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

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

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

General questions

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

Arbitrators' skills

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

A: The most important thing is to learn from experience. I, and the Arbitration Committee, have tried out a number of ideas, and done a number of things that have not actually worked out that well. The focus need to be on doing something better, not beating up on whoever proposed or supported the error. Error is too strong a word really; some things just don't work out as well as projected. Another vital trait is being able to hang in there, continue working when there is trouble. There is predictably going to be trouble of some sort: Your employer may find out that you are an arbitrator; you may make an unpopular, or even ridiculous proposal; someone may call you at home; some unsavory information may be uncovered; a user or small group of users may start agitating. The necessary trait is to keep on working in a steady way, doing quality work. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A:My work is on view in most of the earlier arbitration cases. Taken too literally, a few decisions have been subject to misinterpretation. This is usually associated with too metaphorical language. Plain language is usually better. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A: I can do this, but want to avoid drafting as many proposed decisions as I have in the past. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I'll be able to do that on every case in a timely manner. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;

A: I will do that on a regular basis. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I am interested in this work and able to do it. Intense involvement in the main work of the Committee can result in time and energy constraints. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I'm not as familiar with the characteristics of our administrators as I would need to be to evaluate candidates adequately. As I have oversight and checkuser there is conflict of interest in serving on an audit committee. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I can do this, but past experience tells me it is difficult to tell when it is appropriate to speak for the committee when there is a lack of feedback from other committee members. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I'm competent but could be much better. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I can do this, but not on a regular basis if I'm doing arbitration work. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: This is vital. We need to respond, and follow up with all appeals and inquiries. Fred Talk 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Yes, I am committed to maintaining a transparent process open to user participation.

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

A: I'm willing to do difficult tasks such as dealing with pedophilia advocates aggressively and confidentially.

(Newyorkbrad)

Challenges of being an arbitrator

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

A: I've generally done my thinking on the workshop and proposed decision pages of cases. Open for everyone to see and comment on. Only when the noise level is very high have I started with the proposed decision page rather then the workshop page. This can be very troublesome, but is the essence of the open, participatory process I advocate.

A: Personal, potentially damaging information should be limited to the arbitration mailing list. The basis for this treatment should be well founded.

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

A: Unless I actually agree, I don't. Part of the Arbitration Committee's ethos is to maintain that standard, of coming to independent conclusions. Fred Talk 15:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: The work demands of being an arbitrator are brutal. There is no way to adequately consider the matters presented and do more than a little editing. The time for editing is when you're taking a break from being an arbitrator. Fred Talk 15:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: You need to not read most of it if you are going to get any work done as an arbitrator, the arbcom-l list being an exception. I'll not read a great deal. Fred Talk 15:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: My position is that if you are involved in a matter, or have recused yourself that you should not participate in the arbcom-l discussion regarding the matter or otherwise abuse your access to advance your cause. Without complicated access restrictions there is probably no way to prevent viewing confidential material, the thing is to not abuse that access. If you've recused yourself from a case, the thing to do is let the other committee members decide the matter. Take a break and work on other cases. It is probably best to avoid controversial editing while serving as an arbitrator. Being involved in major disputes only adds to the drama. Fred Talk 15:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom and admins

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

A: If an administrator can be made by the community they can be unmade. Occasionally confidential material may be involved, but in most other cases community input could serve. Fred Talk 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Things have to be pretty bad before Arbcom takes a hand. Low grade nasty behavior won't ordinarily come to Arbcom's attention. Fred Talk 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Support. There is no reason an administrator who is known to be competent should be subject to RfA following a brief suspension. Fred Talk 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Yes Fred Talk 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Serious abuse of their tools. Blanking the main page, for example. Fred Talk 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Interesting hypothetical example -;) Here's the dilemma: if a banned user returns as a sock and edits responsibly enough that they could be considered for adminship, and succeeds in serving responsibly as a administrator, should they have been banned in the first place? Obviously they are capable of responsible editing and probably adminship. Thus you can see how a person might think an exception should be made to the rule about not aiding banned users. The rule strictly applied would call for banning anyone who knew and voted for them an an RfA. Fred Talk 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law was not the first banned user who has returned and edited successfully without being detected. It does not make sense to ban them when they are discovered after a year or two or more or less responsible editing. Fred Talk 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom's role and structure

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

A: I haven't closely followed the recent changes. I'll have to be familiar with how the committee works now before I'll know. We can always organize ourselves better and eliminate requests or queries which sometimes fall through the cracks. Fred Talk 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Decisions about policy sometimes, in effect, make policy. I would rather see community discussion, and a possible consensus overturning such a clarification, then see the matter remain unresolved until a consensus about policy is arrived at. Fred Talk 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: We do not accept cases unless the issue involves a significant issue either of policy clarification or policy violation. Sometimes constructive editors violate Wikipedia policies repeatedly and apparently intend to indefinitely. Fred Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: There is no significant difference between an arbitration committee and a trusted group of administrators or users. Fred Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I was not pleased with Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development as I was not invited; this always makes me suspicious. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log looks like a promising initiative. I need to become more familiar with it. Fred Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: We are charged with enforcing Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which involves not determining specific content but requires that we ensure that all significant points of view supported by information from reliable published sources are included. We can sanction users who repeatedly remove information that is supported by reliable published sources or who add material that is not supported by reliable sources. Content policy violations are conduct policy violations. Content dispute resolution is done externally by the decision by editors and peer reviewers to publish the information in a reliable source. The understanding of this power and role varies among those selected to serve on the committee, and sometimes it is decided that an issue involving neutral point of view is a "content dispute" and cannot be decided. Fred Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how? (Heimstern)

