proposed Decisions on the fly would be helpful. That would be something to be discussed amongst ArbCom members.

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

A: If I get elected, I would have to cut my back my attempts to mediate and try to keep the Troubles brushfires from blazing up (then again, considering the history of things, I would probably want to keep an eye on it, just in case it returned to ArbCom. If I think things are resolved unsatisfactorily? Well, I'd look to see what (if anything) can be done, but if not, I'd have to abide by it, just like any other user.

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

A: Luckily for me, I've had both done to me already, one by Daniel Brandt, and one by another banned user. So that's already out there.

Thanks for your questions, Thatcher. SirFozzie (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A-E: Yes. As far as I'm concerned, that's a MININUM that a fully active Arbitrator should be doing. F: Not at first, but it's tool where there always needs to be more competent CheckUsers no matter how many are appointed, so it's something I'd like to pick up. SirFozzie (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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

A:In general, I like the proposed changes. They should make sure that ArbCom cases are handled fairly, openly and honestly. I cannot think of anything at this moment to change on them. SirFozzie (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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

A: I think it's because the community has taken a lot of the easy work out from underneath ArbCom. It used to be to block any disruptive user, you had to go to arbcom, wait several weeks, and then the person was blocked for a year or what have you. With the Community able to do the easy ones, and the ability to provide limited sanctions (such as topic bans, or limit to 1RR), the ArbCom only gets the REALLY tough cases. I think its a good thing. SirFozzie (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

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

A: If I may toot my own horn, it's BLP Lock. Unlike bad articles about general things, which just makes us look bad, bad or vandalized articles about living people can and DO cause harm to people. We need to be tougher on BLP articles. It's not just an academic concern, it's a real-life concern. If not this, then flagged or sighted revisions. The wisdom of crowds is great, but editors should not have to monitor articles constantly to make sure that someone has slipped "Jerry sucks donkey balls" into an article about Seinfeld, for example.

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

A: ArbCom should not be in the business of creating policy out of whole cloth. They may seem to AMEND policy by clarifying its enforcement, but policy creation is best left to the wider community, I think. I think ArbCom should take the lead in identifying areas where policy is unclear or contradictory, and lead the discussion, but if the ArbCom simply substitutes its judgement for the community's, you risk shutting out discussion and creating pushback.

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

A: If memory serves me right, Jimbo has already stated that activities on #wikipedia-en-admins falls under the jurisdiction of IRC. I would like to see that enforced. However, I do not see the boogeyman that many IRC opponents see in IRC disucussion. In my times there, the ratio seems to be 50% silence, 40% talk about everything and anything BUT Wikipedia, 9% general discussion about events on WP, and <1% actual problematic issues. It's not perfect, nothing is, but any misbehavior there should be treated like that of on-Wiki, I think.

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

A: Right now, the vast consensus of the community is that three years is too long, and that terms should be 2 years, or 18 months (four tranches or 3 tranches, with elections every six months or so). If elected, I would immediately request Jimbo to limit my tranche to expire in December 2010, a year before it would otherwise, so I could live up to my promise to limit my term.

Thanks for your questions, Mailer Diablo, let me know if I can expand on them or clarify them. SirFozzie (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

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

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

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
4. Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
5. a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
6. An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
7. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
8. a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
9. (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

1) 125 days to handle an Arbitration Committee case is quite frankly, shocking. I've seen cases that go half that long have so much ill-feeling that the ArbCom members and the clerks basically decided to shut down the Workshop page and talk page.. because it had exhausted all reasonable discussion and all you had left was the same people attacking each other in the same way.
2A) A WikiProject is a tool to help a community of editors collaborate on a series of articles for the benefit of the encyclopedia.
2B) I think that while WikiProjects can come up with a set of article layouts and such that to improve articles which fall under the Project's purview, they must be careful never to shut out others in their discussion. Members of a project should never be saying "Well, this is the way our project's does it, so I'm right, you're wrong, now shut up and go away!"
3) I think I covered it in 2B above, but mindless pointing at Project minutia should NEVER replace discussion and consensus seeking
4A) As long as it remains dry and factual and doesn't seek to tell everyone how to vote on the article, I do not have a problem with it, For example, if you carry a list of articles up for AfD under the project, saying "Road 39 is at AFD" is not a problem. "Hey, Road 39, which I worked hard on, is at AfD. Please everybody vote to keep it", quite frankly, is.
4B) IRC is harder to qualify then newsletters, because it's not usually logged, and it's inherent one to one/few nature compared to a public newsletter. So it usually boils down to a he said/she said type of situation unless reliable logs are brought forth.
5) In general, no one editor can truly break an article, because all past revisions are generally available to go back to, should another editor truly mess things up to the point it's unsalvagable. But rollbacks and protects should definitely be used to keep good-faith edits from unnecessarily damaging an article's quality. Blocks.. well.. I'd rather try to contact a good-faith editor and work things out if possible rather than block a misguided but truly good-faith editor.
6) The type of user you mention here is a lot more disruptive then 5 or 7, so I'd be a lot more concerned and willing to take active measures if good faith cannot be assumed.
7) In case of someone who does not speak English well, I would still assume good faith, and try my hardest to see what we can do to help this editor, up to and including, if need be, find someone who speaks a common language to make the other editor understand what they're doing that is disruptive.
8) Generally, a community ban should only occur when the well of AGF is dry, and efforts have been undertaken to counsel the user. It should not be quick. It should not be easy. It should take lots of discussion. In order of most likely to be community banned, I'd have to say, 6, 7 (if every effort has been taken to communicate with them and nothing's changed) and then 5.
9) In some cases, the community has grown to the point where meaningful policy change is very hard, if not impossible to do. If you only have to convince 5 people of something, then it's much easier than trying to convince 25 people of the same thing. You're much likelier to have one or two people who will strongly disagree with any proposed change (and stall things out), the more people involved.