A: The Arbitration Committee has issued a number of decisions which empower administrators to apply sanctions in such situations, however, many of these situations also involve editwarring and can be dealt with using 3RR. Fred Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: This is a problem area as there are a few editors and administrators who feel that either they have license to regularly violate the requirement for reasonable civility or support those who do. The Arbitration Committee cannot support a policy that does not have community support, and at times it does not seem the community supports sanctions even for repeated violations of civility. It is up to the community to resolve this issue. The Arbitration Committee cannot enforce even one of Wikipedia's Five pillars without community support. A limited amount of incivility can be excused as a reasonable reaction to others behavior. Fred Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Quickly process simple cases. Require that arbitrators who do not get around to consideration of a matter within a reasonable time are not counted within the total number of arbitrators considering the case. Establish the expectation that everyone on the committee take a turn at doing the initial investigation and drafting decisions. Fred Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Explanation and negotiation could probably resolve most matters which end up in Arbitration. Fred Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I didn't like it, and as I wasn't invited, was suspicious of its agenda. Fred Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: You can't perform the duties of an Arbitration Committee member and engage in either significant editing or administrative work. There just isn't enough time and energy. Anyone who is doing a substantial amount of editing or administrative work is not devoting the required time to their arbitration duties. Only experienced editors who have engaged in hotly contested content issues ought to try to be on the Arbitration Committee, but that is precisely the sort of editing they ought not to engage in while serving. You need to know the swamp, but not be mired in it. Fred Talk 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making

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

A: Yes, I agree, the only possible way I might have handled the situation differently is to consider the unblock appeal from him that he made as The undertow. It seems there was an appeal which the Arbitration Committee thought worth hearing, but there was no follow through and it was never heard. Errors such as this should be avoided as they increase frustration. It is important to not lose paperwork; the Arbitration Committee needs adequate record keeping to avoid this and the subcommittee to handle bans is a step in the right direction. Sometimes in the past there has been no answer to appeals, or no follow up.

All lengthy bans are problematical because if the user is going to change his behavior, sitting out for six or nine months isn't going to let him show his new behavior; he might as well have a chance to show his new behavior right away. It's quite impossible to determine a length of time during which there a change of behavior is likely to occur. To monitor behavior you need to be able to witness it.

I'd have to know why The undertow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in the first place to give a adequate answer to this question. This information is closed to myself as well as others:

15:12, June 16, 2008 Raul654 (talk | contribs | block) blocked The undertow (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 9 months ‎ (Per discussion on the arbcom mailing list)

It's easy to imagine that discussion based on The undertow's block log, but it is hard for anyone outside the Arbitration Committee to know if it was a wise decision. If it was discussed on the Functionaries list, I didn't follow it. Fred Talk 02:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the interesting article and discussion at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-05/Sockpuppet scandal and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-05/Sockpuppet scandal. Fred Talk 02:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A:

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

A:

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

A: I really did take a break. A break, to be really useful, does not include following all the arbitration cases in detail. Only if I independently investigated each matter could I have an informed opinion. You have to look at the evidence, often beyond what what is contained in the decision, to know if an optimal decision was made. Fred Talk 14:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(i) "Private correspondence", July 2007

A:The principle as stated does not take appropriate fair use into account. If someone writes a letter to you, you as the recipient, may, in appropriate circumstances, for appropriate purposes, show it to others or publish it. Fred Talk 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ii) "Responsibility", December 2007

A: Taken literally it is too broad, and not policy. What it means is that if you take and action or make an edit that cannot be justified, it is reversible. Fred Talk 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008

A: I don't like this. Using plain words to express an opinion is not a legal threat. This stinks of political correctness. Fred Talk 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Standard stuff. People need to be able to let their hair down during mediation if it is to be effective. Fred Talk 23:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(v) "Outing", June 2009

A: Repeated disclosure and emphasis on personal information may not be "outing" but may be harassment, a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Fred Talk 23:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I'm not familiar with this decision or controversy. Fred Talk 14:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

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

A:General names are usually better unless the focus actually is on one or two people. Usually, if there is a dispute, it is about some subject and that makes a good name. When people request changes of name to change the apparent focus of the case, it is good to take their reasons or feelings into account. The original name comes from the request. The convenient time to change it is when the actual arbitration pages are created. That is ordinarily done by the Arbitration clerks. I think there is a negative feeling about Party X. v Party Y. That is how legal cases are titled, and as we don't follow legal procedures that title tends to conflate what we do with what happens in a court case. Fred Talk 03:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: There is a great deal of inaccurate and misleading negative information about living persons published in reliable sources; thus, a document based on published information will contain error which distresses the subject. Some of this information is identifiable as fact laundering: publication of an unsupported assertion made by an individual by a generally reliable source. In other words, if The New York Times publishes gossip, it's still gossip. This is coupled with the failure of news sources to publish information which is not news, not dramatic or interesting, about ordinary people. Thus in some cases the only information published about a person will be some juicy tidbit, which may not be true in the first place. What is required is editorial judgment about use of information. As a practical matter that means that in this area editors with better judgment need to assert that judgment, displacing naive editing that republishes dubious information in an uncritical way. Fred Talk 12:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A:I originally used Fredbauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because I did not know I could use Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I tried to use another account: Toots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but found I couldn't keep two accounts separate, so have not used it for years. I only edit from an anonymous IP address by accident. Fred Talk 03:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A:Where I've gotten in trouble in the past is by proposing a minor sanction on a popular editor who has nevertheless violated a policy, usually civility. I'll probably keep proposing such sanctions as I don't believe an administrator or skilled editor has license to abuse other users. I think we should give second chances to editors who are willing to change their behavior, but not to editors who keep on doing something wrong and repeatedly defending it. Long term bans are for users who are determined to keep on doing something against policy. Desysopping is more troublesome as one or two gross errors can result in desysopping while a long history of sub par actions may not. General rules are difficult to formulate other than that an administrator should act responsibly. But assuming good faith is acting responsibly more than banning someone indefinitely for something that a little talk might have resolved such as picking an inappropriate user name. Fred Talk 03:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions

Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here.