The other problem is more prevalent amongst a subset of the community (administrators) than the community as a whole, but it seems at times that Wikipedia focuses too much on the BOLD part, and the REVERT part.. and not enough to the DISCUSS part. If more people sought consensus on something likely to be controversial before doing it, we wouldn't have half the problems we do.

Good questions, Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Maxim

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

1. Wheel-warring to me, while not quite the entire community's view, is undoing another administrator's action without first seeking discussion with that other administrator or seeking the consensus of the community at large. The policy as it stands requires a third action (Do, Undo, REDO) But as I said, administrators should avoid doing something which they will KNOW is controversial without first getting it discussed. Undoing another administrator's action without discussion or consensus is inherently controversial. If such a case came before me as an Arbitrator, I would be best interested in seeing why one or both administrators thought that their judgement was so much better then the other's that they did not need to seek discussion or consensus beforehand.
2. Truth be told, I'm not in favor of it. ArbCom should be tougher on administrators, yes. But a lot of our administrators work in very high-conflict areas, and any administrator who works in those areas will eventually do something that will cause a clamoring for their tools. I'm in favor of community PRESSURE (via recall, if an administrator sets up to hold themselves to that policy), but I don't think community de-sysops are a good idea.
3. I don't have that much of an opinion on adminbots/high speed admin tools, except to say that they are useful in some circumstances. Just like there's a lot of mind-numbing, scutwork required in building all the minutiae that goes into making good wikipedia articles, there's as much (or more) mindnumbing scutwork with regards to keeping Wikipedia the best possible. Take a look at Images without a fair use rationale, for example. If we had to go through and manually tag each one, etcetera, I'm sure that a good portion of our administrator staff would go nutty. So.. it's useful, althoguh I have not worked in this area previously.

Thanks for your questions, Maxim! SirFozzie (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from rootology

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

Questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

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

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

Ok. Let's see here:

1. I don't actually think the bundling of issues was the worst part of this case. Was it at least worthy of question? Yes. But at least they were, in some ways, part of the same basic issue. The delays, and the corresponding lack of contact from ArbCom was much, much worse, at least to me.
   
2. Ideally, if one has strong feelings on an conflict before ArbCom, the prudent action would be to recuse. One of the good things about having such a large Arbitration Committee, however, is that if ONE person is "not quite true", so to speak, that they don't have such a power as in a single judge format. It's not OPTIMAL, but it's not the disaster that it could be. And here's the thing. A) Do you really think anyone will say that if they're NOT recused from any particular case, that they will be anything but impartial? (and AGF requires that we take them at their word.) And B), in an age where we want more and more communication from ArbCom, do you think that if any Arbitrator disagrees with the common view on an issue, that they would say so if their words would be used against them in an attempt to unseat them before their term was up?
3. Again, in an ideal world, the community, and ArbCom would work together on a framework.. but in general I do think ArbCom has the right to set how THEY hear cases.
4. Hoo boy. I don't think this answer's going to be popular, but I do respect in some way that we do not want it to be QUITE a complete and utter democracy. Why? I'm going to give you two words. Sanjaya Malakar. Such Vote for the Worst candidates, while quite possibly meaning well, have the ability to actively harm the project. Only in such cases, where there's an active attempt to vote someone in specifically for the harm that they could create, or for the amusement of others, would I like to see the right of seating veto to be used. English Wikipedia is not like other projects. It is the largest, most visible WMF project out there (when people think Wikipedia, it is usually us they think of), and we need to be cognizant of that.
5. I don't think however, that an ArbCom candidate who does not get a consensus of the community should be seated. Quite frankly, if the community dowes not support you, being appointed will do the view of ArbCom harm, and hastens the risk that there will be a major schism between it and the community. I can't see that as being good for the project.
6. To Avoid Burnout:ArbCom Term Lengths: 24 months. Elections every six or eight months. (there we go, 14 words. One word left over!) More frequent elections allow arbitrators to be more accountable to the community, alleviate to a point arbitrator fatigue, and encourages new blood to join (two years is still a long time, don't get me wrong)
7. A-D-C-B in that order. The community first, because the community elects Arbitrators. D (The WMF) because ultimately, it's their servers that hold Wikipedia (admittedly, through the community's donations), followed by the ArbCom itself (they must be true to themselves) and then Jimbo (although Jimbo has power as the symbol of the WMF). SirFozzie (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks rootology. SirFozzie (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Davewild

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

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

1. Yes, I was one of the creators of proposals on the ArbCom RfC to limit ArbCom terms to 18 or 24 months. First off, if I'm elected, I will voluntarily limit myself to a two year term to live up to my own words. Once that is done, I will attempt to persuade my fellow Arbitrators that this is the best way.. or lead further discussions with the community and Jimbo to get that changed in policy. SirFozzie (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from roux

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

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

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

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

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

I'm skipping over this one for the moment, but I'm coming back to it, I promise SirFozzie (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

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

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

1. As indicated above, only in cases where I think that someone very unqualified has been passed over (such as the Vote for the Worst type thing). In the vast majority of outcomes, where a QUALIFIED member of the community has been passed over, I don't thhink I COULD accept such an appointment, as it would be obvious that I don't have a mandate from the community. SirFozzie (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.

1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

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

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

2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:

   a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

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

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

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?

4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?

5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

   a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

   a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

1A. Opting out as the only measure isn't a cure-all, I think. I do think that we should take the subject's wishes into strong consideration during discussion at AFD and specifically by administrators by closing AfD.

1B. This I can get behind more. With the amount of articles about living people growing and growing, it's simply not possible for many of the lesser known BLP articles to be constantly monitored, and it's precisely these lesser known BLP articles that can cause harm when a piece of vandalism sticks in their articles for months (For all his notability in his chosen fields, there was no one who saw a piece of vandalism about John Seigenthaler for four months and We know how that turned out. Wikipedia should in such cases exercise a degree of caution with such articles. Defaulting to delete is the least we should do with BLP articles.