Questions from Kirill Lokshin

Is the purpose of arbitration to resolve disputes, or to uphold policies and community norms? To what extent can, or should, the Committee ignore policy if doing so allows a more effective resolution to a particular dispute?
A: Arbitration provides a way to resolve disputes in an authoritative way. Authority is derived from community consensus as reflected in our policies and guidelines. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is available to the Arbitration Committee in appropriate circumstances. Fred Talk 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How should the desire to be fair to every individual involved in arbitration be balanced with the need to expediently resolve disputes?
A: Wholesale remedies which do not provide for careful evaluation of each individual's behavior should be avoided. This may be tedious and time consuming however, which is why certain decisions regarding editing in contentious areas were crafted. However, they are a poor substitute for careful consideration of individual editing behavior. Such decisions shift that responsibility to the administrators carrying out the sanctions provided. Fred Talk 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When presented with groups holding two competing visions of what Wikipedia ought to be, should the Committee strive to maintain a balance of power between the two sides, or espouse one in preference to the other?
A: Such balancing is necessary in the absence of consensus resolving the issues involved. Fred Talk 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should every infraction discovered in the course of an arbitration proceeding be sanctioned? Why or why not?
A: No, it is disruptive, diverting attention from the proper focus of the decision. Fred Talk 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did arbitration decisions shift from individual, targeted sanctions, to general sanctions, and finally to discretionary sanctions? How did this trend change the editing environment in affected areas, and to what extent have those changes benefitted the project?
A: It proved impossible to determine individual responsibility in certain contested areas. They empower administrators to tailor remedies appropriate to the situation. Fred Talk 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are admonishments, reminders, and warnings effective as arbitration remedies? Why or why not?
A: Often not, being viewed more as an insult than a sanction. Fred Talk 21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the shift away from informal decision-making and consensus and towards formal procedures and rules of order in the Committee's day-to-day business desireable? Why or why not?
A: It probably increases participation and focuses attention. Fred Talk 21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent should individual arbitrators bear collective responsibility for the actions of the Committee as a whole? Is it acceptable for an arbitrator to undermine a decision he or she disagrees with?
A: So long as the action considered is not outrageous an individual is not responsible and should not be engaged in undermining it. (Or any other Wikipedia policy) Simple statement of opposition is, however, very different, from actions undertaken to subvert policy.
Arbitration has been described as mixing the characteristics of adversarial and inquisitorial systems. To what extent is this correct? To what extent is this desireable?
A: It is correct. The purpose is to counterbalance weakness in adequate presentation of a case, as is seen in legal proceedings. Fred Talk 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past several years, a number of cases (notably C68-FM-SV, Date delinking, and Scientology) have taken an extremely long time to resolve. What are the primary causes of this, and how can they be addressed?
A: Some matters fall along fault lines in policy resulting in serious differences regarding how to resolve them. Fred Talk 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are the main systemic problems with arbitration a result of the Committee's failings, or consequences of the environment in which the Committee functions?
A: Successful fulfillment of mission impossible from time to time is a considerable accomplishment. Fred Talk 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Coren

Do you see the nature of the job of an Arbitrator as having changed over the years? If so, how?

A: Our initial work was with extraordinarily troublesome editors, the sort of situation now handled by community bans. Administrators have gradually become empowered and will be more so. In fact the focus of attention needs to shift to the quality of administrative decisions. Placing faith in administrative judgment needs to be followed up with substantial improvement in the quality of that judgment. Fred Talk 12:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Chaser

Fred, you declined to run for re-election in 2007 when your term expired. Can you elaborate on why? Why run again now?--chaser (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think I can play a useful role using my experience and skills. At that time there was excessive focus on me as a personality somehow central to whatever problems were perceived. As we have seen, drama is not a function of my participation. I've had a good rest. Fred Talk 12:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TML

It seems that you were the de facto "Chief Arbitrator" during your previous tenure, since you drafted most of the proposed decisions during that time. Do you expect to continue drafting PDs this time, or do you expect to take on a smaller role than before? TML (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect other committee members will do much of the drafting. I'll do some though, and hopefully do it better than I did in the past. Fred Talk 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Vodello

Numerous votes, proposals, and statements in previous arbitration cases you have been involved in brought you under fire, with several veteran users and even administrators accusing you of going on "personal crusades" against users that you allegedly openly dislike.[2][3][4] One proposal by you in an arbitration case to have User:Geogre desysopped was met with comments of, "Absolutely not," and, "Ridiculous proposal," by your fellow arbitrators.[5]

Drama mongering almost completely imploded the Arbitration Committee last year. Given your track record and your numerous instances where you were the center of controversy, is there any reason for Wikipedia editors to believe that you will be an objective arbitrator that will not do much more harm than good to this committee and the project as a whole?

A: I intend to apply the lessons of experience, and avoid such incidents as much as I can. I'm not intending to settle scores and will take a fresh look at any old controversy. Very few of our cases actually involve such old hot-button issues or personalities. Fred Talk 15:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.

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

What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
A: As the matter involved an issue that had not been considered before, the authority of Wikiprojects, the time is not unreasonable. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
A: They can develop guidelines and discuss them with other editors. Guidelines are just that, and may be deviated from in appropriate circumstances. A person who is not following such guidelines has a responsibility to discuss his reasons. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?
A: Not a blockable offense, but not helpful. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?
A: Such disruption beyond a certain point is a blockable offense. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
A: They have to be blocked on the basis that they are not able to edit Wikipedia. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
A: Beyond a certain point, yes. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
A: A guideline for administrators regarding how to sanction editwarring. It may be deviated from in appropriate circumstances, for example the same 1RR edit everyday for a week is a violation. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
A: It's like pornography, you know it when you see it. However it is not good to be too aggressive in borderline cases as sometimes such names are chosen accidentally. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
A: That's our long-standing policy. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. ~~b) When the story was made public, do you believe that the editor you chose handled this situation properly in stepping down? Were they forthcoming enough with information?~~
A: I'm familiar with the case of Sam Blacketer. It turned out that he was a minor Labour Party officeholder. I'm not sure why that disqualified him from being an arbitrator, other than that his identity was a surprise to everyone. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tell me as much as you can about User:OrangeCounty39. You may refer to any page on the Internet except for other ArbCom candidates' replies to this question.~~
A: Supposedly he was a sock of Freewayguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [6] I am somewhat at a loss to explain this edit, however. I can't see how it changes the page. Fred Talk 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

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

Question from User:Sjakkalle

In 2007, during the Attack sites case, you proposed the following remedy:

The article concerning a person who maintains an external site which contains material which harasses a Wikipedia user may be redirected to Clown while the offending material remains on the external site.

This was later removed by another arbitrator [7]. Can you explain this proposal? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: It was only a proposal, and shortly thereafter the attack on the opposing Wikipedia editor was taken off the main page of the subject's website. Before the page would have been redirected, the Arbitration Committee as a whole would have had to agree to it. We had a situation where an influential subject of an article was trying to influence our content by attacking a Wikipedia editor he considered troublesome on his website. I thought we might try something outside the box, so to speak. I also suggested negotiation with the site, which I think was successful. Fred Talk 15:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Fut.Perf.

On 19 September you unblocked Nareg510 (talk · contribs), a checkuser-confirmed sock of banned user Ararat arev (talk · contribs), without prior consultation with other admins and with an unblock rationale of "Wants a fresh start". According to the preceding e-mail conversation between you and the blocked account [8], Nareg510 was still in denial about being an Ararat arev sock at the time you unblocked him. You yourself had basically put the suggestion into his mouth that he was "through with edit-warring", but apparently no such commitment can be found in what the sock had actually said prior to this suggestion of yours.

A little later, you said that "Clearly a puppet-master with over 200 socks should NEVER be unblocked", but then immediately followed that with: "However, provided I monitor his editing, I see little prospect for harm" ([9]). Can you explain how you can logically reconcile these two self-contradictory statements?

A: Although there is little prospect that such an editor will be able to edit responsibly, there is a slight chance he could. The harm done is much less than the harm he will do if he is not unblocked and continues creating socks. It only takes a few seconds to block him again if it turns out that he can't improve his editing. Fred Talk 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you, before unblocking the user, inform yourself of the nature of his history of POV warring, and had you made a full assessment of the relation, in terms of content and POV agendas, between the edits of the sock and those of the originally banned account?

A: I looked at his current editing and tried to counsel him regarding that. I don't have to look at his past editing to know it was awful; he wouldn't have been blocked if it wasn't. Fred Talk 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you, in unblocking the user, take into consideration the aggravation and frustration likely to be experienced by those editors who had been working over several years to contain the permanent disruption caused by that user, on seeing him returned and legitimised again by your unblock? Were you familiar enough with the content area to be able to assess if and when edits by the sock would be likely to be offensive or cause renewed friction?

A: He was not legitimized by my unblock, only given a new start. I am familiar enough with Armenian nationalism. Fred Talk 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that the sentence "I sincerely apologize for my editwarring and I promise I will not do it again", said by a long-term POV-warrior and sockpuppeter in order to gain an unblock, can be counted as a credible commitment, in the absence of an explicit, self-critical assessment by that user of their own POV issues and of the underlying causes of their conflicts with the Wikipedia community in terms of their POV agenda, and in a situation where the sock is still in denial about being a sock in the first place?

A: It's enough when he knows he'll be closely monitored. Fred Talk 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you, as an arbitrator, accept a "promise" made under comparable circumstances as grounds for not sanctioning a problematic user in an Arbcom case?

A: If the remedy included close supervision with the possibility of blocking if he reverted to disruptive behavior. Fred Talk 20:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: The major barrier to giving a troublesome editor a fresh start is that the users and administrators who have had trouble with him in the past often don't have the patience to give him an opportunity to try out and develop his new persona. Patient counseling is what is called for in such situations. Obviously he will make more mistakes despite a commitment to do better. If he is blocked before he can adjust his behavior and attitude, giving him a second chance is futile. I will continue to advocate unblocking troublesome editors from time to time and letting them try again, but will take into account the practical barriers which exist. Fred Talk 15:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from John Carter

These questions are being asked of all candidates.

In limited conversation with past and present arbitrators, they have regularly mentioned the pronounced time demands which being a member of the Arbitration Committee can require, particularly in the difficult or complex cases, on such matters as reading evidence, reviewing behavior of individuals, and discussion of solutions. Do you believe that you will be able to give such matters the time they require?

A: I am retired and am volunteering on a full-time basis. Fred Talk 13:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as has been mentioned above, several editors have indicated some arbitrators become less active as regular contributors, either because of the "politics" or because of the demands on time. Do you anticipate being able to continue to function as an active content contributor while an arbitrator?