2A) It's a question of policy. The Biographies of Living People policy.
2B) I'm generally uncomfortable with ArbCom creating policy out of whole cloth. In general, I think the policy they came down with is a good first step, however.
2C) I would like to see the ArbCom create and lead a workshop on brainstorming ideas on further ways to try to make sure BLP articles are made to the highest standards possible. ArbCom may not be able to create policy, but I would love to see them lead the discussion for such change.

3) In some ways, Wikipedia's grown so big, and opinions on certain issues has become so entrenched that gathering consensus has become very hard to do. I don't think a move to majority rule is a good idea (especially considering NPOV and other such priorities for the encyclopedia). I would look to try to find ways to limit blocks of editors (such as Wikipedia Projects, etcetear) from running over all opposition. Encourage consensus and discussion.

4) It certainly would be a great way to handle the BLP issues. I think too many people look at it as preventing people from adding to article, which is antiethical to the encyclopedia anyone can edit'. I would instead encourage them to make sure it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I would support bringing it in for all BLP items, as a start. As for the community irretrievably failed to come to a decision part? I don't think so. I think a RFC on this issue, to run for at least sixty days (with a notice in the header, so everyone sees it as part of their watchlist notice, for example), would be a good way to determine if the community can or cannot come to a decision on this.

5A) I support the principle of pseudonymity, to the point that it does not disrupt the encyclopedia. There was an ArbCom case in the not so distant past, where it was pointed out that a hypocritical user could disrupt the encyclopedia by lying about a Conflict of Interest they had and was given a free pass, while another user who was upfront about their identity and their Conflict of Interest was sanctioned for it.
5B) Honestly, I don't think it can be changed at this point. But we need to be more upfront about telling users that if you attempt to deceive the encyclopedia and get caught doing it, it's on your own head.
5C) If some one's previously self-disclosed personal information about themselves, and now wants to retract that information from public view, unfortunately for that user, there's no stuffing that particular genie into that bottle. Commanding Wikipedia and its community to forget some information you yourself provided is like Canute commanding the tide not to come in. It's just not feasible or workable.
5D) I'd prefer that the information NOT be used, but there always exceptions... If information reveals that someone is breaking Wikipedia rules (for example, the one in 5A, where disclosure of that user's real name revealed a conflict of intrest they had about a whole series of articles they were not-so-subtly pushing a particular point of view on.
5E) Thanks to Wikipedia Watch, my real life information is readily available. I have never denied that I am the person they listed. I think that Arbitrators must be ready to face the fact that their personal information will likely be dug up and posted publicly, even against their wishes due to the simple fact that they are in a position of power on one of the Top 10 English language websites in the world.
5F) I think that Risker's article about privacy Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion does a good job, and should be required reading. As to what WMF/ArbCom can be doing? I'm not sure what, if anything more they could do.
5G) In general, outing another user (on or off-Wikipedia) should be met with harsh response, with limited exceptions. In general, such activities should be done privately, to an ArbCom member via the ArbCom mailing list, or what have you, and there'd better be a good POLICY-based reason for their outing. (IE, proving they have a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with articles). As for the difference between off and on-wiki actions, I think in general if an action is meant to affect ON-Wiki, it should be treated as such.

6A) I wish that WMF would do a little more to make new users aware of the hazards of editing. As I said above, the article on privacy by Risker does a great job to make users aware of the problems that can come with editing Wikipedia. 6B) I think that WMF could do more to assist those being victimised by stalkers. For example, I could suggest that the WMF could formally serve those who use Wikipedia to stalk others with cease and desist notices. 6C) If someone has real life issues regarding to their account, I would support allowing them to let the old account die a quiet death and edit under a new account, although I would make it clear that if they continue to edit the same articles in the same way, a clever editor may (inadvertently or deliberately) figure things out and link those accounts publicly. 6D) As I said above, the WMF should serve a cease and desist notice (and follow through, if violated) on those who use Wikipedia to harass victims. 6E) Stalking is the use of Wikipedia to harass others. To the point where a stalker would deliberately post on pages they knew the victim would read, in an attempt to provoke fear. Reviewing contributions for other problematic edits is nothing of the sort.

7) Certain banned users, such as the "remarkably unwelcome" editor mentioned in this question, should be treated like I mentioned above on question 6. The sooner they get the message that their edits (good, bad, indifferent) is not going to stand, and that they depart the encyclopedia, the better off we are. We don't ban users such as the "remarkably unwelcome" one above and then say "Ok, some of your edits are ok, so we'll let them stand". That just encourages them to continue to push the boundaries and annoy othersr..

8A) I am going to enrage some people at WR by saying this, but the thing is.. if there wasn't a Wikipedia Review, we would have to create a Wikipedia Review. There should be a place for people to go to vent off steam in such a way, or to criticise the things on Wikipedia that they think need to be changed. You do need to take a lot of things said with a grain of salt (in some cases, a grain of salt the size of a boulder is necessary), but there's no harm in listening to others.
8B) I participate on WR and participated on Wikback.
8C) I answered a lot of this with 8A, but while some of the users are on WR because they were forced off WP (for good reason or not), there are others who honestly think Wikipedia needs change and they don't think that they can (for whatever reason) get a fair hearing on WP. Wikback was a good idea, but it never got an identity seperate from Wikipedia itself (being run by a then-member of the ArbCom).
8D) Yes in all cases, with the caveat that they need to be careful about not disclosing private discussions or other such information. As I said, there's no harm in listening and discussing.
8E) Yes, I have an account on WR, samename as this one.

9) Vested Contributors means a lot of different things to different people. This is a rough question to answer, but I think we need to treat editors equally, and try to minimize the disruption to the encyclopeda.