A: No, there is too much work, and, in my case, much of my editing and administrative actions is done on other wikis. Fred Talk 13:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you anticipate that your exposure to the seamier side of wikipedia might make you less interested in continuing as a content contributor on the conclusion of your ArbCom term?

A: Working as an arbitrator strongly imprints on us the common experience of editing and engaging in administrative actions. This equips us to engage successfully in either activity. Whether I edit depends on my interest in a subject. My administrative work depends on meeting a need. Fred Talk 13:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from LessHeard vanU

Following your response to general question (36) from Newyorkbrad, do you think that it would be reasonable to believe that the comment regarding a popular editor and civility issues may be a reference to GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs) (previously Giano II)? Do you accept that you are considered by some (or perhaps only me, and my mistaken perceptions) to be adversarial in regard to Giano and his non article editing, and to have pursued the blocking and banning of that editor? If so, have your views changed on this - especially in regard to the use of perceived civility issues to silence criticism of ArbCom and some of the established members of the community who have held influence within Wikipedia by Giano (and others)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I think at this point any conversation regarding Giano needs to be between myself and him, privately. Hopefully, he is much more courteous and considerate of other users now than he has been from time to time. I don't follow him that closely and mean what I say about not intending to settle old scores. I do support civility, one of Wikipedia's core policies. The question is how to do so effectively. Fred Talk 01:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, per response above; I will not labour the point, but do you accept that an interpretation of WP:Civility should not be an instrument by which an argument may be dismissed for the way in which it might be presented? LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our users are not skilled advocates and cannot be expected the maintain the decorum one might demand in a courtroom of an attorney. Issues ought not be decided by basing the decision on the advocacy skills of the adversaries, but on the equities of the issues presented. Abuse of decision-makers is unwise, but should not be taken into account by the decision-maker in considering issues.Fred Talk 02:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was an excellent response damn you! LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sandstein

Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention at [10]. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it until the case became moot days later because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks, Sandstein 23:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Reading between the lines, I think they supported your position, but as there was no point in sanctioning Law, decided to move on.[11] I'm sorry this incident discouraged you from continuing to do the difficult work you were doing. You certainly did the right thing in not engaging in wheelwarring. One of the difficulties the arbitration committee faced was that the obvious solution of you and Law talking this over was ridiculously impractical. Fred Talk 02:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would I have done? Being under a crushing workload, I would have done what they did, make noises that you were right, but not continue processing a moot matter. Fred Talk 02:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mackan79

My question relates to the various “attack sites” controversies during your time on the Arbitration Committee, and specifically to those involving WordBomb and Mantanmoreland.

In my view, the Arbitration Committee took on an adversarial role during this period, that was inconsistent with a broad-based, educational, non-profit, and neutral organization, and that served to perpetuate the disputes unnecessarily. Rather than attempting to separate Wikipedia from the conflict, or to try to mediate it, several on the Committee seemed more disposed toward fighting guerrilla tactics against particular Wikipedians with aggressive tactics of their own (caustic denunciations; blacklisting; blocking large areas; blocking, intimidating and disregarding skeptical editors). This was, of course, done with the enthusiastic support of the other side of the off-wiki dispute. Your proposal to redirect articles on those who created perceived attack sites to “clown” is just one of the reasons I associate you with this view, but it seems emblematic of the idea that, as an institution, Wikipedia should ‘’fight’’ against its opponents such as they are perceived.

It’s been two years and a great deal has changed, but then so has the Committee. My question is whether your views on the above issues have changed (or, by implication, whether you disagree with my assessment, and whether you believe that you and the rest of the Committee handled these issues as well as was possible at the time). Thank you, Mackan79 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Clearly the war on Encyclopaedia Dramatica was ill-advised, at least at the level we took it too. As to Michael Moore, it was a mistake putting information about a Wikipedia editor on the main page of his website in an attempt to influence Wikipedia content. He's a great guy, but... Remember that redirecting the article about him to "clown" was only a proposal, not an action I took. The entire committee would have had to agree to it. Negotiation, or self-restraint, on the part of the website seems to have resolved that matter.

There was a great deal of confusion involved with WordBomb and Mantanmoreland. It is quite difficult to understand short selling and naked short selling even more so. I think I have a much clearer idea today, after the financial crisis, of how serious a problem it can be for the company targeted. We, as a group, did not take seriously certain evidence of continuing socking by Mantanmoreland and eventually that all came out. However, it takes two to tango and Wordbomb did his share of vigorous dancing. But no, we did not engage in optimum behavior, we just did the best we could do at the time. Definitely experience to learn from. Fred Talk 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar

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

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.

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: The missing element is enough skilled editors who thoroughly understand the policy and are willing to take responsibility for cleaning up problem articles. That said, it is obvious that an effective mechanism needs to be devised to "hide" a bad article from public view until such a skilled editor can attend to it. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
A: Might be for the best. Our biggest problems are with articles about people there is little interest in; thus their articles are seldom viewed, so not corrected. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
A: OK with me. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
A: Especially for seldom viewed articles. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get
A: I need to get up to speed on exactly what this is. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied
A: I think I understand this, and find it acceptable. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?
A: Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a policy about content. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?
A: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons was a policy made by Jimbo after consulting with the Arbitration Committee. It is the duty of the Arbitration Committee to enforce Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, both policies about content. The content in question is defamatory content, the removal of which is within the responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee, indeed of all users. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
A: Editing in a manner that avoids defamation might be subtle, but the principles are well known: Don't use questionable information from unreliable sources. It is reliably mobilizing skilled volunteers to carry it out that is the problem. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
A: It has been my experience that, just as in national politics, the public's attention span is limited. We can only deal with a few major issues at a time, while reality may be presenting us with many more. Those have to be handled using some mechanism other than general consensus, either by Office or functionaries. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
A: I'm not up to speed on the debate, but we need to implement them for biographies of living persons and for active organizations, those situations where serious harm can be done to personal or organizational reputations. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?
A: I do, but I am aware of the great damage organized pressure groups can do using it. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)?
A: Can't be changed now. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?
A: Outing is one thing. Harassment is another. Neither are acceptable. Constantly re-disclosing information is harassment, a violation of civility. Previously disclosed information need not necessarily be hidden from administrators. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?
A: It may be harassment, and is if done maliciously. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from last year in that it's more extensive)
A: My identity has always been known on the internet. Arbitrators may be anonymous, but should not have a false identity. If you say you are a professor of theology, you should be one. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?
A: We have a warning to think about it when you create an account, but when you create your account you don't know you will become actively involved, assume serious responsibilities and possibly incur the enmity of those who will harass or harm you.

A: Maintaining your pseudo-anonymity is a personal responsibility. We can sanction harassment, and, in extreme cases, cooperate with law enforcement, but it is hard to see a general policy that would resolve the problem. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from last year)
A: The degree of malice involved controls the level of sanction that should be applied. It is sometimes very difficult to determine the identity of someone outing a person off-wiki. There is also the viewpoint that anyone with substantial power in an organization as influential as Wikipedia is fair game and the public has a right to know who they are. So outing a female editor, simply because she is a woman who made an edit you don't like is much more serious than exposing the real identity of an arbitrator. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?
A: The danger should be disclosed. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
A: We currently cooperate with law enforcement in cases of serious harassment. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
A: If their stalkers shows up here we should offer them all practical assistance. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
A: Such articles are closely watched and protected. Determined efforts are made to suppress editing by such persons. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?
A: The edits of any editor are open to public view. I guess common sense is the dividing line. If someone is engaged in serious stalking and harassment, any edit they, or their socks make is fair game. Drumming up a case against an innocent user is not. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
A: It's the Boy Who Cried Wolf" problem and you have to keep checking it out, or you'll miss it when it is real. People who imagine they are being abused are often the target of real abuse. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?
A: Edits by users who are community banned may be removed. Too much drama can easily result. I wouldn't waste my time on such edits. A good edit is a good edit, but it is not an offense to remove it. Fred Talk 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?
A: There are articles on Wikipedia on Wikinfo,[12] but most of the content is not of my choosing. I don't pay of lot of attention to it. Fred Talk 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)?
A: I didn't notice Wikback. Wikipedia Review is mostly soreheads we have banned from Wikipedia for good reasons. Very seldom is there anything there other than worthless carping. Fred Talk 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
A: The Arbitration Committee has sometimes had a heads up due to reading Wikipedia Review. Active participation can confuse everyone, including the participant themselves, as we all have valid, and not so valid criticisms. Airing them out in that forum creates a false impression that you don't loyally support Wikipedia. Fred Talk 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? )
A: I had an account, under my own name, at Wikipedia Review, but it quit working (after I threw everyone from Wikipedia Review off Wikinfo due to quarreling). I haven't created a new one. A number of people that are influential on Wikipedia have accounts there and occasionally pass on useful information, such as news of a Wikipedia administrator account supposedly being for sale... Fred Talk 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
A: It is rare indeed that constructive criticism is made on Wikipedia Review. Fred Talk 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)?
A: We do, and most of those selected for the Arbitration Committee and the other functionaries fall into that category. Thus only an egregious violation of policy can dislodge us, or the others who have established a reputation on Wikipedia. That leaves open the possibility of "getting away" with minor policy violations and inadequacies. Taking advantage of that "opportunity" is inappropriate. Fred Talk 03:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
A: My favorite color varies. Because it does. Fred Talk 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note... I fixed formatting problems just now, from when Fred answered, but I did not intend to change any of his words or emphasis, and I don't think I did. Nevertheless Fred is of course free to revert me. :) ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Avraham

Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer bthe subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
1. Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
2. Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
3. How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?
4. What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?

A: Only the most dramatic cases reach the arbitration committee. What needs to happen, and I think is happening, is the development of norms within the administrative community, establishing expectations of helpfulness and competence. This might be accompanied by development of formal guidelines or not. Fred Talk 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
1. What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
2. Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
3. Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
4. Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
5. Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
6. If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?

A: I think there are problems, but the solution lies within the power of those users and administrators who sometimes offend; they are victims of incivility as often as they are offenders. The insight required is that you will get as good as you give. Fred Talk 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: We do what we can, particularly through use of oversight. The problem generally results from naive disclosure of personal information either early in their career here, or elsewhere on the internet, before they are aware of or impacted by the small group of internet users which abuses personal information. We do have a low-key warning at Special:UserLogin, but it might not be enough. Fred Talk 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: A sustainable business model. We've left billions of dollars "on the table". I'd like to see continued exploration of how we might be compensated by those who wish to use Wikipedia for public relations purposes. I don't think my role as an arbitrator plugs directly into this other then using some common sense about conflict of interest issues. Fred Talk 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Avoidance of control of content by powerful interest groups. Our policies of anonymity made us very vulnerable to manipulation of both content and administration. Arbitrators can play a role by enforcing Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which defeats the purpose of those who would impose a favored point of view on content. Fred Talk 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Furtherance of a pleasant work atmosphere. Courtesy and helpful collaboration are what is required for that. Arbitration proceedings can be conducted in a helpful spirit of inquiry rather than one of blame and accusation. Remedies can be tailored towards assisting those who have erred to improve their performance rather than punishment such as lengthy bans. No one learns how to edit constructively while they are banned from editing. Fred Talk 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from ScienceApologist

In what many consider to be one of the most confusing decisions ever agreed to by arbcomm, you authored the following resolution:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Three_layer_cake_with_frosting.