10) Green. Because. :)

Thanks for the questions Lar. And my doctor thanks you too, for the carpal tunnel that's developed in trying to type up full response to your questions (Grins) SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

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

1. I think we need to be more willing to issue topic bans or restrictions, both at the ArbCom level and the community level. The problem that for a lot of accounts, a topic ban is a de-facto site ban, so there will be a lot of pushback on these things, but maybe it would be better for those sanctioned to show they CAN edit elsewhere before we let them back into contentious areas. For example, in The Troubles area, there is a user who makes rather good edits in the areas OUTSIDE the are where he's sanctioned, but he just cannot conduct himself properly inside the contentious area. So, the encyclopedia benefits, by keeping them away from areas where they are disruptive, and keeping them in areas where they can benefit the encyclopedia.
2. I think that the problem with Civility Parole (other then the personality conflicts that it can cause), is that a lot of cases, the action will be considered controversial, and the problem is that ArbCom Enforcements require a lot more discussion before reversing. I strongly recommend that anyone who takes an action follow the simple policy suggested to any new administrator. Before doing anything controversial with the tools, DISCUSS AND GET CONSENSUS. That would help in many cases. SirFozzie (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions. SirFozzie (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

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

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

1. Well, at least a majority, and unless it was someone spectacularly unhelpful, I'd have to be one of the top vote getters.
2. No. I do not support one sized fits all recall procedures

Hope that answers your questions? SirFozzie (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from UninvitedCompany

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

My answers:

1. Various Wiki-gnomery about things that interest me, have a certain amount of articles that I follow that are the targets of vandals fairly often.
2. Associates in the arts, (Communication Arts), used to be a radio DJ for a while, and now involved in the database storage industry.
3. This is the only Wiki-like project I'm involved in, although I participate in various online forums and discussion groups.
4. Let's see, filing party on numerous ArbCom cases, a little informal mediation work, etcetera
5. None, politically an independent, and don't do any others
6. Nothing to the level to really be notable, did some management duties for my current job for a time.
7. My information is already out there, publicly.
8. None. Although several of my cousins use Wikipedia (had to remind them that Wikipedia is a STARTING point, not an end point for their research for school)
9. I'm an infrequent user of IRC, and participate in discussions at WR.
10. Not sure what you mean by constituencies. I'd have one constituency. The community. They may speak in many different voices, but in general, they have the same goal. Electing an ArbCom who resolves disputes and allows an enviroment where the encyclopedia can be worked on and improved.
11. In general, "Unusually divisive debates" Sometimes this is a case that's worked its way through all the seperate levels of Dispute Resolution. Other disputes (such as wheel wars) are inherently unusually divisive.
12. There is no one true way, really, different things work in different cases. Topic Bans work on some cases, Bans are necessary elsewhere. It depends on what the activity is..
13. I'd be more willing to act decisively with regards to Wheel wars.. they are a greatly disruptive force on Wikipedia. I'd like to see the community put some teeth to WP:Wheel
14. Newyorkbrad, for his ability to write decisions and explain them, and discuss them, with anyone who asks, so they understand the decision, even if they don't agree with them
15. I think Wikipedia needs to use the more relaxed status of civil cases "Preponderance of evidence" compared to the criminal case "Beyond a reasonable doubt".
16. Honestly, I've only worked with Jimbo briefly on the beginning of the Mantanmoreland case, and that's about the extent of my involvement. To the best of my knowledge, they're doing their jobs at the big picture level fairly ok, but that's the extent I've worked with them
17. I've previously submitted a request to work with OTRS (never got any response back), and worked with OTRS members to clarify the status of a ticket they worked on, I think it's necessary.
18. No. Confidential information is confidential for a reason.

Thanks for your questions, UC SirFozzie (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from TomasBat

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

1. I think the encyclopedia must come first, unfortunately, but that doesn't mean that we can't try to improve the encyclopedia by educating the user first. SirFozzie (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from MBisanz

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

1. My identity is public already, so it doesn't really apply. SirFozzie (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Pixelface

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

1. The only one I think where I wasn't a filing party, was Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles. The remedies there, were helpful in some cases, but the dispute is still going on, and other remedies.
2. Well, here we go. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/R._fiend, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley, and the just closed motion Re:SlimVirgin (I may have missed one or two, but that's what comes to mind right now. In general, there was two cases that went as I expected (the GIF and R.fiend), one that lasted way too long and has not yet been solved to this day (The Troubles), one that I don't think the Committee went far enough (Geogre/WMC), and one that was the biggest disappointment to this day in my time at WP (Mantanmoreland, the only saving grace is that the community did what ArbCom was unwilling to it seemed)
3. I think there's enough above, more then enough probably :)

Thanks for your questions. SirFozzie (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Badger Drink

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

1. Mantanmoreland comes to mind. There was requests from several users for guidance on what evidence the committee wanted to see, and there was no such guidance, and then certain members of the committee criticized the evidence as wide ranging and unfocused.
2. There was disruption from the user, but a private ArbCom wasn't the way to handle it, and the lack of discussion within the committee about if there was a consensus caused a huge amount of problems.
3. Well, I think we've seen the fact that ArbCom folks burnout in a third year, and it led to me asking to limit ArbCom terms to 18 months or two years. But it was a good way to get the community's pulse regarding issues with the ArbCom.

Question from BirgitteSB

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

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

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

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

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

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

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

Questions From ϢereSpielChequers

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

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

ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Question(s) from LtPowers

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

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

Questions from FT2

These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged.

1. There is clear agreement that all is not well, in all ways, at Arbcom. Many users standing will be hoping to change that, as many did last year. What aspects work well, and what are the core changes you feel would help change the ones that don't?

A: The core concept of an Arbitration Committee is a good concept. The Committee is the "last word" on dispute resolution issues, and would do better to be the last word, rather than the first one. There has been a few cases accepted where ArbCom accepted it to rule on policy where it would have better served to remand the policy question to the community. Better communication within the Arbitration Committee itself as well would avoid issues like the one several months ago, where there was confusion whether arbitrators were speaking for the Committee, or for themselves. The result was that the community was caused distress, and was one of the driving forces between the Arbitration Committee RFC.

There has been also inconsistency from the committee, where the Committee seemingly failed for months to indicate any interest in an ongoing case, and where they exercised unreasonable haste on another ArbCom case, opening voting before a week had passed, over a holiday weekend, instead of waiting at least the full week that people in front of ArbCom expect to receive to provide a full accounting of evidence.