Do you believe this to be a content ruling? Can you appreciate why such a statement coming from arbcom might be problematic?

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking."

A: There is potential information in reliable published sources regarding parapsychology from each of those four approaches to the subject. The problem is how to integrate those four points of view into a single article, say on teleportation. It is not a content decision. It is a decision that says that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies to parapsychology topics. A good article on a parapsychology subject would contain and clearly identify at least those four perspectives, if such information is actually available in published resources; typically such subjects have not been studied explicitly by mainstream science, so there is often no material about the subject, only a dismissal. I agree that the cute metaphorical title can confuse the issue. Fred Talk 22:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NuclearWarfare

In your response to question 19 of the general questions, you said "A: I was not pleased with Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development as I was not invited; this always makes me suspicious". Were you being facetious, or was that you actual response?

A: I may change it, but not only is it my response, it is an accurate description of my feelings. My experience in political life is that if you want to shape the outcome of consultation, you need to tailor the selection of those you consult to fit the desired outcome. Fred Talk 23:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you said "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log looks like a promising initiative. I need to become more familiar with it." Why do you believe that the Special enforcement has been used so little? What do you think of the specific wording of the Special Enforcement Remedy in Footnoted quotes?

A: Perhaps like me, very few knew about it. I assumed I had somehow not gotten the word while perhaps everyone else had. I'll look at the specific working more closely. It seems good just glancing at it, but obviously adds a layer of tedious paperwork to dealing with BLP problems. However, my experience has been that as an individual you often don't get far with someone who is repeatedly adding inappropriate material. Perhaps clear documentation would help. Fred Talk 23:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Piotrus

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

A: Very important. It is even more important to pass such email and comments on to the committee and for the committee to establish procedures which ensure that each such email and message is adequately dealt with. Fred Talk 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: An arbitrator can function, sometimes more successfully, if they don't participate in those discussions, but there are vital if you are to keep in touch with what people think about your proposals. I think it is vital not only for the community to give us feedback, but also to make proposals about what needs to be done. However, I don't consider a disruptive editor's supporters to be "the community". Fred Talk 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: That's the downside of having a full blown hearing and a lot of community discussion. It is burdensome on everyone involved. If the situation is clear, a short summary proceeding might be better. Fred Talk 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Looks good, but it is well known if the user is a great editor or administrator, I still expect them to be reasonably courteous to other users, whoever inferior they may seem. Fred Talk 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A:I think your example is a good model. However, summaries of a pattern of substandard behavior could get nasty. Occasional lapses do need to be put into the context of an editor, or administrator's, usual behavior and related to their contributions to the project. Fred Talk 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Question from Hipocrite

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

A: If they relate to matters under consideration by the Arbitration Committee. If I'm chatting and fooling around, no. Fred Talk 22:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NE2

Have you read War and Peace?

I've seen the movie. I've read A Hero of Our Time and a great deal of other Russian literature, though. I take the lesson as showing up and pitching in. Fred Talk 22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Smallbones

Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing [13]. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A:I'll continue to respect Jimbo's policy making powers. He uses that power wisely and with discretion and has the support of the community. Paid editing is against policy. However, appropriate public relations input is not. For example, it is not improper for a person in the public relations department of Wal-Mart to leave a note on the talk page of the article Wal-Mart, clarifying a point, protesting an imbalanced article, or suggesting a reference. Fred Talk 04:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Vecrumba

1. What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?

A: To look at the actual edits of the users whose behavior is in question, and the context they were made in.

2. How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.

A: To the extent possible (Remember there are other arbitrators and both the administrative community and the community at large who must both support this perspective and implement it) I will view every editor as a potential contributor. I realize, however patient we are with editors that some will never be able to edit, but the assumption will always be that they could, given enough counseling, time, and chances. That means counseling rather than lengthy blocks as the preferred remedy, taking the time to talk with users about their edits, or other behavior, with the expectation that they can both chose and learn to be constructive editors. Fred Talk 00:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sarah777

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

A: Enforcement of our civility policy needs to be seen in the context of both popular culture and internet culture both of which frequently tolerate gross violations of civility. Enforcement should occur only after the editor has been referred to the policy and been warned several times. It is not fair to inflict heavy sanctions unexpectedly. The problem with chronic offenders who have been given the impression that repeated incivility is acceptable must be addressed though counseling of those who have encouraged them in that notion. Fred Talk 16:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Related to the above; I believe that there is cultural difference in the acceptability of robust and frank language between America and Europe. An illustration of this is the censorship of "bad language" on US television, words which would pass unnoticed on TV in the UK or Ireland for example. How do you react to the charge that US standards of "civility" are being imposed on Wikipedians from places that happily embrace forms of expression that some Americans seem to find "uncivil"? Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Being a veteran of the US Navy, your suggestion seems humorous. It is not a matter of dirty words; it is the use of dirty words, or even polite language, to express contempt. Fred Talk 16:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions From RDH (Ghost In The Machine)

Let's try this again shall we...

Hi Fred!

1. Do you still have your pillow and umbrella handy?

A: I do have the blue umbrella, but the pillow, I think, ended up in the Saguache County Recycling Center. The image was taken by a Forest Ranger during cleanup after a Colorado Regional Rainbow Gathering at Hat Springs. He had pointed out the left-behind pillow and I was carrying it out. I do look fat and ugly, don't I?

Fat?! No, certainly not compared to me. And I doubt given the environmental conditions at the time I would have looked any prettier...a bit younger maybe:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. What is your opinion of this type of predeciding in cases and the Show Trials against troublesome users it exemplifies?