2. Ex-arbitrators and Jimbo are privy to various Arbcom dialogs. What impressions do you have regarding the nature and extent of their involvement in the sitting arbitrators' discussions? How do you imagine their activity looks, on the Committee's mailing list/s, and in particular when the topic is a controversial matter, one that ex-arbitrators may have views on, or some other significant matter?

A: To a point, I'm sure that discussion on many issues looks just like the discussions that the community has, in miniature. In any discussion, there will be those with strong opinions, and when there is a strong conflict of opinions, the discussion will become heated. The charge of ArbCom, however is to do what the community can not at times, and that is cut through to the heart of the matter, and do what is needed to keep the encyclopedia moving forward.

For any case, the input of past arbitrators is generally welcome, but while generally I would welcome their input to my thought process, I can only judge for myself the value of their advice.

3. Two questions, or two sides of the same question. Your choice.

a) Arbcom involves matters that Arbitrators may decide need to be kept out of the public domain, for various reasons that vary between privacy breach and avoidance of harm, to reducing disruption. You-personally-may come under suspicion from some users regarding such matters if you do so. It is unlikely that you will be able to do the job properly without offending a range of users, and unlikely you will be able to always explain your actions as an admin might in a range of circumstances. Thoughts?

A: Do I think, that, if I was elected that I would make everyone else happy, or even satisfied with my actions as an arbitrator? No, but that isn't anything new.Even as an administrator, I know that my actions will not please everyone (and in some cases, I've probably pleased NO one!). If people come into this job, expecting to be well-liked by the community, they will be in a rude shock.

I will always try to explain my actions as an arbitrator as fully as possible, but if my hands are tied, then I can do nothing but to say so, and hope that others then accept that I will not be able to explain myself fully.

b) As the community has become more versatile in handling everyday forms of disruptive conduct, Arbcom cases have tended to cover a higher proportion of cases where privacy is a significant issue, and cases where there are factors involved that some will argue cannot be fully disclosed due to privacy, WP:BEANS or other effects that would be harmful to the project. At the same time the community wishes greater levels of disclosure, and some will demand it, often without regard to harm (which they may not be aware is a possibility if their requests are met). Communal benefit, or user safety, may be at risk in some of these. And yet you are also there to do right by the project and community. You will be a decision-maker in the question of what to make public, and indeed, when to not even explain why something will not be made public (because of concerns over consequences or fairness). Thoughts?'

A: The toughest issue facing arbitrators in a couple recent cases, was privacy. Or to be more expansive, privacy, the expectations thereof, and the problems there are working around it. It really has to be decided on a case by case basis, and actively judging the amount of information that can be prudently and safely released, always erring on the side of caution. Again, there will be times where the community's desire for more information will conflict with the Arbitration Committee's decision to follow Wikipedia's policies due to privacy issues. All you can do in such circumstances is as the old saying goes, "Grin and bear it".

There's a phrase in Latin, "Primum non nocere" that, when translated from Latin to English, is a guideline. It's four words. "First, do no harm", The Arbitration Committee must keep that in mind whenever they announce something, or in their actions.

4. Seasoned and respected users appointed to Arbcom routinely believe they will not burn out. Yet, equally routinely, a proportion do (or become markedly less responsive over time, or less likely to keep pushing to reduce long standing issues). Why should users feel you stand a chance of lasting the course and remaining strongly involved in a year's time?

A:Because I already have a history of lasting more then a year, trying my hardest to resolve one of the encyclopedia's most hotly disputed areas (the area of articles known as "The Troubles", dealing with articles relating to Ireland and Northern Ireland). Seperately, because I have been in the trenches, doing hard work to try to deal with disruptive users (first, dealing with a banned user who threatened to disrupt a wide swath of articles, and constantly coming up with new techniques for disruption, and more recently, a rather well known dispute/Arbitration case that required an unprecedented level of work to try to resolve). I have also volunteered, that if I get placed in a three year tranche, that I will step down after two years (the common consensus is, somewhere around the beginning of that third year, is where ArbCom fatigue/burnout seems to be at its peak.) Of course, if I get appointed to one of the one year tranches, that is obviously not a problem.

5. Many disputes stem from poor following of communal norms (including policies), or norms that are problematic, insufficient, disputed or conflicting in the face of some new kind of issue. When standards lapse, or dispute arises due to such issues, how hard should Arbcom push the community in expressing the pursuit of higher standards or better consensus as a "need" rather than a "request"?

A: ArbCom should highlight the NEED for such standards, and even LEAD the discussion of setting such standards, but setting the standards by what some have called "ArbCom fiat" leads to community pushback, and may be counter productive. However, that should not stop the Arbitration Committee from highlighting the places where Wikipedia's policies are a grey area, and leading the discussion to how to best fix them.

6. If appointed, what would you consider your personal sense of "your mandate" to be? (This is not asking what Arbitrators should do; rather it is asking what you see as your personal special agenda, or "matters and issues to especially focus on", out of all the areas of Arbitrator work and activities, as a Committee member.)

A: We entrust a good amount of responsibility to our administrators. I've seen increasing amounts of actions where the actions of one administrator get counteracted or reversed by another administrator without discussion or seeking consensus. Administrator disputes can be an order more disruptive then those of regular editors. We must remind administrators that they were elected for their judgment, and they must constantly show good judgment in their actions. Wheel-warring, and such must not be tolerated.

7. How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?

A: Administrator wise, it will make my actions somewhat more limited, because of the time constraints required of being an Arbitrator . I don't think it would affect me otherwise, I would still work on keeping articles on my watchlist free of vandalism, NPOV violations and the like.

The reason for my concern is there is too much of a rush to assign hidden meanings to what an Arbitrator says OUTSIDE of the commitee. We must treat an Arbitrator's word as that of one of 1500 administrators, not that of the Arbitration Committee itself, unless it is implicitly stated to be that OF the committee. I want to be sure that any administrative actions I take are viewed in that lens, and not that of the ArbCom, unless I specifically STATE that I am speaking as an Arbitrator, with the knowledge of the full Arbitration Committee.