A: Trying to avoid "drama" only produces more drama. Our deliberations should generally be public, including discussion regarding avoiding drama. Fred Talk 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more. But how do we turn this theory into practice? I think the current AC has made some positive strides towards this direction, but it needs to continue, don't you agree?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been on any committee or board which did not feel the need to protect the public from emotional issues which they supposedly could not deal with. It's just human nature. When you're there and every one is arguing for quiet disposal of the issue, posting publicly about the issue is not popular, but that is what is required, widening the conversation. Fred Talk 02:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human nature aside though, in the normal course of events (90+% of the time) elected judges on a community court should have no secret deliberations. Also remember that many of Wikipedia's deepest, darkest sekrets have a bad habit of becoming public knowledge eventually regardless. Such is the nature of things in the Information Age. To date, us Wiki-peons have handled such leaks quite well. There have been no riots or guillotinings...at least not yet;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. As ArbCom founder and longtime presiding Arb, what is your responsibility for creating a climate and culture in which such activities are allowed to flourish without transparency or accountability?

A: Not much. I've always advocated discussion on public wiki pages of our proposals. I initiated the workshop and proposed decision pages. There are, however, some confidential matters. Also, it is quite impossible for a group such as the Arbitration Committee to constantly be in role; people will, from time to time, in private, express their feelings. Fred Talk 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with that...just so long as such personal feelings do not exert an inordinate influence on official decisions. With that in mind, do you feel there should be some sort of NPOV policy for the ArbCom?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, candid discussion is necessary, but it should be in public. That may upset people, but, frankly, if you keep tormenting a bear, it will eventually tear one of your limbs off. Fred Talk 02:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and you will have one helluva time finding a new one or growing a replacement. For bears, as we all know, are godless killing machines;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. In your candidate statement you mentioned your legal training and experience, exactly what in this background, do you feel qualifies you to sit in judgment of others in this community?

A: I generally use my training and experience to ensure that our proceedings work better than a court proceeding usually does. That we, the arbitrators, take a good look at the actual edits that the person made and the context they were made in. Thus our cases, hopefully, are based on the merits of the case, not on skillful advocacy. I try to decide cases based on the principles behind the explicit rules that we've made. In many ways I use my legal training and experience to counteract the ways I saw law go wrong in my experience. As to sitting in judgment, all we ask is that editors more or less follow our core policies. I really do think nearly anyone can edit if they are reasonably courteous, patient and communicate with other editors. Fred Talk 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there is no consensus currently on exactly what exactly constitutes reasonable or courteous. Much like the definition of pornography (I knows it when I sees it or anything that offends/arouses the viewer). There are many, grey areas of policy such as this. Do you think Wikipedia needs a formal, written constitution to more clearly outline its governance?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In defining incivility, you need to take the perspective of the target. If they are distressed, and it is obvious that they are, and the perpetrator doesn't quit, there is a problem, especially when after having the consequences of his actions brought to his attention, he vigorously continues to defend his right to abuse others. Wikipedia:Five Pillars are our core principles and civility is one of the five. Fred Talk 02:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things would be so much easier if the only Wiki rules and policies needed were those 5 pillars. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case (file under dogmas of the quiet past:). Clearly the old school Wikipedia governance which you did so much to shape is no longer adequate. As Evgeny Morozov aptly put it in a recent New York Times OpEd:

If newspapers produce the first drafts of history, Wikipedians certainly produce its latest and - thanks to Google - most viewed drafts. Wikipedia has become an extremely powerful platform with tremendous real-world repercussions for those caught in the crossfire of its decision-making. For this reason alone, Wikipedia can no longer be run like the favorite basement project of anonymous 13-year-olds.

[14] And while you are clearly neither anonymous nor a 13 year old, the point still stands.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your candid and honest responses...or not...or for simply allowing these cheeky, annoying questions to remain undeleted because it is the right thing to do.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Well, it's kind of like three wishes; you could have made better ones... Fred Talk 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well damn! I always forget to make my last wish for 3 more wishes:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you got blocked for what is a fair question regarding my ethics problems as an attorney. However, I can assure you that the underlying charge was false. The complaint resulted when a wife in a divorce case was distressed that her husband had a lawyer and she didn't, so she found a way to alienate her husband from his lawyer. Fred Talk 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I'm sorry I phrased the question so indelicately. It is often too easy to forget in these online interactions that there are real people with feelings on the other side of the tubes. I truly feel bad now that your career ended on such an ignominious note. Yet I'm stilled puzzled as to why you allowed it to. But no matter, this is all long past. I'm sure you agree that everyone is entitled to a second chance and a shot at redemption. I shall not begrudge you that.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once your reputation is ruined there is little point in continuing to practice law; it is not fair to your clients. Fred Talk 02:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the same often holds true here as well. Thanks again for your time, Sir.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Miami33139

Fred, you said above that the perspective of the target is important to defining incivility. That seems like a very subjective criteria which allows hyper-sensitive editors to create a lot of drama. Can you extrapolate on this? Miami33139 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Obviously true. That's where common sense by all concerned needs to come into play. But if something you're saying to another user is obviously upsetting them, it's time to quit. Remember, it's not editing, it's commentary on editing and can be done courteously. Energy needs to go into our work, not into deliberately upsetting people. Fred Talk 14:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from RMHED

(1) If you had to choose between death or dishonor which would it be?

A: I would have made a decent soldier. I don't run away when things get tough. Fred Talk 01:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Is religion a net benefit or a net negative to humanity?

A: Religion is part of human nature, generally religious values aid humanity. Fred Talk 01:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate: Fred Bauder

Candidate statement (create)
Questions for the candidate (create)
Discuss this candidate (create)