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks FT. I'll take a little time to answer these, but these are good questions. SirFozzie (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated with my answers. I am fully willing to expand on a section or explain my thoughts to you, FT, or anyone else who wishes clarity on my answers. Thanks again for the questions. They caused some deep thought, and really, some surprises to myself as I thought about things. SirFozzie (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Jossi

Hello SirFozzie. You say in your statement that I should elect the candidates that [I] think will be able to influence the encyclopedia the best way. Question:

• Describe the most relevant three ways in which you will "influence the encyclopedia in the best way" in your role as an arbitrator.

Best of luck on your candidacy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, thanks for your question. The most relevant ways that I would influence the encyclopedia would be:

1. Providing a fresh viewpoint on the constant struggles around the encyclopedia. There's actually been a couple times where this is has actually happened already. For example, I was asked by a currently sitting arbitrator to review a large, mountainous report about a disruptive user that stretched across several WMF projects, and I was able to suggest changes and additions to make the report clearer about certain statements of fact.
2. Willingness to do the scut work needed to sift through the chaff of mountains of evidence to try to find the real truth of a situation. The old joke is,that in any dispute, there's three versions of the truth. One side's truth, the other side's truth, and the real truth. A lot of work in ArbCom cases involves sifting through the two sides' truths.. and getting to what the real truth is. It may not be completely modest, but I think that I have a real talent for that kind of work, as shown previously by my work in tough cases.
3. Thanks to presenting multiple cases to the Arbitration Commitee, amongst them several of the longest, most difficult cases in the last two years, and discussing these cases, publicly and privately with several Arbitration Committee members, I already have a good familiarity with the way the Arbitration Committee works, and the way it looks at cases. Kinda like a lawyer, who's constantly arguing cases before the Supreme Court, now that I think about it. It can prepare you well for life "on the other side", so to speak.

Thanks for the questions, Jossi, again.. SirFozzie (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Sticky Parkin

Hi SirFozzie, a couple of questions for you to make sure I'm right in having you as one of my fave arbcom candidates.:)

1) What is your view on someone who acted wrongly being effectively supported in an arbcom because they are politically powerful or popular; in a dispute between someone with less political power or less lovers in the arbcom, and someone with many, the arbs will always support their friend. They may pay lip service to a chum of theirs having done anything wrong but fail to make statements that they say will be forthcoming- coming up with them will be conveniently forgotten. Is it acceptable to back up/not particularly sanction those who have acted wrongly because they are loved or useful?

2) What do you think about people about whom arbcom have made one of their definitive judgements being able to have right to reply/give their perspective on their actions or the judgments about them, at the bottom of that page which will stand as the definitive judgement against them, sometimes with really obnoxious comments about their personality, which is going to remain up on the internets as the perceived definitive word about them, for the forseeable future? Sticky Parkin 03:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Well, let me take this one at a time.

1 I'm really for letting that particular issue die. I'm pretty sure I know the ArbCom case you're talking about, and I said on the talk page, when people were demanding that everything be re-aired publicly.. "Where was the good that came of this? What good does it do for the encyclopedia to remain locked in constant battles?" The divide in the community that formed as a result of those accusations and the resulting adjucation of those accusations isn't a good thing. Its slowly healing, and we need to be careful about attempts to widen it. We must be careful. The correct answer to the scales of justice being unbalanced is not to equally overbalance them the other way, but to balance the scales of justice, and no further. That way, the encyclopedia benefits, and you do not create an eternal vicious cycle of overreactions.

2. I'm not sure of whom you're talking about. I'd ask for examples, but I'm not sure I'd like the answer (grins). But I do say this. I've seen at least a couple contentious arbcom cases courtesy blanked to strike a balance between the accused having the rights to not have negative information viewable to all (the fact that non-article space is due to be noindex'd (it might actually be already), so the Googlespiders won't pick it up, and the ability to have an institutional memory on what's happened in the past. I will say this, however. My email is always open on this kind of issue. Shoot me an email with the examples that you see, and once this election is over, I will either personally review them for courtesy blanking purposes, and either courtesy blank them myself or pass the information on to the ArbCom if I fail to be elected, and encourage the new arbitrators to do the same. SirFozzie (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm not asking for anything more to be aired publicly but think things mentioned in a proposed decision or whatever should have their discussion completed not just let slide, if it only needs a few sentences. The particular arbcom involved one of the arbs saying "I'll make a stronger/firmer version of this before voting" or something like that, but because they didn't it was just forgotten when even the statement as it stood would have made all the difference in making the outcome more balanced.

2. I don't think there would be much luck with many being given courtesy blanking because the arbs would consider the statements to be part of their decision, plus it would exist one step away in the history and will still be reviewed by those interested/ brought up against the person, but I think the people slagged off should have a brief right to say otherwise at the bottom of the page if they think what's said about them is nasty and inaccurate. Otherwise I think it might encourage people to just make a new account where their wikiname doesn't have this stuff they consider inaccurate standing against them.

And don't worry you're still my fave candidate probably, as I don't know many of the candidate's work but I've seen what you've done at the Arbcom Enforcement page over the TharkunColl/Highking issue, and thought your suggestion was very wise.:) Sticky Parkin 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:The Land Surveyor

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

1. Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself. On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki. On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days. Which definition do you prefer?
2. Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
3. Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
4. Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right. It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly. But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back. Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented. In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
5. Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR. All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests. Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use? If so, what should those be?

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

Thanks for your questions,

1) "Vested Contributors" is a touchy subject between those who have contributed a great deal of article text and those who have been more of an administative context. My personal thoughts are as follows. A lot of the incivility that happens in these cases are completely outside of article space, between people who never work together on article text or even policy space. So the disruption to the encyclopedia is only when we LET it affect the encyclopedia. I'm not saying that we give a free pass to things outside of article space, mind you.

However, incivility in article space while trying to work on an article collaboratively IS a problem. It's the canary in the coal mine, so to speak. It's the first indication that something's wrong. When I work amongst editors dealing with the Troubles issues here on WP (ongoing right now with a mediation case), I know when things have gone south.... that's when there is a thin veneer of civility and the discussion becomes barbed on the edges.

2) Reasonable is difficult to measure. It's almost like the famous words on how to judge obscenity. "I know it when I see it". But usually, it's fairly easy in a contentious area to determine who's being reasonable, and who is not.

3) No, I don't agree with that concept. We recently saw that, for the first time in Wikipedia's history, there was a decline in the number of new articles posted over the last year. Some will claim that is because of the length of time Wikipedia has been in existence, we've written about everything worth writing about. Instead, I think it's because we've become so big, that we're not attracting as much new blood anymore.

Wikipedia relies on the "wisdom of crowds" to make its articles top class. To a point, that's an acceptable, even laudable goal. However, that must NOT mean we do not welcome those who have deep and abiding knowledge of a certain area. Experts who are willing to work, truly work within Wikipedia's norms and policies are worth their weight in diamonds. This does not excuse an expert who is disruptive in whatever way, mind you.. but we should try to keep an expert around when we can.

4) No, I don't agree with you here. Consensus Can Change, mind you. For community bans/restrictions, I think either the community OR the Arbitration Committee can review the issue, any mitigating factors that may have popped up in the mean time, or even the desire to assume good faith.

For Arbitration Committee bans/restrictions, I tend to think that any discussion of reversing, changing or undoing them has to come from ArbCom themselves. either via a self-review by an ArbCom member or a request for review or clarification on the issue (on or off of WP). Usually, not only do we elect them to make these decisions in the first place, but they are more well-informed about the reasons behind taking an action.

5) The vast majority of cases that get rejected as premature in front of ArbCom is people not understanding the proper chain of DR, and saying to themselves "ArbCom can (block/ban/restrict (choose one)) the people who are opposing me, and other ways can't at least not right away.. I'm gonna go straight to the top, because ArbCom can do what I want!"

We need to be more aggressive about perhaps speedily diverting these cases, (no prior attempts at DR, content disputes, etcetera) to Requests for Comment, to the MedCom, to someone who can help these folks. The policy is there, but I think we can be better about FOLLOWING the policy and quickly sending off the cases where ArbCom was the first step of DR, not the last, to places where they can be resolved, without, as you say, wasting the ArbCom's time (not to mention also wasting the time of the people involved in the dispute).

Hope these answered your questions. Please let me know if I can clarify them for you SirFozzie (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SF. You are the only candidate so far who has given complete answers to all my questions without fudging, so well done. Some of your answers were also quite good. Regards The Land Surveyor (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Will Beback

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?

A: I have not used any other accounts on Wikipedia, period.

2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?

A: In general, I'm not in favor of things that don't help the encyclopedia. But in most cases the joke accounts were not disruptive and did not harm the encyclopedia. The current situation with CdB wasn't "Seeking positions of trust in the community", as it takes a large leap of logic, looking at the CdB answers in general, etcetera to try to claim that it was an honest run at ArbCom.

3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?

A: Better vigilance is key. Usually, once a core of people are trained to recognize the key factors of the constant-returnee, the person finds it very hard to get any traction on the encyclopedia and in a lot of cases, gets the point that they are not going to be able to influence Wikipedia the way they want to, and leave.

Thanks for your questions SirFozzie (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from harej

Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure it's QUITE to promulgate the good times, more like to try to minimize the bad times. Usually, for a case to be accepted by ArbCom, there has to be some bad times already extant. SirFozzie (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Rspeer

Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've not gotten stuck in on the SPOV versus NPOV wars, so this may be not as complete as you like, but my thoughts are that it CAN be a way to get to NPOV, but let's not weld ourselves too closely to making SPOV replace NPOV. Our job is not to judge or make articles appeal to our own personal values. Let's use a rather contentious example, that of Intelligent Design. It's not our part to say if it's true, or not, but instead to point to the facts of the matter (that while scientists X, Y, and Z have found no validity in the theory(scrupulously referenced, of course), other notable people are proponents of the theory (again, scrupulously referenced). Point to the facts on the ground, let the reader draw their own conclusions. SirFozzie (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Ncmvocalist

1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(A) I consider it a follow on from the expisting Matthew Hoffman case, where Shoemaker's Holiday is requesting that we vacate the existing judgement, publicly. So, it could really be considered a request for reconsideration of most of the existing remedies in the case.

(B) I struggled with this for a while. I can understand why Shoemaker's Holiday would request this, but while I would support a courtesy blanking of the case, I do not think that vacating the case would be a good thing.

(C) I would have voted Oppose on 1.1 and 1.2, and probably abstained on 1.3.

(D) In addition to the Courtesy blanking, I would also support a motion that while the remedies to a point reflected the facts of the case, that a note be made that ArbCom's handling was not to the best standards, and that as a result of ArbCom's actions, Vanished User suffered unnecessary distress as a result.

That's a really tough, and sad case in a way.

2. The community have, on occasions, found it difficult to have poorly written or handled ArbCom decisions reversed, even today. What mechanisms (if any) would you propose to remedy this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, ArbCom needs to be able to look at past decisions, and when they get it wrong, or it doesn't work out the way it was supposed to, they need to say so, and look at fixing their own messages. I'm not in favor of jury nullification (the community undoing an ArbCom action without the ArbCom's ok) but they need to listen to the community. SirFozzie (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

3. One of the major concerns with certain past and current arbitrators is their failure to handle ArbCom tasks in a prompt or timely manner. What steps will you take to help move things along? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would set a time frame (probably, 2-3 weeks into a case) for people to post evidence, before I get started, posting my own Workshop remedies to show where I'm at on the case, and give people an idea on where I'm looking (in other words, if I post something that there's a lack of evidence to supoprt contentions, if you want to see them in a final decision, you'd better be posting evidence and quickly) SirFozzie (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

4. (A) What is your stance on tendentious problem editing? (B) Why do you believe the community is, at times, passive in dealing with this issue? (C) If you are appointed as an ArbCom member, what steps (if any) will you take to help ensure this issue is actively dealt with by ArbCom? (D) What proposals would you make to deal with (or remedy) this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A) There's a difference between your garden variety struggle, and constant tendentiousness (where you get involved with several users, or repeat an edit war).. quite a few people do the first every now and then, and while it's not exactly the correct wayto deal with, it's excusable. Constant editwarring and problematic editing, needs to be dealt with harsher. B ) I think in a way, because, a lof of times when two users are going at it in an edit war, it's hard to know who (if anyone) is right, and they don't want to take an administratiove action that could decide a content dispute. C) We need to be harsher on those users who's habitual reaction is to edit war instead of discuss. brief revert wars are bad. But constant edit wars show a lack of judgement. D) I don't think we need to change policy to deal with tendentious editwarriors, just be a lot more.. enthusiastic about applying the existing policy.

Unless to clarify anything above, I have no further questions for the candidate. Thank you for your time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ncmvocalist for your questions. SirFozzie (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Al tally

1. Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
2. See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
3. Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
4. Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).

Good luck with the election! Al Tally ^talk 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I would suggest something like the current ArbCom rules, that one can be given the bit by a "Request for CheckUser Rights" and "Request for Oversight" right, but the Arbitration Committee and/or Jimbo Wales have the right of veto (which I would suggest is used VERY sparingly, and there'd better be a good and public reason for the right of veto.
2. Ah yes, my participation in WP:CSN, and how it made an appearance in my RfA. Something I'm intimately familiar with (grins). I do understand to a point where Dmcdvit was coming from. A decision to ban a user should NEVER be taken lightly, and anyone supporting (or opposing) such an activity shouldn't take for granted, and should have well-thought out reasons why. The community can certainly supplement or reverse an Arbitration Committee decision, and in fact, has happened twice, where the ArbCom took a limited action (one user was de-sysopped for running a sockpuppet ring, but not banned, and the community decided to ban the user, the other case was when Mantanmoreland was caught with his last (currently confirmed) sockpuppet, and community banned). Obviously, the community can decide that an abusive or disruptive user should no longer be allowed on the project, as has been done numerous times (if you look at List of Banned Users, a majority of the users there were banned by the community.
3. Former Arbs are useful in several ways, for example, providing institutional memory for certain cases, so I would support them having access to the mailing list. As for losing CU/OS, it's my opinion that we're needing MORE Checkusers/Oversighters, not less, so as long as they promised to be active in their use.
4. I do not support mandatory arbitrator recall (just like I do not support mandatory administrator recall). If someone wants to set terms, that's great, but I do not support "one size fits all" solutions. Arbitrators are elected to make the hardest, toughest decisions around, and must never be held hostage to public opinion. Considering the size and vehemence of most cases that end up in front of ArbCom, they will be disappointing/angering one side (or possibly both!) with every decision they make. If someone has an issue with a perceived abuse of any additional rights I have, there is always the Ombudsmen, or other such policies in place. If they have a problem with any potential decisions I make, I encourage them to deal with me the same way they would deal with any other such under-performing elected position.. when it comes time for me to run again in one/two years, vote them out of office!

Thanks for the questions. SirFozzie (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Ling.Nut

• I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
• Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
• Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree in general, but not in your specific point. It's very necessary for users to have an active talk page for discussion to happen. One of the tenets of Wikipedia is discussion, and shutting out discussion is not helpful. SirFozzie (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up questions from FT2

Thank you for your first answers, broadly on yourself and Arbcom.

These are some questions about your skill at Wikipedia dispute resolution:

1. Flexibility:

   a) What experience do you have at a range of Wikipedia dispute resolution "styles", and in estimating how users may react to a given response? (This is a fairly essential skill in deciding whether to play hard or soft, direct or mediated, give another chance, discuss further, draw a line, or "try something new" in a case.)

   b) Please outline your track record at choosing remedies that are effective, but not overly-excessive, in a sample of difficult cases.
   (Note:- in a lot of cases, a remedy may potentially be "multi stage"; that is, take a step, see what effect it has, return to it if needed. This may include watching or warning first times, taking a tougher line later, or deciding it's an acceptable risk if they act up again, since action could be taken in future if needed. Although mild, it's a valid approach. I'd be fine if you use it, and what you do when it fails.

   c) Please show some cases you gave a seemingly difficult user a chance to reform (when others were skeptical), and where you drew a very hard but fair line on a problematic user.

   d) Please highlight a project space matter where there was much divisive opinion but where other administrators (on both "sides") listened to you, and you helped focus or resolve it.

2. Conduct under pressure:

   a) Please point out a case you took a stand that was not universally popular, knowing you could face retaliation or rebuke.

   b) Please point out a matter where you were badly attacked, accused, or heavily provoked, but remained in line with "best practice" conduct, yourself.

   c) Please point out a dispute where you faced people trying to redirect the matter to a side-issue (soapbox, hobby horse, etc) and your response was to avoid the "invitation" of distraction, and to keep the focus on the main target.

   d) Please point out a serious dispute which occupied your attention for between 2 weeks and several months, and which shows your sticking power and handling in the context of protracted disputes.

Like the previous questions, they are intended to be searching. Feedback will also be provided. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional questions from Pixelface

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

1. How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
2. How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
3. What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
4. Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
5. Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
6. Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?
7. Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
8. Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
9. Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
10. Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
11. Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from S. Dean Jameson

I'm asking this question of every candidate I'm considering supporting. I'm not sure if I've waited too long to ask it or not. If I have, please feel free to revert me, and I can ask it on your talk page. Here it is: do you feel the administrative actions of an arbitrator (either current or former) should be treated differently than those of a regular administrator? In particular, if an arbitrator blocks a user or protects a page in support of an arbitration enforcement, should a person overturning such an action be treated differently than a person who might overturn a similar action from a regular administrator?

Good luck with your run! ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from Marlith

What would you want to see Wikipedia grow into in the next five years?  Marlith (Talk)  03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)